Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda Packet 08-23-1993
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 23, 1993 • 7 p.m. Mayor: Ken Maus Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 9, 1993. 3. Citizens commentstpetitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a resolution accepting bids, awarding contract, and ordering construction of the Hart Boulevard storm sewer. 5. Public Hearing --Review concepts behind a potential ordinance amendment that will establish a storm water utility system. 6. Public Hearing --Review feasibility study for alley improvements and consideration of ordering improvements. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of construction of pond outlet for the long pond in Briar Oakes, and consideration of a resolution authorizing construction. 8. Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit which will allow expansion of it motor fuel/convenience store in it 13-;1 zone, and consideration of a variance request tAa building and parking lot setback requirements, and consideration of it variance to the maximum curb cut width reNuirement. Applicant, Holidaystores. 9. Senior Citizens Center Update - Pam Luidolt. 10. Consideration to ratify the HRA's decision to assist the H -Window Company expansion with surplus funds from TIF District No. 1-7. I]. Consideration of adopting a resolution extending an agreement by the City to hold Lots 1 through 6, 13lock I, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, for Lite H -Window Company. 12. Consideration of approval of the final plat of the Silver Fox Subdivision. la. Consideration of a resolution declaring intent to reimburse project costs through future bind sale - Project 93-06C Hart Boulevurd Storm Sewer. 14. Consideration of hills for the month of August, 1993. 15. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 9, 1993 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen Members Absent: None 2. Consideration of approval of minutes of the rewlar meetine held July 26. 1993. Atter discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad Fyle to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 26, 1993. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Citizens comments/netitions. requests. and complaints. Robert Barthel of 725 West Third Street, requested that Council grant a two-week extension to the maximum time period that vehicles are allowed to be stored outside without being in operating condition. He mentioned that he is restoring the vehicles, and he needs additional time to get them in operating order. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad Fyle to grant Robert Barthel a two-week extension as requested. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Consideration of a conditional use reauest to allow commercial storaeP contained entirely within a buildine in a B-3 (hiehwnv business) zone. Applicant. Glen Posusta. Assistant Administrator O Neill informed Council that Glen Posusta requests that the City grant a conditional use permit which would allow development of a commercial storage facility in a B-3 Zone. The property is located on the south side of Dundas at the intersection of Dundas and Cedar Street. O'Neill reported that Posusta has acquired additional property to the east of the original site which has allowed him to shift the facility site to the east, which has allowed the future extension of Cedar Street to he aligned at a position approximately 250 ft east of Highway 25. This is the best alignment possible. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve the conditional use permit allowing commercial storage based on the finding that commercial storage is allowed as a conditional use Page 1 Council Minutes - 8/9/93 in the B-3 zone. The mini -storage facility at this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Approval of the conditional use permit is contingent on the following: 1. The development must meet city standards with regard to paving, curbing, and landscaping and signage. Due to the fact that the road serving the site is an unimproved dirt road, installation of site paving and curbing may he delayed two years or when Dundas Road is paved, whichever occurs sooner. A performance bond in the amount equal to the cost of the curbing and paving is required to guarantee completion of the drive and parking areas. 2. A grading and drainage plan must be prepared by the developer and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 3. The developer/owner must provide the City with a roadway easement as proposed on the approved site plan at a cost not to exceed the market value as negotiated by Rick Wolfsteller, Ken Maus, and Brad Fyle. In addition, the developer/owner must demonstrate that he has clear title to the property conveyed to the City for roadway purposes. 4. No outside storage or parking of vehicles is allowed under the conditional use permit. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of a conditional use reauest which would allow open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an 1.1 zone, and consideration of a conditional use request allowing a reduction in the parking IM design reouirements. Applicant, Standard Iron. Location is Lots 7 and 8, Oakwood Industrial Park. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Standard Iron of New Hope requests two conditional use permits: One would allow open and outdoor storage as an accessory use, and the other would allow a reduction in the parking and drive aisle design standards. The arca proposed for outside storage is located behind the proposed 32,000 sq ft warehouse and a two- story, 20,000 sq ft office building. The total area included in outside storage amounts to 67,600 sq ft, or 1.55 acres. The area proposed for outside storage will he screened in the front by the office building and the warehouse building on the sides by an opaque cyclone fence. The storage area will also be surfaced to control dust. Page 2 Z Council Minutes - 8/9193 O'Neill went on to review the request for the drive aisle design conditional use permit. O'Neill noted that the Standard Iron development is well suited to the provision that allows a reduction in the parking lot design standards, as some of the drive/storage areas are utilized by Standard Iron vehicles only on an intermittent basis. Drive areas used infrequently are used in conjunction with outside storage. These areas will also be screened and surfaced to control dust. All of the driveway and parking areas used by employees and by Standard Iron clients will be developed in accordance with the ordinance. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad Fyle to approve a conditional use permit allowing outside storage in an I-1 zone under the condition that the site plan meets the requirements as noted by ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Patty Olsen to approve a conditional use permit allowing a reduction in the parking lot and drive aisle design standards under the condition that the site plan meets the requirements as noted by ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of a reouest for an extension to a conditional use 1wrmit. Applicant. David Hornig. Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that Dave Hornig, President of Hornig Companies, requests that the City consider granting an extension to the conditional use permit issued on August 10, 1992, which would allow development of a multifamily complex located across from Kmart on 7th Street. Hornig needs an extension to his conditional use permit because he will not complete the project within one year of obtaining his original permit. In conjunction with this request for the extension of the conditional use permit, Hornig has provided an updated site plan which reveals no substantial changes to the original plan in terms of site density, setback, landscaping, parking, etc. In summary, overall the site plan meets or exceeds site standards that were approved with the original conditional use permit. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Patty Olsen to approve the request for an extension to the conditional use permit for the development proposed by David Hornig. Motion carried unanimously. Page 3 n--?— Council Minutes - 8/9/93 Consideration of a variance reauest which would allow construction of an accessory buildine with the floor area in excess of 1.000 so R.. and a variance reauest to allow an accessory buildine to be built with metal siding wider than 12 inches and a roof coverine material not consistent with the buildine structures in the area. Aoolicant. Randv Ruff. Location is 611 Elm Street. Assistant Administrator O Neill reported that Randy Ruff requests permission to build a 26,000 sq ft accessory structure that exceeds the maximum square footage allowed by 1,600 sq ft. He also requests that this building be allowed to be constructed with metal siding. The structure that Ruff proposes, to build will be for storage of items accessory to a residential use, which includes storage of boats, recreation vehicles, etc. The storage building will not be used in conjunction with the Ruff Auto enterprise. City Attorney, Paul Weingarden, noted that in this situation, the variance request does not meet the minimum criteria for allowing variances in that there is not a unique situation or hardship involved. Randy Ruff showed a video tape presentation of the general area and stated that the building should be allowed to be constructed because it is consistent with the neighborhood. Assistant Administrator O'Neill suggested that as an alternative to granting the variance, City Council may wish to add a provision within the PZM zoning regulations that would allow construction of accessory buildings that exceed 1,000 sq ft if certain conditions or criteria can be met. Such conditions could relate to the size of the property on which the building is proposed to be located and the setback from neighboring residential uses. An ordinance amendment could be devised that would allow the Ruff request without opening the door to similar accessory structures in other PZM zoning districts. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Patty Olsen to deny the variance request based on the finding that there's no hardship or unique situation that would warrant granting of the variance. To grant ;,he variance would impair the intent of the ordinance and, thereby, set a precedent that would enable development of similar structures in other PZM/residential zones. Voting in favor: Brad Fyle, Patty Olsen, Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Clint Herbst. It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to prepare a potential zoning ordinance amendment that would allow construction of an accessory structure to a residential use of a size in excess of.1,000 aq ft in the PZM zone under certain circumstances. Page 4 Council Minutes - 8/9/93 Consideration of adopting a development agreement for the Oak Ridee residential subdivision. Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that Council review the method by which the Oak Ridge development is being financed and determine what level of financial guarantee the City needs to assure that the project is completed on a timely basis. O Neill noted that the Oak Ridge project will be constructed privately with no financial outlay from the City as opposed to other recent residential subdivision improvement projects which have been financed entirely by the City. Under projects funded by the City, the City installs all public improvements and spreads the cost evenly against all the lots as an assessment. The risk to the City is mitigated under the public improvement process by the developer providing the City with a letter of credit in the amount of 40'% of the cost to complete the project. The City can draw on the letter of credit if the lots do not sell and assessments are not paid. Under the Oak Ridge finance plan, the developer, not the City, is responsible for installing and paying for all improvements. If the project goes as planned, there is no assessment against any of the lots, and the developer shoulders all the risk associated with selling the lots on a timely basis. Under this program, there is less long-term financial risk to the City; however, there is less control over the project at the front end and a greater risk associated with guaranteeing timely and proper completion of utilities. O'Neill noted that under the plan in the development agreement proposed, the developer will pay all City expenses associated with review of the plat and with review of engineering and inspection of utilities. Payment will be an estimated amount and will occur prior to City signatures being placed on the plat. Therefore, all City expenses are covered under the development agreement. O'Neill requested that Council consider to what extent it will require financial guarantees assuring the City that the project will be completed in accordance with the plans. Some cities require a letter of credit in the amount of 100% to 125''% of the total project cost in order to assure the City that, the project will he completed. Other cities have been re-evaluating this requirement due to the financial burden the requirement places on developers. O'Neill asked Council to review the entire context on which this development is being proposed to determine the potential risk associated with the project, consider issues of precedent, and then make a decision as to what level of financial guarantee the City needs to assure that the project is completed. Page 5 C� Council Minutes - 8/9/93 Tony Emmerich reported that since the S & L crisis, banks have become more and more restrictive on issuing letters of credit. He noted that in order to provide a letter of credit, he needs to tie up twice the amount of money he needs to actually complete the project. Tom Holthaus was concerned about the City establishing a letter of credit in an amount less than 100% of project costs. He was concerned that if the project did not move forward or failed, this problem would set a precedent that would negatively impact other developers. Paul Weingarden mentioned that the development agreement should be enhanced to include a hold harmless agreement and additional insurance provisions that would name the City. Tony Emmerich indicated he had no problem with modifications proposed. Council discussed the letter of credit requirement. