City Council Agenda Packet 07-09-1990AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday-, July 9, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan
Blonigen
1. Call to order.
�S
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 25, 1990. FF
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of a variance request to allow construction of
a detached garage within the side yard and rear yard setback
requirements (pending appeal). Applicant, Cheryl Steinmetz.
5. Consideration of a preliminary plat request for a commercial
subdivision plat. Applicant, Stuart Hoglund.
6. Consideration of a variance request to allow construction of
a parking lot within the 5 -foot curb barrier to lot line
setback requirement (pending appeal). Applicant, Wright
County State Bank.
7. Consideration of an ordinance amendment to hard surfacing and
curbing requirement. Applicant, City of Monticello.
S. Consideration of withdrawing requirement that the City obtain
Norrel/Sandberg easements prior to preparation of plans and
specifications.
9. Consideration of granting a 3.2 beer license to the Lions Club
for the TRAM 250 event.
10. Consideration of granting an increase in the individual
pension for the Volunteer Firefighter Relief Association
members.
11. Review of first quarter liquor store financial report.
12. Consideration of award of bids for annual sealcoating project.
13. Consideration of cost sharing policy for new sidewalks,
sidewalk replacement, and sidewalk repairs.
14. Department head report--Kelsie McGuire, Wastewater Treatment
Plant Manager.
15. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 25, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan
Blonigen, Fran Fair
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of minutes.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson,
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 11,
1990. voting in favor: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Shirley
Anderson, Dan Blonigen. Abstaining: Fran Fair.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
Consideration of withdrawinq reguirement that Kirkman Addition
Dondinq area be Dlaced on the final plat.
Chuck DuFresne of The Lincoln Companies requested that the
City Council remove the requirement that the ponding area be
placed on the plat. DuFresne noted that this requirement
amounts to the City having a property interest in the lot to
insure compliance with drainage specifications. He said this
is not appropriate, as the drainage requirements are spelled
out in the conditional use permit.
John Badalich supported the concept of placing the easement
requirement on the plat; however, he noted that recording the
drainage restrictions on a separate document would be
acceptable.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Warren Smith, to withdraw the requirement that the ponding
area be placed on the final plat of the Kirkman Addition. In
lieu of pond dedication on the plat, the City will accept a
separate document describing site drainage limitations to be
recorded against the plat. Voting in favor: Fran Fair,
Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Kon Maus. Opposed: Dan
Blonigen.
Pago 1
Council Minutes - 6/25/90
Consideration of acceptinq the 1989 Audit Report for the City_
of Monticello.
Pick Borden and Kim Lillehaug of Gruys Johnson b Associates
were present at the meeting and presented a brief overview of
the 1989 Audit Report. Rick Borden reviewed the financial
statement, outlined the publishing requirements, and reviewed
the various schedules noted in the audit report. Council
reviewed the audit with Borden.
Ken Maus requested that future audit reports pull out interest
income from the liquor store revenue report, thereby providing
the City with a better idea of how the liquor store is
performing financially. Borden noted that he would do this in
the future.
Ken Maus asked if Gruys Johnson is intending on preparing a
letter to the City outlining any possible deficiencies in the
City's finance operation. Rick Borden noted that the City's
financial condition is excellent, and the present method of
operation is meeting all standards, and it is not necessary to
prepare a letter, as only a few minor adjustments to the
City's present operation have been suggested to the City
Administrator.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by
Shirley Anderson, to accept the 1989 Audit Report as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of acceptinq feasibility study, adoptinq
preliminary finance plan, and consideration of ordering
preparation of plans and soecifications--Sandberq East
development.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill summarized the various issues
associated with the residential development of the Sandberg
East area and outlined a method by which public improvements
extended to the Sandberg East area could be financed by
adjoining landowners and in part by the City of Monticello.
lie noted that the finance plan, along with plat design,
results trom considerable study of numerous options for
serving the area and also stems from numerous discussions and
meetings with the affected landowners.
Ken Maus noted that Council, when reviewing this plan, should
kuop in mind that the situation is unique; and duo to previous
docisions by City Council and the OAA, the City is in a unique
position whereby utilities must be extended some distance in
order to servo a plat that has been recorded some time ago.
Pago 2
(2)
Council Minutes - 6/25/90
Decisions that the Council makes regarding this proposal could
set the groundwork for a potential policy governing financing
of improvements that cross properties whose landowners do not
necessarily desire public improvements.
Maus noted that a positive aspect of this plan calls for
payment of three years of interest associated with assessments
against property that is crossed. Maus noted that the policy
could be applied to future developers as they request services
outside the immediate city boundaries and that in the future,
the deferred interest expense could be paid by developers if
they desire to develop property outside the immediate city
limits. Maus noted that in this situation, the City is
obligated to pay for the deferred interest expense, as the
situation was indirectly created by the City and the OAA.
John Simola suggested that if the City is to prepare plans and
specifications for this project, then easements should be
obtained from the affected landowners, thereby assuring the
City that the plans can be used at some point in the future.
Ken Maus also noted that the finance plan calls for a
retroactive deferral of interest associated with the County
Road 39 project as it applies to the Krautbauer property. In
addition, the finance plan calls for an adjustment to the
sewer lift station unit charge based on a recalculation of
units from 99 units to 74 units, and the finance plan calls
for lifting of the Krautbauer storm sewer assessment until
such time that the property is developed in a manner that
directs storm water to the County Road 39 storm water
improvements.
Robert Krautbauer was in attendance and debated the method of
assessing the original storm sewer. Krautbauer asserted that
the City should not be assessing for storm water improvements
when typically, according to Krautbauer, the county pays for
culverts under county roads. John Badalich explained that the
county did pay for the cost to develop a culvert necessary to
control county road run-off; however, a larger structure was
needed to accommodate run-off from the water shod area which
includes the Krautbauer property. Badalich noted that
Krautbauer's assessment reflects the relative benefit
Krautbauer receives in being ablo to convoy drainage to tho
oversized culvert. In closing, Krautbauer stated that when
Page 3
O
Council Minutes - 6/25/90
the City drops the assessment, the City will obtain the
easements necessary to extend utilities to the Norrel property
and will be provided an easement at the location of the
existing Highway 39 culvert.
NOTATION: Finance plan does not necessarily drop storm sewer
assessment. Storm sewer assessment deferred until such time
that it is needed due to development of the Krautbauer
property.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Dan Blonigen, to accept the feasibility study, approve the
finance plan, and to order plans and specifications subject to
City acquisition of necessary public easements. Finance plan
includes retroactive deferral of sanitary sewer and water
assessments against Krautbauer properties, reduction in lift
station unit assessment from 98 to 74 units, and a lifting of
storm sewer assessments until such time that the storm sewer
facilities are needed due to development of Krautbauer
property. Motion carried unanimously.
Dan Goeman commended the Mayor and City staff for their
professional and diligent work on this project and noted that
this development could turn out to be a fine project.
Consideration of acceptance of sidewalk inspection report and
orderinq public hearing.
John Simola reported that an inspection has been made of all
existing sidewalks within the city of Monticello based upon
inspection criteria approved by the City Council at the
previous meeting. The inspector noted areas where
preventative maintenance is needed and other areas where
replacement or repairs are necessary. Simola noted if the
Council accepts the report as drafted, they should order a
public hearing to be held on July 9. At the public hearing,
a summary of the report will be given and the more specific
detailed inspection notes will be available.
Ken Maus was concerned that the public might have a lack of
understanding and acceptance of the proposed program for
upgrading the city's sidewalk system. Maus noted that the
citizens should have plenty of notice and be provided with
good intormation regarding this issue. It was suggested that
the letter to property owners be detailed and that a public
information meeting be hold prior to the public hearing.
Shirley Anderson noted that many homeowners may fail to
recognize their responsibility to maintain sidewalks.
Page 4
9)
Council Minutes - 6/25/90
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Warren Smith, to accept the sidewalk inspection report and
call for a public hearing scheduled for July 23, 1990, and
direct staff to prepare and distribute information materials
regarding the sidewalk policy to affected homeowners. Motion
carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-26.
Consideration of advertising for bids for annual sealcoatinq
project.
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran Fair, to
authorize advertisement for bids for approximately
57,307 sq ft of sealcoatinq. Motion carried unanimously.
Quarterly department head reports.
Don Hozempa was present and reported that drug and alcohol
abuse in the community at this time is our number one problem.
Hozempa noted that his staff will be making an extra effort to
slow down traffic on County Roads 39 and 75. Council
discussed truck traffic on Broadway between Highway 25 and the
freeway. It was noted that the City has no control over truck
traffic in that this is a state highway and not under the
domain of the City of Monticello; however, the City could post
a "not a truck route" sign which might discourage some trucks
from utilizing Broadway to gain access to the freeway from the
Highway 25 bridge.
Council reviewed department head reports submitted by
Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill; Building Inspector,
Gary Anderson; Public Works Director, John Simola; Economic
Development Director, 011ie Koropchak; and Senior Citizen
Center Director, Karen Hanson. After review of the reports,
Ken Maus thanked staff for the informative reports and
indicated that the reports indicate that certain important
items, though not considered on a weekly basis by Council,
have not been forgotten and are being worked on by staff
behind the sconos.
10. Consideration of an ordinance amendment ex9andinq the
dotinition of public nuisance ordinance pertaininq to grass
and weeds.
Council did not achieve a consensus on this matter. No action
was taken on the proposed ordinance amendment intended to
regulate weeds In vacant areas that neighbor developed areas.
Pago 5
9
Council Minutes - 6/25/90
11. Consideration of bills for the month of June.
Ken Maus and Warren Smith indicated that the new report design
available via the new computer system is an improvement over
previous reports, as it provides Council with a detailed
outline of expenditures made to each vendor. Dan Blonigen
noted that he favored the previous style of report which
summarized expenditures made and thereby created less paper.
Motion was made by warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson,
to approyc till as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Pago 6
0
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED --INFORMATION ITEM ONLY.
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
Consideration of a variance request to allow construction of
a detached garage within the side yard and rear yard setback
requirements (pending appeal). Applicant, Cheryl Steinmetz.