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve the basic concepts of the development agreement and include a requirement that the developer provide a letter of credit in the amount of 25% of the utility costs prior to construction, and the development agreement be modified as necessary as defined by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. At this point in the meeting, Shirley Anderson left the meeting due to illness. Consideration of approval of final plat of the Oak Ridge residential subdivision. After discussion, a motion was made by Patty Olsen and seconded by Brad Fyle to approve the final plat, recording of City signatures on the plat contingent on the developer signing the development agreement, providing associated financial guarantees, and pending final approval of construction plans by County Engineer and County Surveyor. City Council must rezone the property from the planned unit development to R-1, single family. Motion carried unanimously with Shirley Anderson absent. 10. Consideration of rezoning area encmmvagsed by Oak Ridge subdivision from R -PUD to R-1 uses. O'Neill reported that the original Meadow Oak design called for development of a planned unit development in the area now encompassed by the Oak Ridge subdivision. The original development had a much higher housing density, which would have produced significantly more storm water run-off and associated problems. The Planning Commission has reviewed the rezoning request in conjunction with the Oak Ridge plat and made a Page 6 %i Council Minutes - 8/9/93 recommendation to approve the rezoning as proposed based on the finding that the Oak Ridge subdivision design and density is consistent with the original planned unit development. As with the original Meadow Oak PUD, the Oak Ridge plan proposes an off-street trail system that will link the Oak Ridge area to the proposed park and trail system originally envisioned under the original PUD concept. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Patty Olsen to approve rezoning the Oak Ridge residential subdivision from R - PUD to R-1 based on the finding that the zoning designation and associated plat are consistent with the original PUD design and consistent with the character of the area, and said rezoning is also consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city. Motion carried unanimously with Shirley Anderson absent. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 240. 11. Consideration of construction of pond outlet for the Briar Oakes development. John Simola reported that the ultimate storm sewer design for Briar Oakes includes interconnection of the three ponds located in that subdivision, including an outlet from the northeast pond to the large Meadow Oak pond. During the first phase of Briar Oakes, the southeast pond and northeast pond were interconnected. The interconnection of the third pond and the outlet for the northeast pond to the Meadow Oak pond would he completed with phase li of Briar Oakes. These ponds, in addition to handling the water from Briar Oakes, will also take in a portion of the storm water from the 4th Addition of Meadow Oak, Lots C and D owned by the City, a portion of township property, and a portion of the new Oak Ridge development. Simola reported that elevations of the water in the long northeast pond remain somewhat stable although high. The pond has not yet overflowed, however, it has come very close on occasion. Should the northeast pond overflow, most of the water would travel northward, and some of it will find its way onto private property. Since the pond appeared to stable itself before overflowing, we were not concerned with the issue. It was recently determined, however, that the pond would not overflow, as there was an outlet from the southeast pond in Briar Oakes to the Oak Ridge plat to ditch 33. The outlet, which consisted of a man-made drainage swale, is proposed to be filled with the Oak Ridge development. This is not of significance in our overall design of our storm sewer system since all of the studies in the past did not account for water leaving the Briar Oakes ponds through the Oak Ridge development area. It will, however, now cause the long pond in Briar Oakes to overflow, and it may be prudent to install the storm sewer outlet from the long pond to the Meadow Oak pond at this time. This is a relatively small project consisting of a couple hundred feet Page 7 (Q-) Council Minutes - 8/9/93 of 12 -inch diameter concrete pipe, a manhole, and flared -end sections and some riprap. The total cost of the project, using prices from the contractor doing the Oak Ridge work, would he $7,874. Adding this to OSM's cost of $2,000 to prepare the engineering drawings brings us to a total of $9,874. Brad Fyle was concerned about the cost of the engineering associated with the project and that $2,000 is a high price as a percentage of a $7,874 project. Bret Weiss noted that it is difficult to mobilize a crew and complete a plan sheet for less than $2,000 and that engineering fees as a percent of a total project tend to be higher when the projects are small. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Ken Maus to call for a public hearing on August 23 on development of a pond outlet for the Briar Oakes subdivision. Voting in favor. Clint Herbst, Ken Maus, Patty Olsen. Opposed: Brad Fyle. Absent: Shirley Anderson. Fyle mentioned that he was not opposed to the project, only to the engineering fee. 12. Review of six-month financial statement for liauor store. In his memo to Council, Wolfsteller reported that sales for the first six months were down slightly over last years same period by approximately 1.5%, or $10,000. Although the sales are slightly lower, the gross profit is higher than last year by over $9,500, resulting in a gross profit of $164,163 for the first six months. Council reviewed the operation of the liquor store with Joe Hartman. No action was taken, with Shirley Anderson absent. Clint Herbst indicated that in his view, Joe is doing a good job. 13. Consideration of final payment to Astech Corporatir^ for Sealcoat Proiect SC93-1. John Simola reported that the 1993 sealcoat project has been completed. The sealcoating of 67,220 aq yds of city streets was performed by Astech Corporation at a cost of $34,618. He went on to report that we had a couple of problems this year with the sealcoat project. One problem was that the oil content used to stick the rock to the street surface was slightly less than specified, We have a concern that there's a possibility that stripping of the aggregate or rock could occur in the future, possibly over the winter months during snowplowing operations. in addition, it rained approximately seven hours after the completion of the sealcoat project. A small amount of oil washed Page 8 9 Council Minutes - 8/9/93 off the streets and stained the curb and gutter. Astech has hired a subcontractor out of the Twin Cities to clean the curbs with high pressure hot water and soap. This appears to he removing a good portion of the staining. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad Fyle to authorize final payment to Astech Corporation in the amount of $34,618.30 contingent upon completion of the cleanup of the curb as best as can be done by high pressure spray washing and with the City receiving an additional written one-year warranty extending the warranty through the 1994-1995 winter. Motion carried unanimously with Shirley Anderson absent. 14. Consideration of calling a public hearing to review an amendment to the city ordinance which would establish a storm sewer utility fee system and call for a special meeting for August 16, at 4:30 p.m. Assistant Administrator O Neill reported that in the next few weeks, the City will likely be ordering completion of the Hart Boulevard trunk storm sewer project ($148,000). In the next few years, it is likely that the City will complete the trunk storm sewer system linking the Meadow Oak area to the Mississippi River ($250,000 est.). Other major trunk storm water improvements serving the Chelsea corridor area will also be needed in the not -too -distant future. The present system for paying for trunk storm sewer improvements is limited to a combination of assessments against benefiting properties and ad valorem taxation. For most projects, demonstrating benefit is difficult; therefore, trunk storm sewer assessments are not likely to pay more than 20% to 40% of the storm sewer cost. City staff requests that Council consider establishing a third type of revenue source which can be used for financing storm sewer improvements and for funding ongoing maintenance of storm sewer systems. The funding system proposed is a storm sewer utility fee that is designed to collect revenue from individual properties based on the level of storm water run-off produced by individual properties. The level of run-off and associated fee is calculated bused on the type of land use and the size of the property. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Patty Olsen to call for a public hearing to review an amendment to the city ordinance which would establish a storm sewer utility fee system and call for a special meeting for August 19, 1993, at 4:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously with Shirley Anderson absent. Page 9 /moi Council Minutes - 8!9/93 15. Consideration of a resolution calline for a public hearine on the Hart Boulevard storm sewer improvement. Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that on August 23 the City Council will be considering ordering the Hart Boulevard storm sewer project. In order to be in position to assess a portion of the cost to complete the project against benefiting properties, the City will need to conduct a public hearing on the improvement project prior to ordering the work. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Patty Olsen to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on the Hart Boulevard storm sewer improvement project. Motion carried unanimously with Shirley Anderson absent. SEE RESOLUTION 93.26. 16. Consideration of eurchasine two additional bleachers for the baseball complex. John Simola informed Council that as part of the 1992 budget, $3,600 was included in the park fund for purchasing additional bleachers at the NSP ballfield complex. The public works department obtained prices in August of 1992 and brought these before City Council. The lowest price was $3,380. At that time, some members of the City Council questioned whether support was continuing from the Softball Association for paying for field maintenance. Consequently, the purchase of the bleachers was tabled until such time that the City Council could review the financial commitment from the Softball Association. Simola went on to note that there is a definite need for two additional bleachers at the ballfields. Currently, because of the shortage of the bleachers, spectators are using picnic tables as bleachers. These picnic tables are not designed to take the load. In addition, during the Pee Wee Reese and Sandy Cofa: baseball tournaments, the entire parking lot was full. There were hundreds of people in the ballfield complex, and the shortage of bleachers was quite evident at that time. Clint Herbst indicated that the Softhall and Baseball Associations should be contributing toward the cost of the bleachers through revenue generated by the various tournaments that are conducted at the site. He mentioned that he would prefer that the Baseball or Softball Association come forward with the request before the City Council should consider it. General discussion regarding the cost to maintain the ballfields ensued. John Simola reported that the City spends about $4,000 to $5,000 per year on the park facility through mowing of the fields and garbage collection. Page 10 1 Council Minutes • 8/9/93 Ken Maus recommended that Council take no action on the matter rather than to deny the request. It became the consensus of Council to take no action on the matter until a formal request comes from the Softball and Baseball Associations or mitil the matter is brought forward by the Parks Commission within an overall plan for funding improvements and maintenance of the facility. The plan is to include involvement by the various organizations that use and derive revenue from the use of the park. Shirley Anderson was absent. Assistant Administrator OTleill mentioned that he would bring the matter to the Parks Commission for further review. 17. Other matters. John Simola reported that he had received a petition from various property owners in the business district requesting improvements to alleyways. Simola went on to request that the City Council call for a public hearing on the improvements to be scheduled for August 23, 1993. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad Fyle to call for a public hearing on improvements to alleyways located on Blocks 34, 35, and 52, in the city of Monticello. Motion carried unanimously with Shirley Anderson absent. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff ONeill Assistant Administrator Page 11 r -Z) Council Agenda - 8/23/93 a, Public Hearinsr—Consideration of a resolution acceotine bids, awardine contract. and orderine construction of the Hart Boulevard storm sewer. (J.O. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND This is a project you are very familiar with. Council is asked to consider the items noted in the title above. According to the newspaper, the project is a go from the Hospital District's standpoint; therefore, we will need to proceed on the project. As you know, public hearing notice has been sent to all of the properties that contribute water to the Hart Boulevard storm sewer outlet. We will need to report to them that at least 20% of the cost of the improvement will be assessed W the upstream property owners. The low hid was submitted by LaTour in the amount of $134,881, which is well under the Engineer's estimate, which was $156,000. The preliminary bid tah is provided in your packet. The final bid tah will he presented at the meeting. Between now and Monday evening, City staff will be reviewing the hid and construction elements with the Hospital District. Our goal is W establish exactly what portion of the cost is to be paid by the Hospital District. This information will be presented at the Council meeting. A preliminary assessment roll(s) will then he prepared based on the balance of the costs after subtracting the hospital share. We may prepare a number of assessment rolls based on varying percentages of total cost assessed. The purpose of the preliminary assessment roll(s) is to give you sonic perspective on what the project will cost to various property owners, and it will give information to property owners as to what they could possihly expect. Council may wish to discuss what percent of the cost will he assessed. It is imuort.ant to note, however. that no decision in this retard needs to be made at. (.his time. The assessment againsteach property cannot he levied until an assessment hearing is completed. The assessment hearing will occur tit such time that the project is complete and all final costs are known. Council Agenda - 8/23/93 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve a resolution accepting bids, awarding contract, and ordering construction of the Hart Boulevard storm sewer. 2. Motion to deny approval of a resolution accepting bids, awarding contract, and ordering construction of the Hart Boulevard storm sewer. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative N1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Preliminary bid tab. Ij %j �� BID TABULATION FOR TRUNK STORM SEWER EXTENSION AND APPURTENANT WORK HART BOULEVARD CITY PROJECT NO. 934060 FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLD WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA BIDS OPENED: August 20, 1993 10:00 A.M. CONTRACTOR L n T)utl Grt 7— i nuc K'fncEr- Fxc. aC/p*/fex AN..� tier. ►e C^' },�„ .: •...o- _ri)fi ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OSM Project No. 5073.10 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. BID SECURITY TOTAL BID � �y�.yvfzs ' ✓ o� 777 = I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ON: DATE: August 20, 1993 BY: Bret A Weiss, P.E. *Denotes Corrected Figure' Council Agenda - 8/23/93 s. Public Hearing --Review contents behind a potential ordinance amendment that will establish n storm water utility system. 1J.O.1 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Thank you for coming to the special meeting on Thursday at which time we discussed many issues associated with development of a policy for funding storm sewer improvements. As was noted at the meeting, City staff will he moving forward on this topic along the following two paths: We will be Broking at devising a program for collecting the maximum amount of revenue possible from properties benefiting from trunk sewer extensions. In the next few weeks, we will be contacting various individual cities and the League of MN Cities, to determine the best method for obtaining revenue from properties that benefit and that will be developing over time from the extension of trunk storm sewers. We will he focusing on two methods for obtaining revenue from benefiting properties. Assessment Revenue - This is the traditional method for obtaining revenue for storm sewer projects. As each project is aimplet.ed, the costs are spread evenly across those properties benefiting from the project. The henefiting properties include all those properties in the water shed that the storm sewer system serves. The problem with this approach is that certain areas are going to need more than one storm sewer project, and therefore, certain properties will end up heing assessed a number of times. This brings up the obvious concern about repeat assessments. I'erhaps there is a way (A) assess a water shed area once based on the projected total cost of storm water improvements to the area and not based on the cost of the first storm sewr.r project needed in that district. We will also research the possibility of deferring assessments against undeveloped industrial, commercial, or residential property. Under this scenario, the assessment would be payable only when property is develolxed. h. The Hookup Charec or Impact Fee - This would he a fee that would he charged fit the time an individual parcel is developed. The fee would he an amount calculated based on the average cost per acre to provide storm sewer service. 1'erhaps the impact fee could take the place of or supplement assessments against vacant property. Under this scenario, when a Council Agenda - 8/23193 storm sewer project is completed, vacant properties upstream would be assessed at a very low rate because the vacant properties aren't contributing to the need for the storm sewer system. However, when the vacant property is developed that property would be charged an impact fee which would essentially he the same as what the original assessment would have been. The impact fee could be adjusted over time and increased to offset inflation and the City's carrying cost. Ad Valorem Taxation - It is expected that assessments and/or hookup fees, as noted above, will shoulder most of the weight in paying for storm sewer projects. However, it is important to realize that Ad Valorem Taxation will he needed to pay that portion that the City cannot assign to individual properties because of the inability to show benefit, and the City may need to carry the cost to size the storm sewer system serving township areas on the perimeter of the City. The hope is that when the areas on the perimeter of the City ultimately are annexed, part of the annexed property's cost to develop will included impact fees or deferred assessments. These fees then would he paid hack to the general fund of the City. Storm Water Utility - It was noted at our meeting on Thursday, the storm water utility fee system would be generating funds on an ongoing basis to help supplement funds generated through assessments and/or impact fees. On Thursday, we had a good opportunity to review how a storm water utility works, so 1 will not describe it in anymore detail here. At this time, I am working with Bret on preparing an analysis or comparison between use of the storm sewer utility versus use of ad valorem taxes to generate revenue. In the comparison, I will be taking industrial, commercial, and residential property and looking at the ectinomic impact on each type of land use under both systems when generating $100,01)0. 1 hope to have this comparison prepared by meeting time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Additional information needs to he prepared regarding the storm water utility concept and impact on various property types. The overall plan for funding storm sewer development needs better definition; therefore, it would be premature to adopt the storm sewer utility program at this time. Council Agenda - 8/23/93 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is our recommendation that at the public hearing, City staff provide a general description of the problem that the City faces with regard to funding storm sewer projects, and that we describe the concepts behind storm sewer utility, and outline some of the mechanics of how it works. In our presentation, we can outline some of the pros and cons behind the storm sewer utility such as the following: Pros: 1. A storm water utility collects funds for a specific use based on a flat rate (storm water produced by each property), and the fees are not related to property value or ability to pay. 2. Storm water utility will reduce long-term reliance on NSP for revenue needed to complete important projects. 3. Storm water utility would he hilted to the properties by the City using the existing utility billing system. 4. Storm water utility allows the City to conduct storm sewer work without the need to go through the public improvement process which requires public hearing notices, etc. 5. Storm water utility allows the City W collect storm sewer revenue from schools and churches, neither of which pay taxes, but result in generation of storm water that needs Co be controlled by City built, storm sewer structures. Cons: 1. It is it regressive tax, in that it is blind to one's ability to pay. The poor or fixed income people pay more as a share of their wealth. 2. For the same amount of dollars charged per residence using the utility fee, you could raise significantly more money for storm sewer improvements using general taxation. This of course is due to the presence of the NSP power plant. 1). SUPI'ORTINQ DATA: Copy of the first draft of the storm water utility ordinance. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT TITLE 7 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER AS IT RELATES TO STORM WATER UTILITY. CHAPTER STORM WATER UTILITY SECTION: 7-9-1: Storm Water Drainage Utility Established 7.9-2: Definitions 7.9-3: Storm Water Drainage Fees 7-94: Credits 7-9-5: Central Business District Fees 7-9-6: Exemptions 7-9-7: Recalculation of Fee 7-9-1: STORM WATER DRAINAGE UTILITY ESTABLISHED: The municipal storm water system shall be operated as a public utility pursuant to Minnegeta Statute, Section 444.075, from which revenues will be derived subject to the provisions of this section and Minnesota Statutes. The storm water drainage utility will be part of the public works department and under the administration of the Public Works Director. 7.9-2: DEFINITIONS: The following terms, as used in this section, shall have the meanings stated (A) "Residential Equivalent Factor (REF)" means the ratio of the average volume of run-off generated by one acre of a given land use to the average volume generated by one acre of typical single family residential land during a standard two-year rainfall event. 7.9.3: STORM WATER DRAINAGE FEES: (A) Storm water drainage fees for parcels of land shall be determined by multiplying the REF for a parcel's land use by the parcel's acreage and then multiplying the resulting product by the storm water drainage rate. The REF values for various land uses are as follows: r5-) Ordinance Amendment No. Page 2 Classification Land Uses REF Number 1.A. Residential, less than 35% 1.00 impervious 1.B. Residential, 36-60% 2.00 impervious ) 1.C. Residential, 61-100% 4.00 impervious 2.A. Commercial, industrial, and 1.25 j5 Z institutional, less than 35% impervious 2.B. Commercial, industrial, and 2.50 l� L institutional, 36-60% impervious 2.C. Commercial, industrial, and 5.00 institutional, 61-100% impervious 3. Cemeteries and- golf courses .25 (B) For the purposes of calculating storm water drainage fees, all developed one -family and two-family parcels shall be considered to have an acreage of one-third (V3) acre and an REF value of 1.00. 7.9-4: CREDITS: The Council shall adopt policies recommended by the City Engineer, by resolution, for adjustment of the storm water drainage fee for parcels based upon hydraulic data to be supplied by property owners, which demonstrates a hydraulic response substantially different from the standards. Such adjustments of storm water drainage fees shall not be made retroactively. 