(G.A.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Ms. Steinmetz is proposing to construct a detached garage
within the side and rear lot setback requirements. In looking
at the enclosed site plan, you will note that the house when
placed on the lot was always intended for a detached garage of
some kind if one was to be built. The existing driveway is
currently right on the east property line. In looking at the
site plan, you'll notice that the new garage is proposed to be
placed 30 feet from the existing house to allow for snow to be
pushud in between the existing deck and the new proposed
garage. The garage is proposed to be built within 4 feet of
the side property line and within 15 feet of the rear property
line.
This becomes a judgment call when you look at the applicant's
proposed placement of the new detached garage on the lot.
R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of a
detached garage within the side yard and rear yard
setback requirements.
2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of a
detached garage within the side yard and rear yard
setback requirements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission members consider all
options with the placement of this garage on the lot. There
Is an additional place to set the garage directly in back of
the house which would allow the garage to be faced the other
wny, and there would be no variance request needed; however,
with the smaller lots, it's not common to have a garage placed
right in back of the house obstructing the rear yard view from
the house.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the variance request; Copy of the site
plan; Copy of the setback requirements.
i
A variance request to allow construction of a detached
garage within the side yard and rear yard setback
requirements. Location is Block 25, Lot 3, Lower Monticellc
Addition in the City of Monticello.
Applicant: Cheryl Steinmetz
,% �� � � '� •' � � 'rte , X: �/ . �,: ,
-1,41 rT -
o1-46�
'r„-"';jay :�,L, ,. `•''•' +� ` • \ ' � ,- � ' �i: / 1i
42.
14
it
� ; ,•� /fir• �.� s --
94
sr-
8
E7 C, V,U, 7-.Z
OT 3
1/), 3
n
0
1. Clothes line pole and wire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and landscaping material currently
being used on the premises.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areas.
S. Propane Lanka, fuel oil tanks, and other
similar residential heating fuel storage
tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (5) feet of any property line.
6. wood piles in which wood is stored for
fuel provided that not more than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 4' x 4' x 81. All wood piles
shall be five (5) feet or more from rear
and side yard property lines and shall
be stored behind the appropriate net back
line in front yards.
7. Solar heating systems.
3-3: Ye1RD
REQUIREMENTS:
(A)
PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
zoning district.
(B)
No lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or open apace less than the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open space as existing is leas than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. lb required open apace provided around
any building or structure shall be included
as a part of any open space required for another
structure.
(C)
All setback distances, as listed in the table
below, shall be measured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minimum distances.
Front Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0 50 30 SO
C R-1 30 in 3V
/
R-2 30 10 30
\
R-3 30 20 30
R-4 30 30 30
PZ -R See Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
PZ -M See Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
H-1 30 is 20
0-2 30 10 20 \Y
10-9 (Dl 1(
IN) STANDARDS: Except as specifically provided
herein, there shall be no fixed standards
for conditional uses within the Nixed Performance
Zoning District. In their review the City
shall take into account standards that are
contained in other sections of this Ordinance
that most closely resemble those that would
apply to a similar use if it were proposed
in a district other than the Performance Zone.
(0] PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS: The following are
guidelines for reviewing projects within the
PZ -Mixed Zoning District. Procedures for
the review of such proposals shall be as outlined
in the PUD section of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance. The City Staff and Planning Commission
ahall review the project and give recommendations
so as to permit the City Council to make informed
findings of fact as outlined above. variance
from these guidelines may be permitted when
site specific conditions and specific proposal
elements show that a strict interpretation
of the guidelines will either place undue
hardship on the developer or will be detrimental
to adjacent properties. in no ease shall standards
be reduced so that the findings of fact outlined
above cannot be achieved AND in no case shall
the guidelinea prevent the City from requiring
greater standards when specific conditions
oulined in above must be satisfied.
1. Setback Guidelines
./(a) Setback requirements shall be based
upon the zoning requirements of the
District for which the project would
be zoned if conventional zoning was
applied, as described in Chapter J,
Section 7 of this Ordinance.
(b) Site specific conditions such an
topography, existing and proposed
vegetation, and visibility from other
properties may warrant increasing
those standards. Setbacks should
not be reduced below those act forth
in the applicable zoning district.
(c) The front yard guidelines shall be
es doacribed in Chapter 1, Section 3
of the ordinance.
(d) The rear yard setback shall be as
described in Chapter 3, Section ]
of this Ordinanco unlcan natural topography @hall
dictate a greater setback. The applicant O
I
hall preserve vegetation and minimize
grading to the extent that consideration is
given to those features.
(o -e [o) ) (a)
(o -e (0) 2(
(e)
When projects proposeto construct
more than one principal structure
_
on the same lot the above guidelines
shall apply to the perimeter of the
site. Internal setbacks shall give
due regard to such consideration
as fire protection and public safety.
traffic visibility at circulation
intersections. Reduction of internal
standards shall be permitted if the
applicant can demonstrate that external
setbacks are adequate and that the
reduction is used to enhance the
layout or shall preserve significant
natural features.
2. Density
Requirements
(a)
Density calculations shall be based
on the zoning requirements of the
district the project would be zoned
for if conventional zoning were applied.
(b)
In applying theca standards credits
for innovative construction mothoda
or provision of amenities above normal
construction may be permitted. The
following is a list of density credits.
i. Underground parking -400 aq. ft. per apace
provided under the
structure.
ii. Preservation of
Natural Features - Whan the project will
preserve significant
natural foaturea the
area preserved may be
deducted from the required
lot area. Thin deduction
shall not include required
setbacks.
iii. Additional
Landscaping
C
- when the project provides
for landscaping above and
beyond the normal requiram,
a density allowance shall
be permitted. The extento
the credit shall be dotormin-
by evaluating the visibili
of the project from adjacci
Parc aIa and similar projoc
within the City.
0
P
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
Consideration of a prelimink" plat request for a commercial
subdivision plat, "Minnie Point" subdivision. Applicant,
Stuart Hoqlund. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission and Council are asked to consider granting
approval of the preliminary plat of the proposed Minnie Point
subdivison. Following is a review of the plat and staff
recommendation.
Since Planning Commisson and City Council meetings regarding
this matter are only two working days apart, this staff memo
Is addressed to both the City Council and to the Planning
Commission. Planning Commission recommendation to City
Council will, therefore, be reported verbally at the Council
meeting scheduled for July 9, 1990.
In the mid 19BO's, the Comfort Inn was constructed on this
parcel. At the time the Comfort Inn was developed, no
subdivision of land occurred. Since that date, Stuart Hoglund
has sold the Comfort Inn and now must subdivide the property
in order to properly complete the sale.
ZONING DESIGNATION
The proposed plat consists of 3.5 acres of land located in the
B-3 (highway business) zone. The four (4) lots created are
adequately sized to accommodate small commercial developments.
EASEMENT ISSUES
Public Easements on the Plat
Thu plat shows all of the public casements required by
ordinance, which Includes 6' utility easements along side
yards and 12' easements along rear and front yards.
Public Easement--Adioininq Property
Most of the water from the Minnie Point area currently drains
onto the Iloglund Transportation Company property on its way to
Lhu freeway ditch, then into the Walnut Street storm sower
system. This has not boon a problem in the past, as the
Minnie Point area and Hoglund Transportation property have
been under common ownership. Now that the land is being
subdividud with the intent to sell, it is wise to formally
Identify a drainage and utilities casement across the Hoglund
property. This is especially true when one realizes that when
t fully developed, the Minnie Point land area will create almost
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
three times the current amount of water run-off. A path for
this water and City acquisition of easements should be
established prior to approval of the plat.
Thera appear to be two possible drainage alignments. Option
one Includes the path that the water currently takes and would
require no significant grading of the Minnie Point plat. This
option is the simplest; however, it may have long term
Implications for the use of the Hoglund Transportation
property. option two would include directing storm water
along the old Cedar Street right-of-way. This option would
require placement of fill and grading of the Minnie Point area
and, therefore, may be more costly in the short run. However,
the long term potential of the land may be improved with this
option. If this plan is selected, a grading plan must be
prepared in conjunction with the plat. It is the view of
staff that the decision as to which option is best is up to
the Hoglund family.
STORM SEWER CULVERTS
According to the City Engineer and John Simola, a portion of
the water produced by this site does drain to the County
Road 117 ditch. The purpose of this ditch is convey water
WUSLward. Unfortunately, the ditch does not serve much of a
purpose, as there are culverts along the ditch line that are
absent or are too small to properly convey the amount of water
that will be produced by the site. In addition, a nominal
amount of ditch grading might be needed.
Platting and development of this site should be accompanied by
installation of four culverts, two of which are replacement
culverts under the Comfort Inn access drives (culverts 1 and
2). A new culvert needs to be established under the drive
that serves both the Hoglund Transportation office and a
residence (culvert 3). Finally, a culvert should be installed
under the drive serving the Amoco service station and the rear
of the Hoglund Transportation property (culvert 4). Without
a culvert at this location, ditch water is diverted directly
to the freeway ditch along the wost edge of the Hoglund
propurty.
CULVERTS 1 AND 2
According to John Simola, culverts 1 and 2 aro 12 -inch
culvorts and are smallor than called for by City standards.
Simola noted that culvorts of this size are difficult to keep
open. If kept opon, the oxisting culverts aro of sufficient
size to accommodate drainage of only a small portion of the
( front portion of the Minnie Point area.
e
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
CULVERT 3
This culvert is mandatory if water is to be conveyed along the
ditch line.
CULVERT 4
This culvert is needed in order to maintain drainage along the
right-of-way. Without this culvert, drainage flows along the
west side of the Hoglund property until it finds the freeway
ditch. Typically, it is not a good practice to allow water
from a public right-of-way to flow onto private property.
Installation of a culvert at this location would cause water
to be properly channeled along public easements.
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE
Sanitary sewer and water service are immediately available to
lots 1, 2, and 4. In order to serve lot 3, a manhole must be
Installed in the boulevard in front of lot 2 along with a
service stub extended laterally to a position in front of
lot 3.
i'RIVATE EASEMENTS
Common Drive
The plat shows a common access drive for lot 1 (Comfort Inn)
and lot 4. The City should accept the plat subject to the
actual recording of the private easement agreement allowing
lot 4 access to County Road 117 via the access drive. This
would eliminate the potential for lot 4 becoming landlocked.
11. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve preliminary plat of the Minnie Point
subdivision subject to City acquisition of proper
drainage easements from proportion impacted by Minnie
Point storm water. Approval also subject to development
of culverts at locations noted and constructed in a
manner consistent with City standards.
Proliminary approval of Minnie Point subdivision, subject
to drainage related easements and culvert installations,
wll] lessen or eliminate long-term drainage issues that
could occur once tho land Is under multiple ownership.
4
C
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
2. Motion to deny approval of preliminary plat of the Minnie
Point subdivision.
The City may wish to consider denial of approval to plat
the property if the landowners refuse to provide utility
and drainage easements or refuse to install culverts as
required.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to
City acquisition of necessary site drainage easements. It is
also important that the culverts be replaced and installed as
suggested by the Public Works Director. If Council and the
Planning Commission consider the culvert installation as a
minor item, approval of the plat could be provided without a
commitment to install the culverts.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Minnie Point preliminary plat; Map showing general
area.
f � fV D� t
p�
5
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED --INFORMATION ITEM ONLY.
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
Consideration of a variance request to allow construction of
a parkinq lot within the 5 -foot curb barrier to lot line
setback requirement jpending appeal). Applicant, Wriqht
County State Bank. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, Wright County State Bank is developing a
parking area in conjunction with the expansion of the
Monticello Theatre. According to ordinance, the parking area
developed should result in development of at least 43 parking
spaces. The plan presented shows a net increase in total
parking area of 46 new parking stalls. In order to achieve 46
parking stalls, a variance to the side yard setback
requirement of 5 feet is necessary. The plan proposed shows a
2.3 foot setback along Highway 25 and a 2 -foot setback along
Broadway.
it should be noted that the City planner prepared a
preliminary site plan which created 44 parking spaces.
Although staff was not aware of the setback problem at the
time it was presented, this plan also would have needed the
same variance.
Since Planning Commission and City Council meetings regarding
this matter are only two working days apart, this staff memo
is addressed to both the City Council and to the Planning
Commission. Planning Commission recommendation to City
Council will, therefore, be reported verbally at the Council
meeting scheduled for July 9, 1990.
SITE PLAN
The proposed parking layout creates 46 parking spaces at the
expense of green space between Highway 25 and the west edge of
the parking area. Parking angle proposed is 60 degrees with
Interlocking stalls through the center of the parking lot.
Traffic circulation is counter clockwise with the Broadway
access donignated as entrance only.
Thu plan calls for setbacks of loss than 5 feet along the
Broadway and highway 25 lot lines. The purpose of the 5 -foot
Dut.back is to provide area for green space, bumper overhang,
and snow storago area. According to Wright County State Bank
officials, it Is likely that the 2.3 setback area would be
paved which will eliminate the softoning effect of green
Dpaco. Bumper overhang will be a slight problem, as a 2.3
curb setback will not keep all bumpers from extending over the
Illghway 25 right-of-way. It is likely that snow will be
entirely removed from the site; therefore, the 5 -foot setback
Is not as necessary for this purpose.
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
Planning Commission and Council should consider the relative
importance of a green space separation between the parking
area and the Highway 25 right-of-way. It is my view that some
effort should be made to install landscaping of some kind
within the setback area provided. According to the City
planner, there are varieties of plants that can survive in the
harsh environment between the parking area and the Highway 25
sidewalk. The developer might argue that vegetation will not
likely grow in this area; therefore, it should not be
required. The City could argue that the variance creates the
potential for numerous additional parking spaces; in exchange
for this benefit, the developer should be required to make the
extra effort to plant and maintain landscaping in this area.
In addition, a bumper barrier could be installed which would
eliminate bumpers hanging over the Highway 25 right-of-way.
This might also be a reasonable requirement in exchange for
the variance.
The building construction plans show an exit from the west
side of the theatre at about the building mid -point.
Pedestrian traffic leaving the structure will enter directly
onto the drive area. Staff is concerned that this situation
might be somewhat hazardous, and the parking plan or
construction plans should be adjusted to reduce the hazard.
In light of the problems noted above, I asked the City planner
to take the basic plen and prepare alternative sketch plans
which address problems noted above.
ALTERNATIVE PARKING PLAN A
The pedestrian hazard could be eliminated by installing a
6 -Coot wide sidewalk along the west wall of the structure.
Doing so would require that the parking angles be increased,
which would result In the loss of eight parking spaces, and
thus the plan would be deficient in terms of the ordinance by
Iivo parking spaces. This alternative would also require the
same variance to the side yard setback.
Alternative A shows a planting hedge and a jogged curb line
along Highway 25. The jogged curb lino limits the potential
of bumper overhang, protects planting hedge, and provides
ndditlonal green space. This particular design creates snow
removal problems.
Please see the attached parking area sketch plan A for more
information on this alternative concept.
C
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
ALTERNATIVE PARKING PLAN B
Under plan B, the pedestrian hazard could be reduced by
creating a jog in the building at the exit point, thereby
providing a pedestrian/vehicle sight line. This would require
an adjustment to the building plans. The basic parking stall
layout would remain the same under this plan creating 45
parking stalls. A separation between Highway 25 and the
parking lot could be created via installation of a low fence
or streetscape railing. The plan also shows planting of trees
on the Highway 25 right-of-way. This plan is probably the
most expensive for the developer at the front end with
maintenance costs being less than parking plan A.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Council and Planning Commission are asked to review the
various plans and combinations thereof and discuss potential
adjustments to the basic plan with the developer. At the end
of the discussion, a motion should be made outlining the basic
components of the parking lot design.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Stalf recommends that a variance be granted subject to
development of landscaping or screening materials designed to
mitigate the impact of the side yard setback variance. It is
staff's view that creating a separation or buffer between the
parking area and Highway 25 in the setback area remaining
after the variance would enhance the pedestrian environment
and complement existing streetscape improvements. Conversely,
approval of the variance combined with paving of the remaining
setback area would not be consistent with previous efforts to
beautify the area. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to expect
the developer to provide and maintain the landscaping or fence
separation in exchange for the variance, which does benefit
the duvelopor by allowing development of many more parking
spacuu than would otherwise be possible.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Propound parking lot site plan; City planner alternatives A
and B; Video presentation at meeting.
I
a
E0
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
7. Consideration of an ordinance amendment to hard surfacing and
curbing requirement. Applicant, City of Monticello. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed you will find the latest update to the proposed
ordinance amendment regulating surfacing and curb
requirements. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed by the
City Engineer and by City staff and is now ready for your
review. As you recall, preparation of the ordinance amendment
was in part due to a site plan presented by Russ Martie which
required a significant number of variances. Council denied
the variance request; however, in the denial staff was
directed to work on an ordinance amendment which would lessen
the hard surfacing and curbing requirements. The ordinance
language prepared when applied to the Martie situation would
allow Martie to reduce his hard surfacing and curbing
r-quirement by eliminating the need for such improvements to
the drive area between County Road 117 and the parking areas.
The ordinance amendment would continue to require that the
area In front of the overhead doors that is to be used for
routine delivery of materials must be surfaced with bituminous
material, and said area must also be curbed. Finally, as you
will note, the proposed conditional use permit which allows
lessening of the parking design requirements does call for
installation of gates to keep the public out of these drive
areas and to make it difficult for commercial traffic to use
non -primary drive areas for commercial use.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the proposed ordinance amendment
lessening hard surfacing and curbing requirement as a
conditional use in the I-1 and I-2 zones.
2. Motion to deny adoption of said ordinance amendment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission and Council review
the proposed language and determine if the language is
consistent with City goals regarding development of parking
areas in the industrial areas of the community.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance; Copy of Martie's Food and Seed
Store site plan.
C
2. Amendment to D. 9 (k) SURFACING:
Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and
subject to his approval. City staff may waive this
requirement if it is determined that the drainage plans do not
merit further study by the City Engineer. Staff determination
in this regard shall be based on size of parking surface area,
simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to
existing storm sewer facilities.
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall aisle and driveway desiqn
conditional use permit
3. Amendment to D. 9 (o) CURBING AND LANDSCAPING:
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall aisle and driveway desiqn
conditional use permit
4. Amendment to D. 9 (r) CURBING:
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall aisle and driveway desiqn
conditional use permit
5. D. 9 (s) Stall aisle and driveway design conditional use
permit.
Stall aisle and driveway design requirements as noted in (k)
Surfacing, (o) Curbing and Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may
be lessened subject to the following conditions:
a. Any reduction in requirements requires completion of the
conditional use permit process outlined in chapter 22 of
this ordinance.
b. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans
associated with conditional use permit request shall be
provided in writing by the City Engineer. Engineering
expenses greater than portion of building permit fee
allocated for engineer plan review shall be paid by
applicant prior to occupancy of structure.
C. A surmountable "transition" curb or cement delineator
must be installed as a boundary between an outside
storage area and a parking or drive area.
A:%PARKNOTE: 6/29/90
0
C
e. Development of a curb along the boundary between a
parking area and an area designated on site plan for
future parking is not required if said curb line is not
needed for drainage purposes as determined by the City
Engineer.
g. Exceptions to the standard curb requirements do not apply
to any parking or driveway perimeter that runs roughly
parallel to and within 20 feet of an adjoining parcel.