7.9-5: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT FEES: The Council shall adopt policies recommended by the City Engineer, by resolution, for the adjustment of the storm water drainage fee for parcels within the Central Business District. Said adjustment shall be to equalize the storm water drainage areas, since the Central Business District has a major portion of its paridng provided by the City. n5- Ordinance Amendment No. Page 3 7-9-6: EXEMPTIONS: The following land uses are exempt from storm water drainage fees: (A) Public rights-of-way. (B) Public parks. (C) Agricultural land. 7-9-7: RECALCULATION OF FEE: If a property owner or person responsible for paying the storm water drainage fee questions the correctness of an invoice for such charge, such person may have the determination of the charge recomputed by written request to the City Engineer. All requests must be received within 60 days of mailing of the invoice in question by the City. The property owner may appeal the decision of the City Engineer to the Council by filing notice of said appeal as provided in City Code, Section Adopted this day of 1993. Mayor City Administrator 0 Council Agenda - 8/23/93 6. Public Hearing—Review feasibility study for allev improvements and consideration of a resolution ordering improvements. W.S.1 REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council received petitions for an in-house feasibility study to determine the scope and cost of surface improvements to alleys located in Blocks 34, 35, and 52. These alleys were last improved with the 74-1 improvement project. We have determined the scope of the repairs or improvements needed for the alleys, and the plans are mostly complete for those proposed improvements. Copies of these plans are included for your review. For Alley 52, the improvements include a major reconstruction of the western half of the alley to improve the overall drainage in the area and to replace the badly spalled and weathered concrete on that portion of the alley. We would be doing some patching in the area of our existing parking lot. In addition, we would be proposing to do some repair to the blacktop surface immediately adjoining the alley. This blacktop surface in many cases is potholed and depressed so itis actually lower than the concrete alley surface. If we were to obtain an additional 5 feet of easement on the north side of the alley, we could replace the badly potholed bituminous and then maintain it in the future. We would more than likely not need 5 feet of additional alley t.a, the south, its there currently will he no areas outside the construction zone that will need repair. We have also included a couple of options to dress up our parking lot area. One is a curbed island around the existing power pole, and another is the curb along the west edge of our parking lot. The curb would limit drainage off of our property onto the adjoining property and would also dress up and define the parking lot, and the island would give it it streetscape appearance on that open portion of the alley. In Mock :14, the alley behind Stella's, there is minimal patching needed along the west end of the north edge of the alley. The bituminous surface on private property does need some attention in this arca. If we were to acquire an additional 5 feet of casement along the west two-thirds of the north side of the alley, this would give its sufficient room to take care of this patching and maintain it in the future. For the alley in Mock 35 behind the Pizza Factory and Ernie's Bait, we need to do some surface replacement and stoma sewer catch basin repair in the alley itself. In addition, we are proposing to do some repair of the existing blacktop surface behind the Pizzu Factory and install 5 feet of Council Agenda - 8/23/93 blacktop surface behind the Ernie's Bait, A.E. Michaels, and a portion of the %uf property, as well as do sonic patching ourselves to the area along the existing water Lower. By obtaining an additional 5 feel of easement in this area, we, could install blacktop surface where there currently is gravel, and this would stt)p the eroding of the gravel surface next to the alley. Since the area heyond the 5 feet is not as well traveled, we would not expect this to be a continuous maintenance headache as it is now. Since there appear to he no repairs mf the south side of the alley needed, and the City owns a majority of that property, we would only obtain the 5 -ft easement on that portion from our water tower to Highway 25 on the north side of the alley. Although we have completed the plans and quantity sheets, we are having difficulty attracting local contractors to do this work. For some of the contractors, portions of the work are too big and require it contract performance bond. For others, the work is too small for heavy equipment such as a track backhoe to get in and remove concrete from the alley. The project is Lou small for some of the larger bituminous paving contractors, and we have had difficulty in getting someone to give its a price on the blacktopping from smaller contractors. We have estimated the total cost of the project. at, $151,000. We feel that this is probably sufficient to do the work its outlined. We hope to have some prices for you by Monday evenings meeting. For Lhe project to move forward, we must have if majority of the people in favor of the project. Since the project involves replacement work of existing facilities on existing alleyways (although we have not been able to verify that existing easements exist), and because sonic of the work is involved un private property at this time, we feel I.hnt. if different type of assessment may he necessary for each section of the project.. The City's assessment policy stifles thatif we replace the street surface due to underground utility construction, we can assess 5051 of the cost even though the street is in usable or suitable condition at that lime. If we determine that the street which musthe replaced due to a deteriorated condition, whether or not underground work was necessary, then 1(HY/,, ofthe street replacement can he assessed against the benefited property. In this parlicuhtr case, the alley has lasted tit least 14 years. The surface that is being replaced is usable but not in the best condition and should lie replaced not only for trafTfc ability, appearance, but also for drainage purpanes. It would Certainly he applicable to assess 5014 or 6016 of the work needed in the alley as it replacement. Typically, if concrete surface should have lasted at least 30 years, so we are probably I/3 premature in taking the alley out.. Council Agenda - 8/23/93 For those areas outside the existing alley, the benefit to the property owner is closer to the 100%. If we have the areas repaired so that they are in good condition, the property owners would and should pay for 10014 of that cost; the City would then take over that 5-11 strip of land and maintain the blacktop surface by patching and snowplowing at no cost to the property owners. Only when the area needed major repairs or replacement would we again then assess those property owners. So really the situation would be win/win for the property owner. They would only pay the cost which they would normally have to pay to have their property repaired, but they would have the City then take it over and maintain it and do maintenance on it at no cost to them. It would then give us a slightly wider alley surface, and we could maintain those areas in the future that we always get calls about, that area immediately adjoining our concrete surface. For all of this to take place, we need to have the easements from the property owners. We essentially need 1001h of the property owners involved with repair to accept this scenerio. Therefore, for example if Dino's accepts the proposal but Stella's doesn't. it may not he to anyone's benefit for us to do anything in this area other than to send out it notice that they should have their property repaired that is a hazard to the public. We hope to have more information in regard to the project cost and individual proposed assessments for you for at Monday evening's meeting. R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would he to proceed with that portion of the project which there is necessary support for and give the individuals the approximate assessment, all of this depending upon the signing of easements. 2. The second alternative, should support for the projects not he there, would he to discontinue work toward alley improvements and merely proceed with patching of our own parking lot and our own areas ourselves and send out the letters requesting that the property owners improve their property, as it is a hazard to the general public in those areas where large potholes or displacements of gruvel exist. 3. The third alternative would Ixx W continue the public hearing to the next, meeting should we he unable to provide sufficient data in regard to cost so that the individual property owners can make a decision as to whether to proceed with the project or not. Council Agenda - 8/23/93 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: At this time, the staff has no recommendation or further information. We are hoping that cost information will be available at Monday evening's meeting so that we can proceed with the project. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Section 13.1-3 of the assessment ordinance regarding streets, including curb and gutter; Copies of the maps for the individual alley improvements. project or projects are completed, increased annually by the Enqineerinq News Record index for each year between the date Of installation of the line and the date of connection. Any partial year shall be considered a full year in determining the increase. (C) Storm Sewer 1. Storm sewer costs will be 1008 assessed to benefited property on a net platted area basis. 2. For the purposes of assessment, "net platted area" shall be determined to be: a. 758 of the gross area in unplatted residential areas. b. 908 of the gross area in unplatted multiple dwelling, commercial, or industrial areas. 3. Storm sewer assessments for other than single family residential property shall be determined by multiplying the residential area assessment per square foot or acre times the following factor: a. Open Space .35 b. Multiple Dwelling 1.5 C. Commercial/Industrial 2.0 m -m -.-ft■ 13-1-3: STREETS, INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTER (A) All street improvements, including curb and gutter, shall be 1008 assessed against the abutting property on a front footage basis. (B) The assessable footage on a street project consists of all front footage, not including the long side footage on corner lots; and in the case of odd -shaped lots, the footage shall be determined to be the footage at the building setback line but shall in no event be less than the minimum lot width as required by the City. Costs attributable to intersections and side lot footage shall be included in the total amount to be assessed and apportioned over the net assessable footage. (C) City owned property shall be included as assessable footage and paid for by the City. (D) In the event street replacement is necessary as a result of underground utility construction, the City may determine to assess 508 of the street replacement cost. (E) If the Council determines that the street, which must be replaced as a result of the underground utility construction, was of such deteriorated condition as to have been in need of replacement whether or not underground work was necessary, then 100% of the street replacement cost shall be assessed against the benefited property on a front footage basis. MONTICELLO ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE TITLE XIII/Chpt 1/Page 5 (F) In the event streets are restored to their condition prior to the underground utility construction, the street cost shall be assessed on a unit basis as a part of the utility construction cost. If the street is upgraded, the difference between the cost of restoration to its prior condition and the desired upgrading shall be assessed against the benefited property on a front footage basis with the restoration cost being included in the utility construction assessment on a unit basis. (G) In no event shall assessments for street construction be spread over a period of more than ten (10) years. (7/10/78, i58) KONTICELLO ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE TITLE XIII/Chet 1/Page 6 i N r II I .ea urornen'C' aae. ca..? ar ae+w.n, `tg.. w,.... aoa norn.om caroac Ci ? w atf9? i5N !'sf 9.11? 3 Ml` i \`+✓1 W «. Samar 10 Lr .1 6'.— FF sinew +St m awr as..rnwy neon. r.ucr man seen, can oar inwen eb rraeea rr Sa W e�b � ane, awr p.aaant — Block ao 1 �. !' 9r 0390�0 ly Rim R .o 39SO Yd Bit. o:?Q3 0 5 0, n nv. rpiace 3'&t(65ton L yr UP O 19lock 35 re O f 3" st i Preserve u.o Front: all ' auurp a.amgs D un�.rKs I O mmr'q,�f AbrfA Half. 'af Block 32 .. ELI XV After .•..... ra ..r.r Parking Lo/ (cortnl r%Okol Bllurtllnous Bsc/Ions . _ ,,..••,,�� 11 • typical Conal r�`n. r'Twls 1 Alltar—r..._ Icwr...rlr\ 1 a M. I. & d['.. ATTORNEYS AT UW PO Ba w6 >U Nbt Biatl�r.y Momlgllq MInIMWt� •4WO�M JAMES U. METCALF TELEPHONE BRADLEY V. LARSON August 18, 1993 N'2M� (612) 421,tM FAX (912) 2953132 Mr. Jeff O'Neill Asst. City Administrator City of Monticello P.O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. O'Neill: As the owner of the Country Travel Store building and adjacent property abutting the alleyway located in Block 52, City of Monticello, I acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Hearing On Improvement with regard to improvements to alleyways. I would appreciate this letter being read at the public meeting. I have no opposition to the improvements of the alleyways but would object to being assessed, as these alleys are owned by the City and have been historically maintained by the City. To the extent that improvements are made to abutting parking lots, etc., I did undertake at my own personal expense to upgrade my back parking area last year and therefore would not expect to be assessed. John Simola has advised me that the City would like a five foot easement abutting the alley for maintenance and I will be glad to provide it. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Br O %V'.� Larson Council Agenda - 8/23/93 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of construction of pond outlet for the long Pond in Briar Oakes, and consideration of a resolution, authorizing construction, (J.S. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The ultimate storm sewer design for Briar Oakes includes interconnection of the three ponds located in that subdivision, including an outlet from the northeast pond to the large Meadow Oak pond, During the first phase of Briar Oakes, the southeast pond and northeast pond were interconnected. The interconnection of the third pond and the outlet for the northeast pond to the Meadow Oak pond were to be completed with phase 11. These ponds, in addition to handling the water from Briar Oakes, will also take in a "portion" of the storm water from the fourth addition of Meadow Oak Lots C and D owned by the City, a portion of township property, and the new Oak Ridge development. Elevations of the water in the long northeast pond have remained somewhat stable, although high, The pond has now overflowed. When the northeast pond overflows, most of the water travels northeastward and finds its way onto private property. Since the pond appeared to stabilize itself before overflowing, we were not concerned with this issue. It was recently determined, however, that the pond would not overflow, as there was an outlet from the southeast pond in Briar Oakes through the Oak Ridge plat to ditch 33. The outlet, which consisted of a man-made drainage swale, is now filled in with the Oak Ridge development. This is not of significance in our overall design of our storm sewer system since all of the studies in the past did not account for water leaving the Briar Oakes ponds through the Oak Ridge development area. It will, however, now cause the long pond in Briar Oakes to overflow on a regular basis, and it may he prudent to install the storm sewer outlet from the long pond to the Meadow Oak pond at this time to give its more control. We are also attempting In keep a small 12 - inch temporary line open through Oak Ridge. The Briar (hikes pond nutlet is a relatively snuill project consisting of 300 feet of 12 -inch diameter concrete pipe, a manhole, some flared -end sections, and some riprap. The total estimated cost of the project, using prices from the contractor doing the Oak Ridge work, would he $7,874. Adding in OSM's cost. of $2,000+ to prepare the engineering drawings brings us to a total of $9,874. We are checking with other area contractors to see if we can obtain Mater prices. Rased upon the benefit to the four areas within the city previously noted (totaling 39.28 acres), the rollowing is the cost to he paid by each development. 10 Council Agenda - 8/23/93 Benefited Area rh of Benefit Cost Briar Oakes 61.94 $6,115.96 Meadow Oak 4th Add. 9.62 $ 949.88 Oak Ridge 20.65 $2,038.98 City Lots C & D 7.79 769.18 100.0011 $9,874.00 Total It is proposed that Tony Emmerich and the Oak Ridge development up -front the cost for the installation of the storm sewer and receive credit for the portions to be charged to the other areas. The City will hold these amounts until the second stage of Briar Oakes is developed, the 4th Addition of Meadow Oak is developed, and lots C and D are developed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is after the public hearing to order the improvement from the contractor with the lowest price able to do the work within the next few weeks. 2. The second alternative would he to delay the project until the Meadow Oaks pond outlet is completed. 3. The third alternative would be to do nothing but let the pond overflow onto private property. This does not appear to he a good option for us at this time since the long pond has already overflowed on private property. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Council move ahead with the project as outlined in alternative tll. 1). SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of map'vf the various ponds; flan sheet prepared by OSM; Letter from Rick Wolfsteller to Tony Emmerich about temporary storm sewer. M - ) f�. � I I � ' `•-���� r' 1 % T �)/j " -�'"�-�-�.�i t`(`��II �lllf(I[f V� .,_ . � �', '\ � ' � •.���� - ,_ �;,;j.� ,.,r_;, :;�. - + � ; -� f ..,,moi -: � 4.�:. _ - �' I "'" �'`4 ', :` �= �,: �r�i�/ / ,' \�' r � ` 'J - • - -- iii x <. ^:�' ;.- .. _ •-�... . //c�1,. '- v.' n v - '`�..L' � "'• � ^ /�V• /.: , r t /I r Y^-"-,�/L. _ �` �.;��`!1 =>.�• i��-':r ::/ �� x t •�• `lt `•,i I 't ov '- ���; � • , r ,, .:.�,�_ °-_ 'f-��`%Jy i , y ' �'�` ! . � : � � -- • `�.. �: ,.� =mow � �-�`�.�,,�� ��, :�,.,�-; / 1 IT .7l � �y ^•S�r'� t,t;r•' ��::��-%'.¢,i.. 1 1.,'�'r?i'�•.�-' �i - ry, o � .�•� 'i'f " � 'j '�" �\c/.! . i •'✓ _ _ _ _ // RN IYJUftE� •� ' •••t!'J' .''�• �77�,,,yr' ' � 4• ' + \`.\lam, i � '.�\ E • I Sf+ngy�� -c�6- ,XPi` � R � p i 6 Lo Ilk , FJG 06.q3'_':5L')sN rlp 4. "", I I t l�� ur•rcf ( it � I /jam^^ ry I I 4 I v c •'y�l � \� t i� rI i t y S••ti — i ,t...,wt.1 ��� I + canr.,ct ..lae f..t..a csr` .e r,c.. fu.•A ro ti tapo[P iT..Ca. �url.a .vo 1� 0 100 200 D SCALE 4N FEET Drawn 9y Drawing rrtla Comm. No, GADO e..., . _ . _.. Orr j 8CR*1oR 1 4syrtron � A..ocf.f...rn. �•�ryp:.�OFttiit�'ii:+.+i�dt9nlb�:rbtW+��•» BRIAR STORM QAKES WATER ESTATES CUTLET 44GO.t5 ^yore 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Phone (612) 295.2711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 Fax: (612) 2954404 Mr. Tony Emmerich 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 68433 Dear Mr. Emmerich: August 17, 1993 This is to let you know that the recent heavy rains, along with the diversion of water resulting from Oak Ridge grading activity, has caused an increase in water stored in the Meadow Oaks pond. The City is concerned that a wet fall and winter combined with existing high water levels could result in high water problems that could occur before the City would be able to install the Meadow Oaks pond outlet. Therefore, the City requests the installation of a temporary storm sewer that would continue the original drainageway now blocked by the grading of Oak Ridge Drive. It is anticipated that the Meadow Oaks outlet to the river will be installed in the spring of 1994. At such time that the Meadow Oaks outlet is installed, the temporary storm sewer will be blocked, or at the deadline for completion of your project (July 1, 1994), whichever is sooner. Please talk to John Simola and or Bret Weiss to discuss design issues associated with the temporary structure. Sincerely, Cl F MOM17C LLO Rick WoUstelle('JI City Administrator RW/kd CV Terry Herman - Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator John Simola, Public Works Director Bret Weiss, City Engineer Ken Maus, Mayor Pat Sawatxlte, County Commissioner Wyman Nelson O File % Council Agenda - 8/23/93 a. Consideration of a reaueat for a conditional use hermit which will allow expansion of a motor/fuel convenience store in a B-3 zone. AND Consideration of a variance reaueat to buildine and Darkina lot setback reauirements. AND Consideration of a variance to the maximum curb cut width requirement. Aaalicant. Holidaystores. 0.0) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Holidaystores requests that the City of Monticello provide a conditional use permit which would allow expansion and relocation of their existing facility on the same site. Associated with this proposed expansion is the need to acquire variances to the building setback on the Walnut side of the property and the driveway setback on the 7th Street side of the property. Also needed is a variance to the maximum curb cut width allowed (24 ft). The applicant desires to keep the existing 30 ft. curb cut. The project calls for demolishing the existing store and building a larger store on the northwesterly side of the properly. The store size would he expanded from 3,920 sq. fl. to 4,450 sq. ft. In addition, additional pumps would he installed. Presently, there are four sets of twin pumps. Under the new plan, there would be eight sets of twin pumps. The new plan also calls for development of a driveway access to Walnut Street in addition to the two existing driveways on 7th Street. SITE PROB1.EMSNAIt1ANCE REOUF.ST Walnut Street Setback Variance: The proposal calls for a 15 ft. setback tilting Walnut Street. Current ordinance requires that the setback at this location, which is technically the front of the property, he established at 30 fl. The developer needs the variance in order to provide sufficient, room for necessary parking, an additional four pumping stations, and to accommodate the proposed drive access to Walnut Street. To the north of the site is the Edina Realty structure, which is set hack lei ft. from the Walnut ROW, which is the same distance as proposed by Holidaystores. From a technical standpoint, the Edina Realty setback on the Walnut side is considered to he the si aty vd. because the Walnut side of the lot is the longest side of the Int. The side yard setback requirement on corner Iota is 20 fl. Therefore, the Edina Really side yard setback structure varies from the ordinance by 5 ft. We have no record of a variance king granted in this case. As opposed to the Edina Realty building, the Hulidaystaore setback on the Walnut side is considered to he the fron . yard because the Walnut side of the lot is the shortest side of the Holidaystore lot. On Corner lots, the shortest side is considered to he the front yard. The front yard setback requirement on it Corner lot is 311 fl. Therefore, the Holidaystore needs it 15 fl. variance. 12 Council Agenda - 8/23/93 Walnut Street Access Problems: John Simola and Roger Mack have noted that the 5r, grade at Walnut Street is a real problem during the winter months. The intersection and hill are in constant need of sand and salt in order to provide traction necessary for cars to climb the hill and enter 7th Street after stopping at Walnut Street. The plan calls for development of a driveway access about 47 ft. from the Walnut and 7th Street intersection at the point were the Walnut Street grade is the steepest. Staff is concerned that providing a street access at this location at such a steep grade will increase winter driving hazards at this location and that is unacceptable. In addition, if the site plan is amended by deleting a driveway at this location, sufficient land becomes available to allow property to be reconfigured in a manner that could greatly reduce the side yard variance request. Variance to 8 ft green requirement: The site plan calls for extending a curb line directly adjacent to the City right-of-way line between the two 7th Street access drives. The City ordinance requires that a 5 ft. separation be created between the 7th Street right-of-way and the edge of the parking area. Holidaystores requests a variance to this requirement, which would provide for more room for vehicle maneuvering. Holidaystores has not indicated any particular hardship or unique situation why the 5 ft. setback requirement cannot be met. Curb cut width variance: The existing curl) cuts on 7th Street are 30 ft. wide, which is 6 ft. wider than allowed by ordinance. Holidaystores would like tA) continue its use of the :10 ft. curb cut and needs it variance in order U) do so. According to Holidaystores, the added width is needed to ease turning movements in it congested area. The proximity of the access points to the busy 7th Street/Highway 25 intersection make it imperative that the driveway provide ample room for two vehicles using the access at the same time. B. AIXERNATIVF ACTIONS: I. Motion to approve conditional use permit based on the site plan presented by Holidaystores. a. Motion includes granting of it 15 ft. variance to the side yard setback requirement, a 5 ft. variance to the green space requirement, and a 6 ft. variance to the curb cut requirement. Council Agenda - 8/23/93 h. The conditional use permit is contingent on the developer providing no exit signs at the easterly access point on 7th Street. C. The development must comply with all existing landscaping and signage requirements. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission and City Council make the determination that the access does not represent a hazard and are comfortable with allowing access to Walnut Street. For each of the variances granted above, the motion should include a notation of what hardship or circumstance justified the variance. 2. Motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to site plan modifications as follows: a. Delete the access point to Walnut Street and reduce (or eliminate) the side ,yard setback variance request from 15 ft. to 10 ft. and modify the site plan by establishing a 5 ft. setback between the 7th Street row and the curb between driveways. Modify the curb cut to reduce or eliminate the variance request. For each of the variances granted above, the motion should include a notation of what hardship or circumstance justified the variance. Here are some ideas: Setback - Variance docs not impair intent of the ordinance because from a practical standpoint, the Walnut side of the property is the side yard. Therefore, the true extent of the variance granted is 5 ft. not 15 ft. The 5 ft. variance will not be it problem because it matches the Edina Realty setback. 5 ft. Green Space - It is difficult to find it unique situation or hardship that justifies a variance. Perhaps u zoning ordinance amendment would be more appropriate. Curb Cut - Proximity to the 7th Street/Highway 25 intersection and the need to expedite easy in/out access creates the need for providing ample room for vehicles turning in and out of the Holidoystore. h. A conditional use permit is nlso conditioned on the developer providing no exit si{,n►s at the easterly access point on 7th Street. C. The development must comply with till existing landscaping and signage requirements. 14 Council Agenda - 8/23/93 Under this alternative, the Planning Comm ission/CounciI is not comfortable with the design to Walnut Street access problems. This alternative takes a firmer position with regard to the importance of maintaining setback requirements. 3. Motion to table the matter rather than approving the conditional use permit based on potential modifications the Planning Commission and/or Council may wish to have the matter tabled until the modifications can be made for further review. C: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the conditional use permit he approved under the following conditions: 1. Remove Walnut Street access. 2. Grant a 10 ft. variance to "front yard" setback requirements based on the hardship the City has refused "front yard" street access. The City has, in affect, made the Walnut side the side yard and the 7th Street side the front yard by not allowing access to the site from Walnut. This would allow Holidaystores to place the building 20 ft. from the Walnut row versus 15 ft. as proposed. 3. Deny approval of the variance to 5 ft. setback requirement between 7th Street and the parking area. No hardship demonstrated. 