I
. This conditional use permit is allowed only in I-1 and
I-2 zones. �+}..�5�-d-d
i. Drive areas not used by the general public and not used
for routine dei ivery of goods or services do not require
hard surfacing or curb unless hard surface and curb is
needed for drainage purposes as deted by the City
engineer. Access to such drive areas uh be restricted
by a gate which must be closed after ea use. At such
time that routine use is noted, the drive area shall be
paved.
r Dom_
h
A:\PARKNOTE: 6/29/90
M
�sk
RUSS NARTIE FEED AND SEED STORE
LANDSCAPE AND OR!VE AREA ITEMS ICO,ST/ ITOTAL IOONE/ INOT DONE
(UNIT (UNITS IVALUE IVALUE
------------------------- --------------------- I I --- I -------- I ----
I I I I
LAt:�CAPI;:O/0`!ER iORY TREES I ISO I 27.52 I I $3.079
I I I I
LANDSCAPE SCREENING OR FENCE — COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY1 ISO 1 5 I I $750 C --
I I I I
ASPHALT PAVING NORTH AND WEST OF LOADING BERTHS 1$0.55 1 17600 1 $9.660 1 blue
I I I I
CURB NORTH OF LOADING BERTHS 1$6.00 1 510 1 $3,640 1 red line
I I I I
ASPHALT PAVING SOUTH OF LOADING BERTHS 1$0.55 1 8225 1 I $4.524 preen
I I I I
CURB SOUTH OF LOADING BERTHS IS6.00 1 665 1 1 $3,990 blue line
TOTAL 113,520 1 $9.261
s
C
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
Consideration of withdrawing requirement that the City obtain
Norrel/Sandberq easements prior to preparation of plans and
specifications. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous meeting Council acted to
approve preparation of plans and specifications for utilities
needed to serve the Sandberg East development area. It was
also determined that the plans should be developed only after
the City acquired necessary utility easements. This
contingency was included as a form of guarantee that the
plans, if not executed in the short term, could be used at
some point in the future, thereby protecting an investment in
plans of about $17,000 and net preplanning fees of $6,800. In
response to Council's decision, I have been informed by Rod
Norrel that he supports the proposed utilities alignment
through the property he owns under a contract for deed with
John Sandberg. Furthermore, he is interested in perusing the
project; however, he does not feel it appropriate to provide
easements at this time. John Sandberg, as fee owner of the
property, concurs with
Mr. Norrel. Council is, therefore, asked to review the
previous decision and to consider ordering plans and
specifications without obtaining easements from
Norrel/Sandberg. Attached is a letter submitted by Mr. Norrel
which outlines his position regarding this matter.
At the time of writing this memo, I have not seen Norrel 'a
Letter; however, I understand he is reluctant to provide the
easement in part because once he does so, he loses all finance
plan negotiation strength. If Norrol provides the easement,
the City could install the sewer and water utilities through
his property at will, as the City is not bound to follow the
preliminary finance plan. Only after there is a final binding
agreement on the finance plan does Norrel wish to allow the
utilities to cross his property.
Kr.outbauer has not asked the City to drop the requirement that
he provide easements prior to undertaking development of plans
and spoclf!cations.
According to the City Attorney, the City does have some
leverage to encourage use of the plans at some point in the
future; however, from a legal standpoint, it is not possible
for the City to force a future developer to use the plans. If
a utilities plan that moots City code is submitted at some
point in the future, the City would be required to accept it;
therefore, although the possibility that the plans will be
10
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
used in the future is good because all of the affected
property owners support it, there can be no guarantee that the
plans will be used. Also, even if the City has easement
rights, there is no guarantee that the plans would be used.
For instance, if a future developer does not like the
utilities plan and has one of his own that he feels will
better serve the area, it is likely that said developer will
ask the City to vacate the easements associated with the
current plan. Under these circumstances, the City might be
reluctant to impose the current alignment against a future
developer's wishes.
ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
Motion to require that the City obtain Norrel/Sandberg
easements prior to preparation of plans and
specifications.
Under this alternative, plans and specifications would be
prepared to be used in a formal bidding process which
would enable the City and affected property owners to
establish a final finance plan for the project. This
alternative plan carries with it a greater risk that the
cost of plans will not be recovered.
Motion to deny request to amend previous action on this
matter.
Under this alternative, further progress on development
of City utilities for the area would halt. It is not
clear what might happen after that but following are some
possibilities:
John Sandberg could apply for a building permit for
development of a residence utilizing a private water and
sewer system. The City, having completed a feasibility
study, could determine that it is feasible to serve the
area with public utilities and no permits for development
of private systems in the area would be provided.
Sandberg then would have the option of taking the City to
court for not allowing him to develop lots platted prior
to annexation. Sandberg would argue that the lots should
be allowod to develop in a manner consistent with the
Initial development concept which included use of private
utility systems.
S
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not developed a clear cut recommendation on this
matter. One could take the position that Sandberg/Norrel have
some legitimate reasons for not wishing to provide easements
and that their denial does not necessarily reveal a lack of
good faith. Furthermore, obtaining the easements, although
providing a better opportunity for using the plans in the
future, does not necessarily mean that the plans will
ultimately be used anyway. In addition, preparation of the
plans and specifications, along with development of precise
cost amounts resulting from the bid process, will provide the
City with solid grounds on which to defend the assertion in
court that development of public utilities is feasible;
therefore, the plans should be ordered without easements.
On the other hand, acquisition of the easement area does
improve the chance that the City investment in plans ($17,000)
will actually be used. Furthermore, the results of the
feasibility study could be sufficient defense of the assertion
that extension of sewer and water to Sandberg East is
economically viable and, therefore, it is logical to hold firm
on the easement requirement.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter submitted by Rod Norrel.
c
12
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
Consideration of granting a 3.2 beer license to the Lions Club
for the TRAM 250 event. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Lions Club has requested a one -day, on -sale
beer license for the TRAM 250 bicycling event that will be in
Monticello July 31, 1990. The Lions Club has in the past been
issued a one -day license for the Ducks Unlimited Banquet and
also for the Riverfest Celebration. There are no current
statutes that limit the amount of temporary licenses that can
be issued to any one organization; and thus, it is only
recommended that any approval be subject to the Lions Club
providing proper liability insurance coverage.
None.
C
SUPPORTING DATA:
13
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
10. Consideration of granting an increase in the individual
pension for the Volunteer Firefighter Relief Association
members. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Members of the volunteer fire department will be attending the
meeting to request that the City Council increase the
retirement benefit from the present $21,500 to $23,500. This
benefit is payable in a lump sum after 20 years of service
based on the requested increase of $100 per year of service to
the new amount of $1,175. The relief association plans are
referred to on an amount per year of service such as the
$1,175 which is payable at this amount only after 20 years of
service. I point this out to avoid confusion, as during the
discussion the terms may be used interchangeably.
The relief association was granted an increase in retirement
benefits last year to the $21,500/$1,075 per year amount. In
1988, the association received $19, 500/$975 per year; in 1987,
the association received $17,500/$875 per year; and in 1986
received an Increase to $16,000/$800 per year. Prior to that,
the last increase occurred in 1979 when the retirement benefit
was $10,000/$500 per year. The association did request an
increase in 1982 to $14,000/$700 per year, but the Council at
that time indicated it would not consider any increase in
benefits unless the fund was sulf-sufficient, i.e., assets
were greater than their accrued liability, and any increase
would not result in a contribution from the city taxpayers.
State statutes allow the association to increase their
benefits on their own only if their assets are greater than
their liabilities; otherwise, they must come before the City
Council for approval of any Increase in benefits.
Prior to August of each year. the relief association is
required to fill out a financial schedule that computes the
benefits that have accrued for each fire department member
based on years of active service at the dollar amount
established for that year of service. The financial schedule
includes the relief association's assets and .liabilities and
through calculations arrives at a deficit or a surplus for
supporting the retirement bonefits. In going through the
department's financial schedules, I have calculated the
benefits based on an increase to the $1,200 per year level and
the $1,175 per year level. If the benefits were increased
from the present $1,075 per year r -o anything over $1,175 per
year, the association would have es deficit; and according to
the formula, the City would havo to contribute tax dollars to
support their retirement benefit. In calculating the benefits
fi at $l, 175, which is a $100 increase over last year, the
i
14
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
calculations do show that the fund would have a deficit of
$69,892; but the fund would have sufficient income to support
this increase In benefits without requiring city taxpayer
support. The association's annual income consists of interest
earnings on their investments (assets) along with state aid.
These two income sources are sufficient to support the
anticipated $1,175 per year level of retirement benefit
without taxpayer support.
As I have indicated in the past when the association requests
an increase in their benefits, the Council should be aware
that the majority of the relief association's income is based
on state aid, which the City does not have control over. If
for some reason the state decided to cut state aid to local
fire departments, the City, after increasing any benefits,
would be responsible for supporting the pensions thereafter.
Although I am not currently aware of any anticipated cuts in
the state aid program, there are certainly no guarantees that
this could not happen in the future. The possibility could
always exist that the legislators, in looking for new sources
of income for the state, could make attempts to utilize this
revenue for their own purposes rather than distributing the
money back to local fire relief associations as it was
Intended for. Since all volunteer fire department relief
associations rely on this type of revenue source to fund their
pensions, it would seem that there would be quite an uprising
by local fire departments if the state aid was not given to
support these pensions. In the past, this question has been
raised by the Council as to what would happen if the state aid
was cut; and the bottom line is, the taxpayers would be
responsible for any pension benefit deficits once the Council
approves a certain level of benefit. I only point this out to
let you know there are no guarantees that municipal support
through tax levies would not ever be required; but at the
present time, it seems highly unlikely.
As a reminder, in 1982 the City Council took the position that
they weren't in favor of granting pension increases to the
fire department members unless the fire department's income
was self sufficient and could support the deficit without a
taxpayers levy. Over the past years, all of the increases
have been granted under this policy. Since 1986, the Council
has reviewed the ability of the association to support
increases on an annual basis rather than waiting three or five
years before adjusting the benefits. When long time spans
occur between pension increases, typically older fire
department members nearing retirement age could be staying on
with the department waiting for an increase in benefits before
retiring; whereas, if it is adjusted annually, older members
y may retire sooner, thus allowing now, younger members to be
recruited. By adjusting benefits annually, the Incentive
15
C
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
would be there for an individual to retire at normal
retirement age rather than waiting for a big benefit increase
to occur.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Grant an increase to $1,175 per year/523,500. This
increase, according to the relief association's schedule,
would not require a City contribution and could be funded
through anticipated state aids and other interest
earnings on investments.