4. Approve curl) cut variance request based on the need for more turning room at this location. Staff is not completely convinced on this variance request. Perhaps the need for 30 fl. curl) cut will he reduced once the proper parking lot curb line is established. By setting the parking area further lack from the street, there is more room for vehicles to straighten out before entering the roadway, which reduces the need for a 30 fl. curb cut. This is at relatively complex planning case that is difficult, to clearly describe using the written word. I look forward to reviewing the site plan in more detail at the meeting, to clarify the request and associated issues. D: SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of site plan a1N proposed; Copy of site plan with staff comments/ recommendations. 15 „<" How ky ® An 0 M 0 Q 7IJ:s 4ge.4 teuf46euigfAs M- `. � � �/u�/•.�� ctrl .. _... 7ifeu /.�kr ySp�ra,f��uFd. r :._. Thi Bu; l/;� [o„lSbe,�d ro �Pfi d ' UsR�e�u[I ���A/%ruryou In Wt •�sdd;t�wlP�uttt�!�S�ecec,�dd.�eb4 _ '- � fv/t./w tb. rwcf4/;uecwrg:a�(Kt, � s—.'_�.a I ' f rte° ems+ R /Why /fxrl feWAdmtsffeel Son �t:h/wlti�� ICICaud, , AtM7th I CIV --I --_ -- - - - - - _ - _ - - 7 Tll ST 1 I r !R Rn •r - e HolldaY Compames TT '�77 -W Council Agenda - 8/23/93 9. Senior Citizens Center Undate - Pam Loidolt. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Pam Loidolt, Senior Citizens Center Coordinator, will he present at the Council meeting to provide the Council with an update on current activities of the center. At this point in time, the Senior Citizens Center is not asking for anything specific from the City Council, and the update and report is for informational purposes only. No action is necessary by the Council other than acknowledging the status report. D. SUPPORTING DATA: 1993 Statistics. 16 MONTICELLO SENIOR CENTER 1993 Statistics Activities offered include: Legal aid, free blood pressure checks, tax assistance, Caregiver/Grief Support Group, 6U. and Healthy Clinic, cards, bingo, tripe, line dancing, ceramics, exercise class, puzzle, card tournaments, Over 90's Party, monthly Birthday/Anniversary dinners, dances, 55 Alive defensive driving, Dinner Club, Volunteer Appreciation events, Life Experience Por,)ect, Senior Spelling Bee, Walking Group. pool. ,joint events with other senior centers, Adopt -A -Highway program, country western party, Nursing Home Card Club, hearing aid servicing, Sixth Grade Essay Contest, team pool tournaments, Board of Directors meetings, Wright County Fun Day. and movie matinees. C�� Duplicated Duplicated Partipants Participants (organized 6 Phone Activities Unduplicated (organized unorganized Volunteer Calls Offered Participants activities) activities) Hours Received (unduplicated 1992 480 2,009 3,319 1,065 417 29 tat Quarter 1993 4117 2.604 4,000 1,279 850 36 1992 456 2,572 3.972 1,461.5 701 29 2nd Quarter 1993 528 3,501 4,700 1,382.5 759 38 Activities offered include: Legal aid, free blood pressure checks, tax assistance, Caregiver/Grief Support Group, 6U. and Healthy Clinic, cards, bingo, tripe, line dancing, ceramics, exercise class, puzzle, card tournaments, Over 90's Party, monthly Birthday/Anniversary dinners, dances, 55 Alive defensive driving, Dinner Club, Volunteer Appreciation events, Life Experience Por,)ect, Senior Spelling Bee, Walking Group. pool. ,joint events with other senior centers, Adopt -A -Highway program, country western party, Nursing Home Card Club, hearing aid servicing, Sixth Grade Essay Contest, team pool tournaments, Board of Directors meetings, Wright County Fun Day. and movie matinees. C�� Council Agenda - 8/23/93 to. Consideration to ratify the HRA's decision to assist the H -Window Company expansion with surplus funds from TIF District No. 1.7. (O.K.) A. REFERBNCR AND BACKGROUND In order to maintain the excellent working relationship established between the City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), the HRA requests the City Council ratify their decision to assist the H -Window Company expansion with surplus funds from TIF District No. 1-7. In other words, the HRA requests the Council's stamp of appoval or blessing. Last May, the Norwegian Board of Directors, Mr. Steve Lemme, Mr. Pat Pelstring, Mr. Lenny Kirscht, and Koropchak met to discuss the proposed H - Window expansion. The proposed project will expand the H -Window manufacturi ng area by 25,600 square feet, office area by 4,000 square feet, and create 60 new jobs. Thereafter, Business Development Services, Inc. (13DS) prepared a financial package proposal which included the use of TIF. The original TIF proposal, which was sent to Norway in .lune, outlined an annual pay-as-you-go TIF assistance of $20,000 over 8 years for a total of $160,000 assistance. BDS's assumption was that it was legal W de -certify the existing TIF District No. 1-7 boundary and create a new district for the planned expansion. The assumption meant the 1-1I0i would fully recover the $160,000 assistance and other administrative costs through the tax increment collected over the 9 years of the new economic district. At the time of the initial proposal and thereafter, City staff questioned BDS on the legality to de- certify an existing TIF District boundary for the purpose of creating a new district. On August. 12, BDS informed City staff that de -certification of the TIF District No. 1.7 Iwundary was not legal. With full endorsement of the IIx:, the HRA elected to endorse the originally -promised $160010 TIF assistance to the H - Window expansion. Their endorsement was enhanced with the knowledge that the existing H -Window TIF District No. 1-7 has an approximate total surplus of $71,0(4); and with a January 2, 1994, assessment cn the 2500 square feet manufacturing expansion, the district tax increment will increase by approximately $35,000 annually. This projected $35,000 tax increment does not include any tax increment frvnn the 4,(H)O square frsit office expansion. In other words, it is projected that the HILA will recover the $160,000 assistance solely through the life duration of the existing H -Window TIF District which ends in 1996. Additionally, the HRA decision wits enhanced by the creation of fill new jobs and to assist an existing industrial business. 17 Council Agenda - 8/23/93 A committee of HRA and IDC members will review the performance of BDS, Inc. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. A motion ratifying the HRA decision to assist the H -Window expansion with a $160,000 of surplus funds from TIF District No. 1-7. 2. A motion denying ratification of the HRA decision. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation is to ratify the HRA's decision because the $160,000 assistance is projected to be recovered solely through District No. 1-7. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map of the proposed 1993 expansion. is I 1 I i� I I I I 1 I • ` alas I I • I I I " I I 1 • • • • �Ji�il�l'TTTTf TT .. I ,q I Council Agenda - 8/23/93 it. Consideration of Adopting a resolution extending an agreement by the City to hold Lots 1 through 6. Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, for the H•Window Company. iCRX) A. REFERENCE. AND BACKGROUND: On August 19, the HRA made a motion recommending the City Council consider extending Resolution 9:3.5 for six months or through January 31, 1994. Resolution 93-5 holds Iw)ts 1, 2, & :3 and grants a right of first refusal for Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, city of Monticello, for the H -Window Company. This would allow the City Council, HRA, City staff, and H -Window management time to consider other options such as possible land swaps, purchases, etc. The HRA felt the long-term potential of the H -Window as it relates to and benefits the city of Monticello was worth the extended time request. Additionally, there has not been a lot of interest from other parties in purchasing any of the properties. Enclosed is it map outlining future plans of the H -Window. Please note the building expansion would abut the westerly city lot boundaries. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution agreeing to hold Lets 1, 2, & 3, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, fir an additional time period expiring January :I1, 1994, for the H -Window Company, and also providing it first right of refusal for I. )m 4, Vii, & 6 for the same period of time. 2. Do not adopt the resolution and place the property on the market for other interested parties. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since the laity has already held this property for over two years, since there has not been it lot of interest from other parties in purchasing any of the property, and since the H -Window Company potential would benefit the city of Monticello, it appears uo be in our Inst interest to adopt the resolution. 1). SUIll" RTINC DATA: Copy of the resolution; First right of refusal agreement; and February 22 Council minutes. 19 RESOLUTION 93 - RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO TO HOLD LOTS 1, 2, & 3 AND TO GRANT A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL FOR LOTS 4, b, & 6, BLOCK 1, OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK SECOND ADDITION, CITY OF MONTICELLO, FOR THE H•WINDOW COMPANY WHEREAS, the City of Monticello acknowledges that Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, city of Monticello, are owned by the H -Window Company, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello owns and recognizes that Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, city of Monticello, adjoins the H -Window Company property, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello endorses economic development and the business retention and expansion program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The City of Monticello shall hold Lots 1, 2, & 3, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, city of Monticello, for the H -Window Company located at 1324 East Oakwood Drive, Monticello, Minnesota, for a period through the end of January 1994. 2. The City of Monticello shall also grant a right of first refusal on Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, for the H -Window Company until January 31, 1994, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the right of refusal agreement. Adopted by the Council this 23rd day of August, 1993. Mayor City Administrator RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL For and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, CITY OF MONTICELLO hereby grants to H -WINDOW COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, a right of first refusal to purchase the following -described property or any part(s) thereof: See attached Exhibit "A" Upon receipt by CITY OF MONTICELLO of any bona fide written offer of purchase, CITY OF MONTICELLO shall, by written notice, notify H -WINDOW COMPANY of said offer by sending said notice first class U.S. mail, postage paid, to 1324 East Oakwood, Monticello, MN 55362. H -WINDOW COMPANY shall then have 30 days from the date of said mailing in which to purchase said real property at a price and terms at least as favorable as those in the original bona fide written offer of purchase. H -WINDOW COMPANY shall execute their right of first refusal by presenting to CITY OF MONTICELLO within 30 days of the mailing of the notice of offer of purchase, a written agreement to purchase said property specifying the same or more favorable price and term as called for in the original bona fide written offer of purchase, together with earnest money in an amount at least equal to that called for under the original bona fide written offer of purchase. Said written agreement shall conform substantially to that attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and shall be executed by authorized offers of H. WINDOW COMPANY. H-WINDOW.AGR: 8/20/93 Page 1 �� If H -WINDOW COMPANY does not timely respond to the notice of offer of purchase, this right of first refusal shall lapse and be of no force and effect. H - WINDOW COMPANY, their successors or assigns shall, if required, subsequent to the lapse of this agreement, execute a Quit -Claim Deed to CITY OF MONTICELLO for the above real property. H -WINDOW COMPANY shall not assign this agreement without the written consent of CITY OF MONTICELLO. This right of first refusal shall expire, if not otherwise exercised, at 11:59 p.m. on January 31, 1994. DATED: DATED: CITY OF MONTICELLO H -WINDOW COMPANY A Minnesota corporation STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) as. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1993, by Rick Wolfsteller on behalf of the CITY OF MONTICELLO. Notary Public H-WINDOWAGR: 8/20193 page 2 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) as. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 1993, by on behalf of H - WINDOW COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: City of Monticello 250 East Broadway PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 H-WINDOWAGR: 8/20/83 Page 3 0 E H BIT "A" Lot 4, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, city of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. Lot 5, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, city of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. Lot 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, city of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. H-WINDOWAGR: 8/20/93 Page 4 // rk� . r' • iJ 7777..7 _ — �A4.0 111a� [0600[0 �� G,P �� i JOTIf[[t, JO �a,• w[• • � to •+ \ wf Dia - ��� • �a.;.. t�ii+:,1.;t,u•i�U�Jia;'m.ptlfl'::W:6�'�`1�;:•r.2.rrl.9m�tpu: � PC or rtlw[ °• • Tu Tlu Iot11ct1.lA co. �+ tuact catrun Ustus totcltt6ING \ r t . ',o^!•,,,� PLANT to © TAt.9 fltA ` cuotT• ntvAT .t..LM 6uvt=cs _ If.63 ..r.. wuo l w.7, tun or rurotm t•t , 9Ym[tOTA AtOhAZ i AIAI9D { T h t Q`P i 3 rug c irieii[t • y�} 0J 1.33 As— . GV y ►to/ofW •Y.� D �i� 7 [9190919 oraaOD OAKWOOD AD ..r.. t ) tautt I. lams t. ! 5i6 SCO Q~ i tuTDnfatr 1 va[tul! f.1 f. / ..