2. Do not grant an increase in benefits and only allow an
increase to occur if they have more assets than
liabilities. At this point, it is projected it would
take a number of years before an increase could occur on
their own without Council approval.
3. Grant an increase above the current $1,075 per year but
less than the $1,175 requested amount.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It appears that the relief association financial computations
do allow for the fire department to support an increase in
their annual pension benefit to the $1,175 per year amount.
Anything over this amount would require City support through
taxes. Based on this information, I have no objection to the
Increase being granted as long as the City Council realizes
that there are no guaranteos that state aid or investment
earnings will continuo at the present level.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Computation of benefits for each member at the $1,175 per year
level of service; Survey of surrounding communities' pension
bonefits.
16
I
a
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
SUiTE 400
525 PARK STREET
SAINT PAUL 55103
WNE H. CARLSON
STATE AUDITOR
FILING INSTRUCTIONS
FOR
STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1991
SCHEDULES I - II - III
April 25, 1990
Schedules I -II-III must be filed by relief associations paying lump sum
benefits. File a copy of this set of Schedules with your governing body by
Auqust 1, 1990. Keep a copy of them for the Office of the State Auditor which
will be sent later, along with your Relief Association Reoortinq Form for the
year ended December 31, 1990.
FIRE/M.45
296-2551
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER V
SCHEDULES 1 -II-III FOR LUMP SUM PENSION PLANS
STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1991
Firefighters Relief Association of Monticello (Aunty of Wright
SCHEDULE
Computation of benefit of relief association special fund (at $1,175.00 per year of service)
for all member based on their years of service as active fire department members.
Name Age
1 2
1 1 G. Jensen
1 2 D. Krantz
1 3 .. Farnick
1 4 T. Farnam
5 W. 4naland
6 M. Flicker
7 J. Morrell
8 S. Douglas
1 9 'W. LaBree
110 M. ;fallen
I11 G. Dahlheimer
J. Wein
I •'J M. Johnson
14 e(sen
15 T. Llefert
116 R. Fvla
117 K. Sr=f
118 G. HoRt
119 T. Bremer
20 M. Simnson
21 L. Larson
122 N. Kranz
123 S. Samug)spn
24 a c.. -F
25 R r Lr .
Total of Deferred Pensions
Total of Unpaid Installments
Total of Early Vested Pensions
F.D.
Entry
Date
3
7-66
4-70
6-72
3-73
7-74
5-75
5-75
3-76
5-77
5-77
2-78
12-79
9-80
5-82
11-83
6-84
6-85
10-85
12-85
1-87
1-87
5-87
I1-87
7 -RR
I -an
1990
1991
To End of This
Year
Yrs. Active
Accrued
Service
Liability
4
5
24
28,200
21
24,675
19
21,667
18
19,952
16
16,779
16
16,779
16
16,779
15
15,322
14
13.912
14
13,912
13
12,573
11
10,082
10
8,930
9
7.826
7
5,781
7
5.781
6
4.818
5
3,925
5
3.9'25
4
3,055
4
3,055
4
3,055
3
2.233
7
1
1 L57
7nG
A. Total Accrued Liability To End of Nett Yr. 1991 (Column 7)
B. Total Accrued Liability To End of This Yr. 1990 (Column 5)
' Subtract line S. from Line A. (normal cost: enter here and on line 6. Schedule III)
Fractional Years of service must be calculated to nearest full year.
Do not enter liability In Columns 5 or 7 for any person who will receive entire pension during this year.
For installment liability, enter amount which will be payable atter end of this year In both col. 5 and col. 7. `
It interest Is to be paid on unpaid pensions, add Interest for 1 year In col. 7. ,UO
A copy of these schedules must be presented to the City Council before Aug. 1 each year.
1991
To End
of Next Year
Yrs. Active
Accrued
Service
Liability
6
7
25
29,375
22
25,850
20
23,500
19
21,667
17
18,330
l7
18,330
17
18,330
16
16,779
15
15,322
15
15,322
14
13,912
12
11,304
11
10.082
10
8,930
8
6,768
8
6,168
7
5,781
6
4,818
6
4,818
5
3.925
5
3,925
5
3,925
4
3,055
1
2.233
1
1 L57
Fractional Years of service must be calculated to nearest full year.
Do not enter liability In Columns 5 or 7 for any person who will receive entire pension during this year.
For installment liability, enter amount which will be payable atter end of this year In both col. 5 and col. 7. `
It interest Is to be paid on unpaid pensions, add Interest for 1 year In col. 7. ,UO
A copy of these schedules must be presented to the City Council before Aug. 1 each year.
SCHEDULES 1—II—III FOR LUMP SUM PENSION PLANS
STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1991
Mirefighters Relief Association of Monticello County of Wright
SCHEDULE I (Continued)
Computation of benefit of relief association special fund (at $ 1.175.00 per year of service)
for all member based on their years of service as active fire department members.
A. Total Accrued Uability To End of Next Yr. 1991 (Column 7)
B. Total Accrued Liability To End of This Yr. 1990 (Column 5) 266,588
CSubtract line B. from Line A. (normal cost: enter here and on line G. Schedule III)
1991
To End of Next Year
Yrs. Active
Name Age
Service
1 2
1 1
J. Michaelis
12
R. Gollbrecht
13
NPw I
4
New
Is
5
I6
1
7
1-90
6
705
19
-
110
1-91
111
I
1,3
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
I
23
24
125
Total of Deferred Pensions
Total of Unpaid Installments
Total of Early Vested Pensions
A. Total Accrued Uability To End of Next Yr. 1991 (Column 7)
B. Total Accrued Liability To End of This Yr. 1990 (Column 5) 266,588
CSubtract line B. from Line A. (normal cost: enter here and on line G. Schedule III)
1991
To End of Next Year
Yrs. Active
1990
Service
F.D.
To End of This Year
Entry
Yrs. Active
Accrued
Date
Service
Liability
3
4
5
1-90
1
705
1-90
1
705
1-Q1
-
-
1-91
I
A. Total Accrued Uability To End of Next Yr. 1991 (Column 7)
B. Total Accrued Liability To End of This Yr. 1990 (Column 5) 266,588
CSubtract line B. from Line A. (normal cost: enter here and on line G. Schedule III)
1991
To End of Next Year
Yrs. Active
Accrued
Service
Liability
6
7
2
1.457
2
1.457
1
7ns
1
705
>i 298.830
266.588
32.242
Fractional Years of service must be calculated to nearest full year.
Do not enter liability In Columns 8 or 7 for any person who will receive entire pension during this year.
For Installment liability, enter amount which will be payable after and of this year In both col. 5 and col. 7. O
If interest Is to be paid on unpaid pensions, add Interest for 1 year In col. 7. ,O
A copy of these acttedules must be presented to the City Council before Aug. 1 each year.
SCHEDULE II
Projection of Relief Association special fund assets to end of this year, (December 31, 1990)
Assets at January 1, 1990 (this year) I. $ �nl Fis
Anticipated income to end of this year
a) Minnesota State Aid $33.407
b) Receipts from local taxes
c) Interest on investments 15.000
d) Other income
Total of lines a -b -c -d - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - -- 2. $ 48.407
Beginning assets plus estimated income for this year (L1 + L2) 3. $ 75 mi
Estimated disbursements through end of this year
e) Pensions
f) Other benefits i.9nn
g) MSFDA or VFBA dues, if any
h) Administrative and overhead 6nn
Total of Linese-f-g-h --- - - - - -------- - - - - -- 4. $ 55.175
Projected assets at end of this year 12/31/90 (L3-L4) 5. $ 196.696
Calculation of average special fund income per member (other than interest or in vestment
income)
State Aid Municipal Support 107E of surplus (if any)
Last year 31.816
2 years ago 31.463
3 years ago ?9.786
Totals 91.565 + +
Total 3 year income $93.565' 3 • $31.188 + a,, (no. of members) • 6. $ 1.155
CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL FUND REQUIREMENTS
This information must be certified to the governing body of the municipality or indepen.
dent nonprofit firefighting corporation by August 1. 1990.
We, the officers of the Firefighters Relief Association, state that
the accompanying schedules have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the
Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association Guidelines Act of 1971 (including M.S _ 69.772) and
that the schedules are correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. The financial
requirements of the relief associations Special Fund for 1991 are $
Check here if no Municipal support required
The average non -investment income per member of said special fund for the past 3 years was
$
( Signature of President
Signature of Secretary
nate
Date
5ignature of Ireasurer Date//0
SCHEDULE III
Computation of Financial Requirements for Next year - 1991
Column A I Column B Column C I
1 Assets from Line 5, Schedule II 5 Ig6.6g6
1 2 Accrued liability to end of this year (from Une B, Schedule 1) 266
3 a) If Line 2 is more than Une 1 subtract line 1 from line 2. Deficit 69,892
I b) If line 1 is more than Une 2. subtract Une 2 from Une 1. Surplus
Enter 10% of surplus amount. Continue on Line 6.
Amortization of deficit (or deficits) incurred prior
to end of last year (see note)
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Year Original
Amount Retired
Amount Left
Incurred Amount
in Prior Years
to Refire
1i9_2"1.896
6,777
19.119
119 Na i 16.619
1,642
16,777 I
a (Totals22.929
59,322 I
R?.251
x 10% 1 8,225
5 Subtract Column 3 total from Une 3(a) (If Column 3 is equal to or
greater than line 3(a), no new deficits exists.) If Column 3 is less
than line 3(a), difference is a new deficit. Enter 10.570
Enter 10% of this new deficit in Column B 1 na 7
I 6 Increase from Line C. Schedule 1 167
7 Estimated Expenses 1991 (other than pensions, or investments) 600
d Estimated Income 1991
a) Minnesota State Aid i, 6n7 I
I b) 5% interest on amount of Line 1 above q ez6 I
c) Other income (do not include local taxes of Investment income)
Total 6 (a+b.c)
19 Total. Column B 6)J24
110 Total. Column C 43.241
11 If line 9 is more than line 10, the difference Is the amount of municipal support
required. Certify this amount to the City Council before August 1,
(bottom part of Schedule II - Special Fund requirements).
12 II line 10 Is more than line 9, no municipal auppon is required. Certify
,net fan to the City Council before August 1. The City Council is permitted to provide funds
In excess of requirement. Surplus + 1,117
Note: Deficits are generally retired In less than 10 years• because of Increase in state aid• turnover gain and
earned interest greater than 5%. It desired, the amount in Column 2 may be Increased so that the total of
column 3 Is equal to line 3(a). It more than one deficit Is being amortized (the law requires each deficit
to be retired separatoly), adjust column 2 for the oldest deficit flrfd. When column 2 equals column 1 for
any deficit, that deficit has been retlred and may be removed from the amortization schedule. Whenever
a new deficit appears In line 5, the original amount of such deficit must be added to the
amortization schedule the following year.
0
SURVEY OF FIREFIGHTER PENSION BENEFITS
FROM SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES
July 5, 1990
AMOUNT FOR EACH AMOUNT AFTER
CITY YR. OF SERVICE 20 YEARS
Buffalo $ B00• $16,000
Big Lake $ 600 $12,000
Elk River $1,550•• $31,000
Maple Lake Since this is Maple Lake's first year as
a municipal fire department, they do not
yet have a set figure per year for each
year of service. The fire chief
indicated they receive $12,000 total in
state aid, and that amount is split
evenly among all members.
• Buffalo will soon be proposing $900 per year of service.
l" +• Elk River will soon be proposing $1,850 per year of service.
C
0
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
11. Review of first quarter liquor store financial report. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed with the agenda you will find a first quarter
financial report for the liquor store with comparisons to the
first quarter of 1989. The delay in providing this
information was due to our conversion of the information to
our new software financial system from BRC. In the future, we
should be able to provide the quarterly reports in a timely
fashion for the Council's review.
Although the comparisons are provided for the first quarter of
1989 compared to this year, in reviewing the first quarter
results from last year, I am not extremely confident that
those figures, especially the operating income at an amount of
$7,992, are correct. While typically the first quarter shows
the lowest operating income for the year, when compared to the
first quarter of 1990, the difference is quite large; and I
will be continuing to check our new financial system reports
to make sure there is not an error. Overall, the sales are up
9.78 over last year, and the resulting gross profit is up
$13,750 or approximately 30% over last year's first quarter
results. Expenses are down approximately $2,000 over the
first quarter of last year, with the total operating income
substantially increased to $23,819 versus $7,992 last year.
From what I can determine, the percentages appear accurate or
in line with what they should be as far as the operating
income is concerned and also the gross profit percentages at
24.478, as I believe Joe has re-evaluated the pricing
structure and has made adjustments upward to increase the
gross profit percentage. Once we have a few more months of
information in our own computer system, I will be in a better
position to ensure that the financial reports are an accurate
reflection of the store's operation.
As part of this agenda item, Mr. Hartman will be available to
answer any questions you have regarding this report and the
general operation of the liquor store, as this will be his
department head report. We are currently in the process of
obtaining quotes and cost involved in purchasing pullover type
shirts for all employees of the liquor store in order to
upgrade the imago of the store. It is proposed that the golf
typo shirt will have a small insignia that indicates Hi -Way
Liquors, and all employees will be required to wear this
shirt, which should make them more recognizable as an employee
of the store. If the Council does not have any objection, I
would recommend that the City liquor fund purchase one or two
of the shirts for each employee, and any additional shirts
would be the responsibility of the employee at their cost.
17
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
In regard to computerizing the liquor store operation, Joe has
is also investigating vendors that supply Inventory control
systems that can be utilized as a stand-alone system or
possibly be incorporated into our cash register system.
Currently, a physical inventory is only taken four times per
year at the liquor store, and it is done manually, which is
very time consuming. This is the reason why we are only able
to prepare quarterly reports in an accurate fashion, as a
complete inventory must be done to provide accurate figures.
After we at city hall get our own system up and running and
are able to convert our sewer and water billing system to BRC,
we will spend more time pursuing the proper software for
computerizing the liquor store. I'm sure that Mr. Hartman
will have additional information on the above items at the
meeting.
No action is needed on the financial report other than
acceptance and review.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of financial report.
ie
�= BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
a; -n"3 E09-MUN�i-�PAt--L-FAkSOR-FUrl9
-7JJ ----------------------------
to
l
B e }ance-5ht-e t --
MAR 31. 1990
ENDING
---------------
}s°
IC,
I.
6) .583.68 Igo
1.500.00
fi5' ,791.x.-
1.200.57
118.22 le'
I:c
1'28.19 sc
13.210.00 sc
780.451.70 --
6.839.95 "
1c
16.324.50CR
185.445.38 eL
70n 8-1
64.282.31
58.503.76CR a
934.830.59
wz
,LZI
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
CL`2".EI:7 ASSE:c:
609.10101
CASH
'q
609.10301
CHANGE FUND - LIGUOR
603.13501
e.
2"E-STME*-S
609.11501
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
cs
609.115�03
A/R - NSF CHECKS .
609.20201
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
45.924.07CR
v
609.15502
PREPAID INSURANCE
►
609.21601
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS:
sr!
609.21611
1e
^s'
/.
2.011.55CR L.
FIXED ASSETS:
IL°
609.18101
FIXED ASSETS - LAND
!
- BOG 18'E'
'IX:c ASSETSPARK1*3 �.3:
;ecl
609.16161
ACCUM DEPR - PARKING LOT
ac'i
`�Er-$99
608.16251
FIXED ASSETS - SLOGS 8 IMPR
^604r?f iO8
1$2_ 1
LeeE11 3EPR---$toes & I•MFR
sc
609.15421
FIXED ASSETS - FURN 3 EQUIP
►c
I«
609.16431
ACCUM DEPR - FURN 8 EOUIP
lL�I
..I
1.002.96
-07t. '-Ince sx�s:
0:11
;•C-At-•cuRREMT taAaRlfjfs:-
TOTAL ASSETS:
`6=I
B e }ance-5ht-e t --
MAR 31. 1990
ENDING
---------------
}s°
IC,
I.
6) .583.68 Igo
1.500.00
fi5' ,791.x.-
1.200.57
118.22 le'
I:c
1'28.19 sc
13.210.00 sc
780.451.70 --
6.839.95 "
1c
16.324.50CR
185.445.38 eL
70n 8-1
64.282.31
58.503.76CR a
934.830.59
wz
,LZI
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
It
-----------------------------
r='
-
e.
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
c'}
609.20201
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
45.924.07CR
?--604+-208-1-0
$AbE9- TAX -PAVABt=9.'8:7
!e.
609.21601
ACCR WAGES a SALARIES PAYABL
si
1,544.04CR
609.21611
ACCRUED VACATION/SICK LEAVE
/.
2.011.55CR L.
.Wf+4-P-A**tLE
%96.66eR
609.2t703
FICA/MEDICARE PAYABLE
45.18CR !`CA
809.21704
PERA PAYABLE
I1.
165.19CR
^604r?f iO8
I;EAi�M�NSUR#NEE -0AYABIf-
2
�.�
809.21708
CREDIT UNION PAYABLE
3.03CR
'�•
609.22001
DEPOSITS - LIQUOR FUND
1.002.96
;•C-At-•cuRREMT taAaRlfjfs:-
L
ief
TOTAL LIABILITIES:
56.603.70CR
� �
- - -
`• -- T^_ __
•��
FUND BALANCE?
IL
i
609.27201
UNRESERVED RETAINED EARNINGS
845.590.92CR
Y•
---809.•29101
-4EVENUE-COIaTROI -------2S4r131r886t�-�-
t,
609.29801
EXPENDITURE CONTROL
TSTAL-F-UNO-SAL.ANCf'------.
/�
1�
TOTAL
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE:
934.930.89CR
TOTAL FUND:
0.00
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
COMPARISON FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1990 AND 1989
1990 1989
YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT AMOUNT
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
Professional services (audit)
$165
$0
Communication
194
197
Travel -Conference -Schools
40
40
Advertising
1,160
1,507
Insurance, General
3,928
4,452
Utilities, Electrical
1,834
1,628
Utilities, Heating
493
619
Utilities, S 6 W
44
0
Maintenance of Equipment
1,814
1,854
MainLenance of Building
531
433
Taxes and Licenses
18
12
Garbage
578
419
Depr.--Acquired Assets
3,528
3,515
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES
AND CHARGES
$14,327
5.90%
$14,676
6.66%
TOTAL GENERAL 6
ADIM. EXPENSES
$35,572
14.65%
$37,650
17.098
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME
$23,819
9.81%
$7,992
3.618
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)
Interest Income
$11,394
$12,884
Other Income
23
Cash Long/Short
(149)
45
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)
$11,245
4.63%
$12,952
5.888
NET INCOME
$35,064
14.44%
$20,944
9.469
I
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
l
REVENUE
AND EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
COMPARISON FOR THE
THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH
31, 1990 AND 1989
1990
1989
YEAR-TO-DATE
YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
SALES
Liquor
$ 71,685
29.538
$ 65,478
29.71%
Beer
136,718
56.328
124,780
56.61%
Wine
26,723
11.01%
24,945
11.32%
Other Merchandise
7,318
3.028
5,542
2.51%
Misc. Non -Taxable Sales
328
.138
633
.29%
Discounts
(15)
(.01)
(72)
(.03)
TOTAL SALES
$242,757
100.008
$221,307
100.00%
COST OF GOODS SOLD
S(183,366)
75.538
$(175,666)7(
9.38%)
GROSS PROFIT
$59,391
24.478
$45,641
20.62%
(
GENERAL AND ADIM. EXPENSES
PERSONAL SERVICES
Salaries, Regular
$18,476
$17,910
PERA
853
669
Medicare withholdings
32
31
Insurance, Medical 6 Life
1,999
2,005
Social Security
1,454
1,183
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
$20,022
8.258
$21,797
9.89%
SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
$63
$39
General Operating Supplies
1,160
1,138
TOTAL SUPPLIES
$1,223
.50%
$1,176
.54%
GROSS PROFIT
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
84.76
$38.00
GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT
TOTAL SALES
$242,757.00
100
FOR 1ST QUARTER 1990 AND 1989
100
TOTAL COST OF SALES
MARCH 31, 1990
75.06
MARCH 31. 1989
78.84
TOTAL FREIGHT COST
51,143.00
Amount
%
Amount
%
Liquor Sales
$71,685.00
$65.478.00
Discounts
(S15.00)
(0.02)
($72.00)
(0.11)
Cost of Sales -Liquor
552,958.00
73.88
551,342.00
78.41
GROSS PROFIT
$18.712.00
26.1
$14,136.00
21.58
IBem Sales
$136,718.00
$124,780.00
(Cost of Sales -Beer
5108,656.00
79.47
$99,731.00
80.51
GROSS PROFIT
$28,062.00
20.53
$24,150.00
19.49
(Wine Sales
S26.723.00
524,945.00
(Cost of Sales -Wine
$13,959.00
52.23
$15,471.00
62.02
GROSS PROFIT
$12.764.00
47.77
$9.474.00
37.98
Mise. Sol"
$7,318.00
$5,542.00
(Cost of Sales-Misc.