• _ _ I• .1' pp0 .c:.. .... RD \ 0c117 O► I014o7yt�tt[LV I[[+ 9 6 f c.1w �[umTaw uOAKWOOD i ,•. ms 1ar�•3 ,:T,- tit's ., n:: �,'�•f•,oyo.,:'' irr lw �i,: u..�: ,,.,,.:.: :yi�:.•Ii:;:.i •. It IMT i.rmaly "4e • \ " 6.411 .ar.. t i 4.4 4.4 1 I K is o ci. �n c� s* i �c a-, Nd r tiy, / I"m oa " / FUTURE EXPANSION dEifA N R •--- EXIgtINO �IIIIII LJ`1.11111111111 � ' LC'r Council Minutes - 2122193 Consideration of adopting a resolution extending an aereem@nt by Lhe .Qity to hold Lots 1 and 2. Block 1. of the Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition. for the H -Window Comaanv. Rick Wolfsteller reported that in June 1991, the Council adopted a resolution agreeing to hold all six lots of the Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition for the H -Window Company's future expansion potential. The agreement expired on December 31, 1992, and the H -Window Company has not yet made a decision on whether to purchase the property. Wolfsteller indicated that in response to the expiration of this agreement, he contacted Lemme regarding the H -Window's expansion plans. Wolfsteller noted that it is his understanding that a final decision on expansion plans will be made sometime in May and that the H -Window Company would be able to provide the City with an answer once and for all by June 1, 1993. Brad Fyle was concerned that holding the property for H -Window Company constituted a misuse of public funds. If we have a chance to sell it to another party, we should. Clint Herbst indicated that he would hate to push H -Window Company out. It makes sense to work with them to encourage them to stay in Monticello if they decide to expand. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Patty Olsen to adopt a resolution agreeing to hold Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, for an additional time period expiring May 31, 1993, and also provide a first right of refusal for Lots 4, 6, and 6 for the same period. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 93-5. 0// Council Agenda - 8/23/93 12. Consideration of aooroval of the Canal plat of the Silver Fox Subdivision 0.O. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND On September 14, 1992, City Council granted preliminary plat approval of the Silver fox Subdivision and noted a number of conditions that must be met prior to final plat approval. Those conditions are outlined in the attached excerpt from the meeting minutes. Mr. Larson has achieved all of the conditions noted, and therefore, it is now appropriate to consider granting final approval at this time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the final plat of the Silver Fox Subdivision. 2. Motion to deny approval of the Silver Fox Subdivision. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Larson has signed the development agreement dratted currently by the City attorney and Larson's attorney. He has provided a letter of credit in the amount necessary to complete grading that will solve an existing drainage problem. And finally, he has worked with Stuart Hoglund to come to an agreement on an overall plan for providing drainage in the area and has obtained Stuart Hoglund's signature on an easement and associated agreement document that allows the plan to be executed. Staff, therefore, recommends that Council grant final plat approval. 1). SUPPORTING DATA: Excerpt from meeting minutes at which time the preliminary plat was reviewed. A copy of the final plat is available for your review. 20 Council Minutes - 9114/92 Consideration of approval of preliminary plat for the Silver Fox subdivision. Assistant Administrator ONeill reviewed the subdivision proposed by Ed and Arlys Larson, which called for dividing the Silver Fox property into three commercial sites. ONeill noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat based on the finding that the plat meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance and because the grading plan as proposed will result in an improvement to current drainage patterns. ONeill noted that currently water from the site is discharged onto adjoining private property. With development of the site, this water will be diverted directly to a public storm sewer easement. Ken Maus asked Ed Larson if he had any comments he would like to make regarding the preliminary plat and issues relating to draining and grading of the site. Larson indicated that he has no questions or comments. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve the preliminary plat of the Silver Fox subdivision and note that final plat approval is subject to preparation of a development agreement requiring construction of a drainage swale blocking water from Lot 2 from entering the property to the south and development of a document identifying a plan for development of a cooperative strategy for storm water run-off relating to Lot 3 of the Silver Fox plat and the parcel to the south. This document is to be signed by all parties affected. Motion carried unanimously. 042— Council Agenda - 8/23/93 13. Consideration of a resolution declaring intent to reimburse nroiect costs through future bond sale - Proiect 93.060 Hart Boulevard Storm Sewer. (RW.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Assuming that the bids were acceptable and the Council has awarded the contract for improvements to the Hart Boulevard Storm Sewer Project, the Council should consider adopting the resolution attached stating that it may reimburse itself in the future through a bond sale. IRS regulations require this official resolution if any expenditures are made for engineering or construction prior to an actual bond being sold. I am assuming that the City will need to finance this storm sewer project through a bond sale at some time in the near future, but I'm also suggesting the City may want to wait until next spring before selling a bond, as we would be able to combine this project with other public improvements such as the Meadow Oaks outlet to the Mississippi River project. With the Oak Ridge development now proceeding ahead, it does appear that the City will have to seriously consider constructing an outlet for the Meadow Oaks pond, and it would be more cost effective to combine the Hart Boulevard and the Meadow Oak project into one bond issue to save issuance costs. It should he noted that the City has up to 18 months after the project is completed to sell a bond if it wishes to reimburse itself for any cost it has spent. This is true provided the City Council adopts the resolution attached indicating it intends to reimburse itself through a future bond sale. B. ALTERNATIvP ACTIONS The first alternative would be to adopt the resolution indicating an intent to reimburse ourselves through a future bond sale for the Hart Boulevard Storm Sewer Improvement. Adopting this resolution does not require the City (A) sell a bind, only that it may do so within 18 months after the project is completed. Without adopting this resolution, the City would not have the ability to sell a bond to reimburse itself for any cost it incurred prior to the dale of the bond sale. Do not adopt the resolution. The only reason you would adopt this option is that if you have no intent at all of ever selling a bond to reimburse yourselves for this project cost. This is not recommended, as it could cause cash flow problems. 21 Council Agenda - 8/23/93 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In order to comply with the IRS regulations, it is recommended that the resolution be adopted allowing the City to sell bonds in the future if it desires. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution. 22 RESOLUTION 9.3. RESOLUTION RELATING TO FINANCING OF CERTAIN PROPOSED PROJECTS TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, (the "City") as follows: 1. Recitals. (a) The Internal Revenue Service has issued Section 1.103-l8 of the Income Tax Regulations (the "Regulations") dealing with the issuance of bonds, all or a portion of the proceeds of which are to be used to reimburse the City for project expenditures made by the City prior to the date of issuance. (b) The Regulations generally require that the City make a prior declaration of its official intent to reimburse itself for such prior expenditures out of the proceeds of a subsequently issued borrowing, that the borrowing occur and the reimbursement allocation be made from the proceeds of such borrowing within one year of the payment of the expenditure or, if longer, within one year of the date the project is placed in service, and that the expenditure be a capital expenditure. (c) The City desires to comply with requirements of the Regulations with respect to certain projects hereinafter identified. 2. Official Intent Declaration. (a) The City proposes to undertake the following projects described on Exhibit A attached hereto. (b) Other than (i) expenditures to be paid or reimbursed from sources other than a borrowing, or (ii) expenditures permitted to be reimbursed pursuant to the transition provision of Section 1.103-18(1X2) of the Regulations, or (iii) expenditures constituting preliminary expenditures as defined in Section 1.103-18(1)12) of the Regulations, no expenditures for the foregoing projects as identified on Exhibit A have heretofore been made by the City and no expenditures will be made by the City until atter the date of this Resolution. �3 / Resolution 93 - Page 2 (c) The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for costs of the designated projects out of the proceeds of debt (the "Bonds") to be incurred by the City after the date of payment of all or a portion of the costs. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures as defined in Section 1.150-1(h) of the Regulations. (d) This declaration is a declaration of official intent adopted pursuant to Section 1.103-18 of the Regulations. Budeetary Matters. As of the date hereof, there are no City funds reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside) to provide permanent financing for the expenditures related to the projects, other than pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution, therefore, is determined to be consistent with the City's budgetary and financial circumstances as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof, all within the meaning and content of the Regulations. filing. This resolution shall he filed within 30 days of its adoption in the publicly available official books and records of the City. This resolution shall be available for inspection at the office of the City Clerk at the City Hall (which is the main administrative office of the City) during normal business hours of the City on every business day until the date of issuance of the Bonds. Reimbursement Allocations. The City's financial officer shall be responsible for making the "reimbursement allocations" described in the Regulations, being generally the transfer of the appropriate amount of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse the source of temporary financing used by the City to make payment of the prior costs of the projects. Each allocation shall be evidenced by an entry on the official books and records of the City maintained for the Bonds, shall specifically identify the actual prior expenditure being reimbursed or, in the case of reimbursement of a fund or account in accordance with Section 1.103.18, the fund or account from which the expenditure was paid, and shall be effective to relieve the proceeds of the Bonds from any restriction under the bond resolution or other relevant legal documents for the Bonds, and under any applicable state statute, which would apply to the unspent proceeds of the Bonds. Adopted this 23rd day of August, 1993. Mayor City Administrator C13 Resolution 93 - Page 3 EXHIBIT A Proiect Description Estimated Cost to be Reimbursed From Bond Proceeds Hart Boulevard Trunk Storm Sewer Outlet and $192,000 Appurtenant Work - Project 93-06C �., RX -23-' 93 MON 10: 33 t D: HDS i PIC. TEL NO:'786-9034 tt57i Poi Fs' TOM oWnm or4ebpm m Services, Inc. tin i oomalood to dtta tint mmW Is p,rWksad aed awjMomW L#%re od= bonded only The do me of Me todivt" at emtty mead below. If ma reader or dds ftt wo mea b sax the bye aded MCWM or dro employee er "M 009 a fs ao &Uver It eo da Womtded reaplaa,, Zit bmeeelaaa4 00Y dm aeift by of ym hmdvow McalpL Room the wtgw ft MOMP 10 sae MMW at ma addraee betow via dt Unlad SMa Ib" Sand Plena deliver ilea fallowing page(e) to: NAME: "JGFF UL" FAX MftnER: i 1) wN S - Utbti FROM: Ge. O-VJ Y lt� e& wr DATE: 3 TDa: 10:30 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER LEWER RE: S'+rk,l il, t;SL o 'ClF 'MESSAGE: •�� �•, �,r.,c_ �.... �c _-A-O' U.1.._� If you do rm receive th Dome lax, phase call us as soon n p 1 Me ac (611) 350.7979. 4205 urca.w Lone NOM"SuIa 1 +00mmktmepoue. MN 5544, •vnom: e, 21560.7Q7e+ ax: 550.5221 gC,23-'93 MON 10:3,1 ID:SDS INC. TEL `0:786-3034 4571 P02 Couneilmember 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 INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-12 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1.14 THROUGH 1-15 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.13, 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 I. Btbi_ `c Hearing. This Council WWI meet on September 27, 1443, at approximately 7:00 p.m., to hold a public bearing 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 cum, of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1.1 through 1-12 and Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1.14 through 1.15, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (c) the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.13, 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 Plane for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-12 and Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1.14 through 1.13 (f) the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Pian for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.13, all pursuant to and in accordance with ' SC , Sections 464.