56.600.00
90.19
$7,341.00
132.45
GROSS PROFIT
$718.00
9.81
$1,799.00
(32.45)
Misc.-Non-Taxable Sales
$328.00 I
$633.00
(Cost o1 Sales-Misc. NT
$50.00
15.24
$595.00
106.08
GROSS PROFIT
_ $278.00
84.76
$38.00
6.08
TOTAL SALES
$242,757.00
100
5221,307.00
100
TOTAL COST OF SALES
$182.223.00
75.06
$174,480.00
78.84
TOTAL FREIGHT COST
51,143.00
0.47
51,186.00
0.54
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT $59.391.00 24.47 $45,641.00 20.62
F
0
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
12. Consideration of award of bids for annual sealcoatinq project.
(J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The bids for our annual sealcoatinq project are due on July 9.
The bids include a total of 57,307 square yards of street
surface. The estimated cost for the work is 57.2 cents per
square yard, which would bring us to $32,780, slightly over
the budgeted amount of $31,500.
A section of this year's sealcoatinq is located on County
State Aid Highways 58 and 59. We are in the process of asking
the County to pay for the sealcoatinq on those sections of
street, which amounts to 6,728 square yards. Reimbursement
from the County would allow us to keep the project on budget
even if the costs are slightly more than those estimated.
We will have a bid tabulation and recommendation for award at
Monday evening's meeting. Please refer to the previous
meeting's agenda item for those sections to be sealcoated.
I\ -I -Cl/
V 0 �
5h
19
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
13. Consideration of cost sharinq policy for new sidewalks,
sidewalk replacement, and sidewalk repairs. (J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Current city ordinances covered in Title 8, Chapter 1, require
sidewalks located on public boulevards to be maintained by the
abutting landowner in such a fashion as not to be dangerous to
public travel. The cost of such necessary repairs are to be
borne by the abutting property owner. The City can also
assess the cost of such repairs if performed by the City.
Chapter 1 also indicates that all sidewalks are to be cleared
of snow and ice within 24 hours following the termination of
any snow storm. Currently, the only sidewalk cleared by the
City other than those abutting City property is the section of
residential sidewalk along the south side of Broadway between
Pinewood Elementary School and the high school.
Letters have been sent to 31 property owners having sidewalk
on the grid which, based upon the inspection and inspection
criteria, are deemed to be hazardous to public travel. We
have set a public information meeting for July 16 at city hall
at 7:00 p.m. In addition, we expect to meet with all those
individuals on the grid needing sidewalk repairs prior to thdt
meeting. For those property owners who have sidewalk off the
grid, they were notified that their sidewalks may be removed
rather than repaired or replaced.
At this time, it appears most proper to establish a policy for
cost sharing, it any, in regard to new sidewalks, replacement
sidewalks, sidewalk repair, and maintenance. In preparation
for this agenda item, City staff has contacted some of the
nearby cities and obtained Information regarding their
sidewalk policies.
Buffalo
The City of Buffalo removes snow and ice from only those
sidewalks which abut City property. All other sidewalks
abutting private property are cleared of snow and ice by the
property owner. In the downtown area, a retail committoo
contracts for snow and ice removal, and the cost is shared by
those members. In the core city on the streetscape system,
the City pays for 100% of the replacement. For residential
areas, the City pays 70% of replacement projects. Any now
sidewalk projects are generally assessed at 100%. In
addition, the City does pay for 100% of spot replacements on
residential and commercial properties whore a single panel or
two are being replaced because of a hazard to pedestrian
traffic.
20
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
Biq Lake
The City of Big Lake currently does not have an extensive
sidewalk system. They remove snow and ice only from those
sidewalks abutting City property. Other residences and
commercial establishments have to remove snow and ice from
their own sidewalks within 24 hours after a storm. The
sidewalks along Highway 25, some of which are in need of
repair, are being replaced by the State of Minnesota with the
upcoming project. The City has no formal policy; however, the
Public Works Director, Mike Provo, did state that if there
were a small problem on a sidewalk in the downtown area, more
than likely the public works department would repair the
sidewalk.
Elk River
The City of Elk River has somewhat of a formal policy, but
they are also looking toward improvements. Their current
policy separates their sidewalk into three sections:
1) strictly residential; 2) strictly business; and 3) a non -
motorized pathway or essential sidewalk which runs from school
to school or other point to a point in the city. The City of
Elk River does not remove any snow from the strictly
residential sidewalk or the business sidewalk. They remove
snow only from sidewalks that abut City property or the non -
motorized pathway. When the non -motorized pathway runs
through a section of commercial or business property, they do
not remove snow and ice from that section of sidewalk in the
business district. This is very similar to the way the City
maintains the Broadway sidewalk, as we do not remove snow and
Ice In the downtown area.
When small problems were noted on existing sidewalk systems,
the City of Elk River Public Works Department did do some
minimal panel replacement and patching. In one case whore a
sidewalk was in poor shape, they blacktopped the area as a
temporary measure until a sidewalk replacement program could
come along. For replacement sidewalks, the City of Elk River
pays 509. On any major projects which place the non -motorized
pathway Into an area not previously served by sidewalk, the
City attempts to get funding from various sources so there is
no assessment to the property owner.
Summary
Generally speaking, it appears that all of the cities
contacted do minor repair work on existing sidewalk systems
which bunetit the city at large. They do not remove snow and
f Ice from sidewalks which abut residential or business
21
R
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
property; and only Elk River is similar to Monticello in
removing snow and ice from a section of sidewalk that runs
from point to point such as our Broadway sidewalk. It appears
that cities pay anywhere from 500 to 70% of sidewalk
replacement and in some cases cover 1008 of sidewalks for new
areas when they benefit the city at large. With this
Information in mind, the City staff presents the following
policy for your review for discussion at the upcoming meeting.
SIDEWALK COST SHARING POLICY
Sidewalk off the grid is the total responsibility of the
abutting property owner. It can be removed rather than
be repaired or replaced. It must be removed in its
entirety across the length of the property in question.
The boulevard must then be restored. If requested, the
City will bid sidewalk removal and boulevard restoration,
supervise the project, and bill property owners. Cost is
to be 1008 for the abutting property owner for any
sidewalks off the grid.
\) 2. Replacement sidewalks on the grid (residential or
`e7 commercial and more than two panels per property): City
pays 80%.
3. New sidewalks on the grid abutting commercial property:
City pays 50%.
4. Now sidewalks on the grid abutting residential property:
City pays 806.
5. Preventative maintenance by abutting property owner.
6. Minor repairs or replacement on the grid abutting
commercial or residential property (two panels or less):
City pays 1008. The City will also pay 1006 or repair
all pedestrian ramps at intersections.
7. Snow removal: Existing ordinance remains in force. City
does only City property and south side of Broadway
(residential).
NOTE•,: For items 2, 3, and 4, the percentages are of the
actual project costs bid annually by the City and installed by
the City or its contractor. For those individuals who wish to
repair or replace their own sidewalks as per City standards,
L110 City may reimburse property owners based upon City bid
prices or actual costs, whichever is lower. Damage resulting
from deliberate actions of a property owner or his/her
rupresentativo Is oxempt from cost sharing by the City under
thin policy.
22
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
The above policy is consistent with other cities in our area,
should require no change in our existing ordinance, and should
be looked upon favorably by most property ow:,ers. The City
will be doing the annual inspection and repair of most small
minor problems at no cost to the property owners. For
replacement sidewalks, residential and commercial property are
treated the same. For new sidewalks, commercial property pays
slightly more, as it can be demonstrated that a sidewalk
generally is of more benefit to commercial properties than to
residential. It appears to be consistent with our neighboring
communities to require abutting property owners to do
preventative maintenance, including snow removal from the
sidewalk in front of their property. The only exception is
that section of sidewalk put in in the mid 70's in front of
residential property on the south side of Broadway from
Pinewood to Monticello High School.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the sidewalk
cost sharing policy as drafted. This information will
then be given to the general public at the sidewalk
informational meeting to be held in the City Council
Chambers on July 16 at 7:00 p.m. Since many of the areas
found are the one to two paneled variety for which the
City will pick up 100% of the cost, this should greatly
limit the turnout to those off the grid at the public
hearing for July 23.
2. The second alternative is to modify the sidewalk cost
sharing policy in any way that the Council sees fit.
3. The third alternative would be to do nothing. Without a
policy for the informational meeting, property owners
would be left in the dark or faced with 100% of the cost
for repair or replacement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the
City Council establish some type of policy either under
alturnative M1 or 02. Alternative Y1 appears to be a good mix
based upon City past practices and those of our neighbors. It
guts the City involved with the major portion of the cost of
now or replacement sidewalks, takes the burden off the
property owner for the small nuisance one or two panel repair
jobs, and yet koops snow removal and preventative maintenance
the responsibility of the abutting property owner. This
alternative is, therefore, preferred.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Soo agenda supplements for previous meetings concerning
sidewalk.
23
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC.
v.
MONTICELLO, MN
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPERATIONS
OUARTERLY REPORT - 2nd Quarter 1990
la. The new variable frequency drive for control of the raw
sewage pumps has been installed. The new system is functional
and has many protective features built in.
No odor complaints have been logged at the treatment plant
since installation of the pilot ferric chloride feed system.
Chemical dosage was increased once since start-up when slight
odors were detected at the plant. This system has allowed for
reduction of the chemical feed rate on the trickling filter odor
control system which is much less economical to operate and only
treats one of the potential odor release points at the plant.
Sunny Fresh Foods' SOD load to the treatment facility has
decreased dramatically. The following plots Sunny Fresh Foods
effluent flow against the influent flow to the treatment plant
both are twelve month moving averages. The trend is expected to
continue but should begin to level off.
MONTICELLO WWTF VS, SFF
T000 17 Lg}Rn WNIOG AVE"GE
z .o
z.jo II
2 2e j
R
1.70 I
+eo
8 ,,eo a I
1.40
,.30 �. I
,.zo
.
00
0.0900 J J
0
0.00
o. 6,o
o.eo
o.so
.un-oe �1-09 .an-oa .w+•en .,en -6o
O WTF • SFF
Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant
1401 Ilan 1110.. 1%1�miicdlo. Minncunx 55162 Ph. (612) 295.2225
24
C.
Council Agenda - 7/9/90
One hundred and thirty two thousand (132,000) gallons
of sludge were injected on existing land application sites this
spring. The average percent total solids exceeded 4% . The
holding tank is nearly 2/3 empty.
Mark Buttweiler has passed his Minnesota class 'B' operators
exam and has been promoted to Operations Supervisor.
Future projects:
As discussed with Council last fall, building heat lines at
the treatment plant are in need of replacement. Boiler stop leak
was added to the system last winter to get us by. The leaks were
stopped but it also plugged heat pump screens and partially
blocked the digester heat exchanger resulting in digester upset.
we were advised by Loop, Beldon, and Porter (our boiler service
company) that while addition of stop leak is an acceptable
temporary remedy, further addition may cause damage to the boiler
and is not recommended.
The South Primary Clarifier requires drive and carrier chain
replacement. Originally we proposed to retrofit the clarifier
with plastic chain and fiberglass flights. However, we have
determined that this would require major reconstruction of the
clarifier and is cost prohibitive. The project will coat in the
neighborhood of $3,000 to $4,000 utilizing some of the existing
parts and should be completed before the snow flies.
25
CITY Or MOIRICELLo
Acathly Building Department Report
Month of JUNE
, 1990
PERMITS MISUSES
Vat
Thi■
Same Month - Leat Y.at 'This Year
PERMITS ISSUED
Month NAY
Pion JIR4E
Las! Yee[ TO Wte To Data
RESIDENTIAL
Number
13
is
11
49
65
Valuation
319
$438 .900.00
$397 ,500.00 3 1,535,500.00 5
979,600.00
veva
1.775.48
3,332.37
7,875.38
11,313.69
0,133.00
Surcharges
107.45
217.45
198.00
764.15
480.55
COMMERCIAL
Nuaber
1
4
4
13
13
Valuation
5,000.00
113,700.00
79,000.00 1,446,400.00
7,360,700.00
roe.
50.00
1,406.52
762.50
9,727.00
14,257.71
Surcharges
7.30
57.60
39.50
723.70
1,279.60
INDUSTRIAL
Number
3
Valuation
98,600.00
Pees
1.091.31
Surcharges
49.30
PL MINC
Number
400
7
73
70
r..s
85.00
704.00
147.00
654.00
485.00
Surcharges
2.00
4.50
3.50
11.50
10.00
OTHERS
Number
1
1
S
S
Va lustlon
0.00
0.00
0.00
95,000.00
r..s
10:98
10:98
69:48
1-98:88
Surcharges
TOTAL NO. PERMITS
70
31
23
90
106
TOTAL VALUATION
774,400.00
554,600.00
476,500.00 2,984,200.00
3,733,900.00
TOTAL ►EES
1,570.48
5,142.89
7,745.08
71,739.69
25,052.90
TOTAL /URcuARGES
117.45
279.55
741.50
1,501.85
1,966.75
CURARNT MONTH
'
PE RS
-
Num[ to
Wt.
PERM1T NATURE
Numbs PERMIT NURCUARGE Valuation
Thia Y.arW
I..et Yesr
Oln91e really
7 8 3,072.37 5 197.70
9 395,400.00
14
is
Dupla.
0
0
Multi -fully
0
1
Cc"aral.,
1
960.87 43.65
87,300.00
5
O
Indust,
1
0
Ms. Wragg•
7
7
elan.
0
D
Public Building.
1
341.55 10.00
20,000.00
1
0
ALTERATION OR REPAIR
D"Ilings
7
400.00 17.73
37,500.00
37
77
Cosearclal
7
106.10 3.93
9,400.00
a
13
In&,.trlal
7
0
PLUMBING
All Types
9
704.00 4.50
70
73
ACCESSORY NTRUCTUREN
hluming Pools
1
0
Wek■
4
60.00 7.00
6,000.00
17
4
TSNPORARY PaRRIT
0
O
DEMOLITION
3
b
TOTAL/
31
3,142.99 771.56
554,600.00
106
90
PERMIT I
BOMBER DESCRIPTION TYPEI
90-1501 Dao
90-1502 Xouse and gere9a
90.150] No uea and Beteg: residing
90-1304 Xouso and 0are9a
90-1505 House and gerega raroof
90-tSO6 Naw an:cant• door,
90-1507 Ilo use and garage
90.1300 Nouse and garage rash inglo
90-1509 Gar ego reroof and deck
90-tS10 Xouee and ger,ge reromf
90-1512 IlOuee •ddltla
90-1912 Deck
90-1914 Nous: and gereg:
90-1515 Nouse end gere90
90-1516 Nousa r:roof
90.1517 Deck
90-1518 Dock
90-1519 Perk :halter
90-1520 X011, and garage
90-1521 Reateurant
90-1522 Rer,of
90-1523 Nouse and garage
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of JUNE 1990
NAME/LOCATION
AD Robert GLinda Ray" 10 Kempa Circle
OF Value pi" Home•/122 Crocoe Lane
AD Jerry 6 Judith Moody,1118 Eampa Circle
SF William G Mary F1
1h/2601 Meadow Oak Ln.
AD Robert Raemu.0on/ 201 New air. at
AC First Baptlet Church/419 gnat 4th 8t.
BP Value Flue Homes/222 Crocus Lane
ADRobert G Donnie 8chnete1e1/607 E. River St
AD Cie tante 6 Nancy McCarty/319 g. 7rd It,
All Crap Dehlhelmer/2]1 S. River at.
AD Je net Iry lna/]25 E. 4th at.
AD Me rty G Re lly Dumbro:ke/2]62 Meadow Oak Or
BF Payne Builders/2701 Meadow [ane
IF Poyne Builder:/2721 Need- Lane
AD Doug Pitt/255 E. Broadway
AD DoveG Jell 5ahwlrtr/7732 Do",..Ln.
AD Richard G Margaret Its noon/360 Prairie Rd.
AC City Of Monticello/825 E. Rlvar at.
BP Value Plus 11"../271 Crocus Vne
C Ohl ngobee Du !kion. Ino./1060 Hvy. 25 8.
AC Dave Petereon. MOntic•ll0 Po rd/
100 west Oak Wood Drive
BF Mika wilder/2860 Rad Oak Circle
TOTALS
VALUATION I FEES
PERMIT SURCHARGE IPLUKBI14 SURCHARGE
! 1,500.00 ! 19.00 S .50 ! 9
39,400.00 411.12 79.70 24.00 .30
7,800.00 97.20 ).90
77,800.00 485.64 ]8.90 26.00 .50
:,900.00 :5.00 .SO
1,500.00 14.00 .50
48,1300.00 366 03 24.40 23.00 .50
.
1,500.00 19.00 ,50
2,500.00 25.00 1.29
1,900.00 19.00 .90
21,200.00 717.00 10.60 17.00 .90
1,500.00 15.00 .50
91,100.00 ]77.50 29.99 70.00 .90
51,100.00 )77.50 25.59 70.00 .50
1,500.00 15.00 .50
1,500.00 14.00 .50
1,300.00 19.00 .50
20,000.00 207.00 10.00
3),200.00 )86.01 74.60 77.00 .90
87,700.00 587.15 41.45 ]). 00 .50
6,900.00 89.10 ).45
54,000.00 3A9.25 77.00 73.00 .50
$554,600.00 34.146.50 !275.05 1704.00 34.50
IIDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of JUNE . 19 8
PE
DESCRIPTIOR
TYPE
NAME/LOCATION
VALUATION _ PEES
RMIITT
PERMIT SUACHARGE I PLUMBING SURCHARGE
PLAN REVIEW
9G-ISG7
Howa
aM geraga
9P
t'e lue Dlw Home 4/177 CroNs Irna
41.11
90-1504
Howa
and gatap•
BP
YS lllam G Mary /t h/ 601 Meadow Oak Ln.
48.57
90-1507
Howe
end 9erape
9P
We lue Plw Xome•/777 trocw Ione
36.60
90-I5I4
Howe
and pampa
BP
Peyna Bul ldere/7701 M.:d" Sane
77.75
90-1515
Howa
and paraga
8P
Payne Oul Id e re/2771 1% dov Lane
77.75
90-1519
Park ahel ter
AC
City of Mmntirallo/875 E. Rlver St.
174.55
90-1520
Howe
and perp.
BP
Va I" Plua Now•/771 Crocus lane
90-1521
Restaurant
C
Shlnpooee Dulldara. Ina./1060 Hvy. 75 S.
778.57
197
90-1527
Howe
and pare.
BP
Mika Yllder/2860 Rad Oak Ci—
TOTAL PLAN RCVI EY
5792.79
TOTAL REVEINB 15.472.44