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections 469.174 to 469.174, inclusive, ad amended. Section 2. j+jottce of Elmdng* Filing of Rmgm . The City Administrator is authorized and directed to rause notice of hearing, substantially in the forth attached bmato as Exheilm A, to be given as required by law, to place a copy of the proposed Modified Redevelopment Pian, Modified Tax l=ancet Financing Plans said flax increment Financing Plan on file in the Administrator's office at City Ball and to make mcb cagy available for inspection by the public no later them Angs 25, 1993. Tho motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Coaacilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted to favor theted. And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted by the Co=c:U in and for the City of Monticello. Mfnuesm, on , 1993. Mayor ATTEST: F.7-717_ 7 AWl 23-193 MW 10:35 1D:EDS INC. TEL NO:786-9034 Il571 PO4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )35. CITY OF MONTICELLO ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting A.,,.i:.J....,, ,,. of the City Couttd (the "Count") in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and forogoiag Bata of minutes of a meeting of the Council held on the date indicated with the original minutes thereof on file in my office and that the some is a full, true and cotreat transcript thereof insofar as said minutes relate to Resolution No. WITNESS my hand officially and the official seal of the Count this _ day of , 1993. City AdmiWaraw (SEAT.) AW -23-'93 MON 10:36 ID:HDS INC... ___ TEL No -7%-9034 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the "Council") in and for the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on September 27, 1993, at approximately 7:00 p.m., at City Hail, 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota, relating to the proposed modification. by increased project costs, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Redevelopment Project No. I and the approval and adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan relating thereto; the proposed modification, by increased project ants, of the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-12 and Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-14 through 1-13, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; and aha proposed adoption of Tax Increment Financing Plan relating to Tax Increment Financing Plan No. 1-13, also located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota ctor,=L Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. A copy of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-13, as proposed to be adopted at the office of the City Administrator at City hall no later than August 25, 1943. The property comprising Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-13 is as follows: Lot 7 and Lot 8, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park PID Number: 135-018-002070 PID Number: 135-018-002080 AAI 23-'93 MON 10:37 ID_BDS.JK. _.-. TEL NO: 786-9034 $8571 P06 Further information regarding the identification of the parcel to be b luded in Tet Increment Financing District No. 1-13 may be obtained from the office of the City Adminiarator. All interested persons may appear at the hearing and present their views orally or in writing. Dated: BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Chy Administrator BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM r 07/23/03 14-54116 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 35425 07/22/93 BEST BARRICADE 3$4'25 07/2,2/93 BEST BARRICADE Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT & 22 CHECK VOIDED r 177.78CR 22 CHECK VOIDE0 15.23CR 193.01CR *C 35432 04/22/93 DOUBLE 0 ELECTRIC .90486 CORRECT CODING 780.000R 3,5432 07/22/93 DOUBLE 0 ELECTRIC .90186 CORRECT CODING 780.00 0.00 4C 57 CHECK VOIDED 3.9,.30CR 227 REPAIR TIRES/STREETS 177.78 227 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARKS 15.23 193.01 *.0 119 SALES TAX/WATER DEPT 249.70 119 SALES TAX/TREE FUND 9.70 119 MISC SALES TAX 119.57 377.97 *C 119 QUARTERLY WATER CON 1.953.90 729 REG FEE/GARY ANDERSON 15.00 156 REG FEE/GARY ANDERSON 10.00 1'18 WATERCRAFT TITLE 174.00 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 245.00 759 INFO CENTER SALARY 48.88 750 INFO CENTER SALARY 14.36CR 34.50 *•C 285 INFO CENTER SALARY 72.25 205 INFO CENTER SALARY21.25CR 51.00 +C 210 POSTAGE/SEW&WATER BIL 1}•0.59 210 POSTAGE/SEWAWATER BIL 110.58 221.17 *c 221 C D INVESTMENT 300.000.00 221 C 0 INVESTMENT/WIRE CH 20.00 300.020.00 OC 395 LATRINE RENTAL 215.40 555 CIVIL DEFENSE PHONE CMG 3.11 35434 04/22/93 FIRE ENGINEERING 95467 0,7/22/93 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 35467 07/22/03 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 35468 07/22/93 MINNESOTA DEPART OF 35468 00/22/93 MINNESOTA DEPART OF 35468 07/22/03 MINNESOTA DEPART OF 35460 07/22/93 MINNESOTA DEPART OF 35470 07/22/93 MINNESOTA BUILDING 0 35471 07/22/03 NORTHWEST MINNESOTA 35472 07/22/93 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 35473 07/22/03 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 35474 07/22/93 RIGOEWAY/JErJNIFEk 35474 01/22/13 RIGOEWAY/JENNIFER 35475 07/22/03 HAVES/WILMA 35475 07/22/93 H'AYES/WILMA 35A76 07/22/93 U.S. POSTMASTER 35478 01/22/03 U.S. POSTMASTER 35477 07/22/n3 MARQUETTE 6ANK MONTI 33477 07/22/93 MAROUETTE BANK MONTI C35470 07/23/93 BIFF$. 10C- 35479 07/23/93 CELLULAR ONE c BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/23/93 14:54:16 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 35480 07/23/93 CENTURY LABS 35481 07/23/93 CITY OF MONTICELLO 35482 07/23/93 EMERGENCY APPARATUS 35483 07/23/93 FLICKER'S T.V. @ PGG 35483 07/23/93 FLICKER'S T.V. & APP 35484 07/23/93 HATCH -PETERSON SALES 35484 07/23/93 HATCH -PETERSON SALES 35484 07,/23/93 HATCH -PETERSON SALES 35484 07/23/93 HATCH -PETERSON SALES 35485 01/23/93 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC 35486 07/23/93 INDUSTRIAL MAINT. SU 35467 07/23/93 MCDOWALL COMPANY 35488 07/23/93 MONTICELLO PAPER & S 35480 07/23/93 MONTICELLO PRINTING 35490 07/23/93 MONTICELLO VACUUM CE 351,91 07/23/93 O.E.I. BUSINESS FORM 35491 07/23/93 O.E.I. BUSINESS FORM 35491 07/23/03 O.E.I. BUSINESS FORM 35+192 07/23/93 OL`i0N R SONS ELECTRI 35492 07/23/93 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 35492 07/23/93 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 3549? 07/23/93 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 35493 07/23/93 DUALITY LAW14 MAIW EN 35494 07/23/93 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COM 35495 07/23/93 ST.CLOUD FIRE EOUIPM 35495 07/23/03 ST.CLOUD FIRE EOUIPM 35495 07/23/93 ST.CL000 FIRE EOUIPM 35495 07/23/03 ST.CLOUD FIRE EOUIPM Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C 276 CLEANING SUPPLIES/PARK 97.13 760 SEW/WAT BILL KRAMER PR 40.35 480 f6TC OF FIRE DEPT VEH 461.33 60 WASHER/DRYER PURCHASE 770.98 60 SCANNER ATENNA HOOK U 162.54 933.52 }G 94 CLOTHING SUP/WATER 26.97 94 MISC SUPPLIES/FIRE OE 152.72 94 SIGN CONES/STREETS 51.12 94 CLOTHING SUP/STREETS 82.45 315.26 !C 85 GAS/FIRE DEPT 140.67 514 MISC NUTS/COLTS-SHOE' 323.41 111 MTC OF FURNACE/CITY H 147.13 724 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 97.61 137 INCIDENT REPORTS/FIRE 30.30 141 VACUUM BRUSHES/LIBRARY 15.28 158 COPY MCH PAPER/CITY 11 1?4.76 158 CORRECT CODING 462.25 158 CORRECT COOING 462.25CR 174.76 vC 160 SUPPLIES/NEW WARMING H 23.04 100 INSTAL ELEC/WASH & OR 329.13 160 REPAIR CITY HALL LITE 403.20 160 SEWER LIFT STA110N REP 57.90 813.27 4C 319 MOWING CHARGES 177.75 644 LEGAL PUB/REP O[GESTE 1$5.40 242 MTC OF FIRE EXTINGUISH 43.00 242 MTC OF FIRE EXTINOUIS 177.71 242 MTC OF FIRE EXTTN0L7ISH 13.50 242 MTC OF FIRE EXTINGUISH 28.75 202.96 4C 8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM /s?7/23/03 14:54:16 ll WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 35496 07/23/93 UNITED STATES CELLUL 35496 07/23/03 UNITED STATES CELLUL 35497 07/23/03 ZIEGLER, INC. GENERAL CHECKING 94 Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C 756 PHONE CHARGES/CIV:IL DE 49.37 758 PHONE CHGS/FIRE DEPT 37.60 88.97 *C 425 MTC OF STREET EQUIP 644.61 TOTAL 308,148.52 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/30/93 12:37:42 WARk ANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 35047 07/30/93 HENRY & ASSOCIATES 35047 07/30/93 HENRY & ASSOCIATES 35497 07/30/93 ZIE ,LER. INC. 351,99 07/30/93 CONOON-SItELLV ANTIOU 35499 07/36/03 RIVERSIDE OIL 35500 07/30/83 MN DEPART OF NATUkAL 35501 07/30/93 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 35502 07/30/93 MINNESOTA RURAL NATE 35503 01/30/93 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/93 COAST TO COAST 35503 01/30/93 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/93 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/03 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/93 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/03 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/93 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/03 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/93 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/03 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/93 COAST TO COAST 35503 07/30/93 COAST TO COAT 35503 07/30/93 COAST TO COAST GENERAL CHECKING A Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C1 545 CORRECT COOING 261.06Ck 545 CORRECT COOING 261.06 0.00 1,25 CHEC9 VOIDED 644.61CR 389 VEH INS/ANITIQUE CAR 60.75 496 GAS/FIRE DEPT 94.35 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 133.00 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 319.00 128 MEMBERSHIP DUES/WATER 150.00 35 MISC SUP/SEWER COLL 12.12 35 MISC SUP/WATER DEPT 33.56 35 MISC SUP/LIBRARY 2.01 35 CLEANING SUP/LIBRARV 14.55 35 MISC SUPPLIES/BLD INSP 17.03 35 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS OE 01.54 35 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GA 140.69 35 MISC SUPPLIES/SHOP & 0 51.90 35 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 76.95 35 MISC SUPPLIES/ANIMAL 13.75 35 BLD REPAIR SVP/PARKS 16.12 35 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/PARK 5.31 35 NEW WARMING HSE SVPPLI 87.25 35 PAINT/SENIOR CIT BLD 221.34 754.12 TOTAL 072.61 +'CI +Ct BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM' 08/03/03• 10:46:53 Disbursement Journal �--dARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C GENERAL CHECKING 36504 08/04/93 AGASSIZ ENVIRONMENTA 761 PPOF SEP.V/CILLE PFO 6.851.80 35505 08/04/93 ARA CORY REM SHMeNT 408 CITY HAIL SUPPLIES 42.00 35506 08/04/93 SLONIGEN SUILOERS .80308 LASOP./NEW NAP.M.ING H 6.250.00 35507 09/01093 DONOHUE RAJKOWSXI LT .00307 RECORDING, FEES/TACO F:E 17.00 35508 09/04/93 DOUBLE D ELECTRIC. I .9019G ELECTPICAL/WARMING 2.4GG.60 36509 08/04/93 HERMES/JERRY 91 LIBRARY CLEANING, CONT 227.50 t 35510 08/04/93 HOLMES & GRAVEN 96 LEGAL FEES/IIF 80.50 35511 08/04/93 LUKACH/JOHN 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 50.20 35511 08/04/93 LUKACH/JOHN 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 19.40 35511 09/04/93 LUKACH/JOHN 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 19.40 36511 08/04/93 LUKACH/JGHN 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 19.40 116.40 fC ( 35512 08/04/93 M.ONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1.100.00 ` 35513 00/04/93 MOIJGICELI.O SENIOR CI 130 MONTHLY CONTRIBUTIO ?.933.33 35514 08/04/93 14UTECH ENVIRONMENTAL 157 CHEteICALS/WWTP 1.236.2.3 35515 08/04/93 OLSON. US:fT,AG,AH & 232 LEAAL FEtS 960.40 35416 00/04/93 PROFESSTONAI. SEP.VICL• 175 WW''P 0001 PACT PAY. 30.4?1.fi0 35517 00/04/99 VROMACO. INC. 7E3 MIRRr'RS/WAQMING ROUSE 107.75 35519 00/04/93 W:!ALITV LAWN MAINiEN 319 .OWING CXAP-i':5 18?.50 95:+19 08/04/09 SUNRISE ';PFCTAI.IY CO 792 C:A1JI.XIN6/WAVMINb 14U-IS 165.130 55420 0 /04/93 WRIGM-HE':JJCPIN COOP 51? UIIIITIEi 9.75 -JJF`+AI. LHFCUING r0TAL 53.077.4 c BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/17/93 10:081 1'3 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 355,21 08/05/93 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 3.5522 09/95/93 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 35523 08/05/93 RIGOEWA'Y/JENN'IFER 35523 08/05/93 RIGDEWAY/JENNIFER 35524 08/05/93 HAVES/WILMA 35524 08/05/93 NAVES/WILMA 35525 08/05/93 ADOPT -A -PET 35526 08/05/93 MINNESOTA HOMEWARD 8 35527 08/05/93 SHIELY MASONRY PRODU 35528 08/05/03 PETTY CASH 35528 08/05/93 PETTY CASH 35528 08/05/93 PETTY CASH 35528 08/05/93 PETTY CASH 35528 08/05/03 PETTY CASH 35528 08/05/93 PETTY CASH, 35528 09/05/63 PETTY CASH 35528 08/05/93 PETTY CASH 35529 08/05/83 D & 'K REFUSE RECYCLI ,35530 08105/03 AME GROUP 35531 08/05/83 BIG LAKE LUMBER 35532 08/05/03 B'RIDGEWATER TELEPHON 35532 08/05/93 BRIOG NATER TELEPHON 35532 08/05/03 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 35532 08/05/93 BRIOGEWATER TELEPHON 35532'08/05/03 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 35532 08/05/93 BRIDGEWATER TELEPNON 35532 08/05/03 SR'IDGEWATER TELEPHON 35532 08/05/83 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 35532 08/05/03 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 35532 08/05/93 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 35533 08/05/93 COPY OUPLCATING PROD I Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CI 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 1158.00 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 277.00 359 INFO CENTER SALARY 80i.75 759 INFO CENTER SALARY 23.75CR 57.00 *C 285 INFO CENTER SALARY 82.88 285 INFO CENTER SALARY 24.38CR 58.50 wC 4 ANIMAL ADOPTIONS 80.00 704 ANIMAL ADOPTIONS 230.00 539 CLAMPS/7TH STRT PROJ 42.60 188 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 11.80 166 DEP REG SUPPLIES 4.63 166 TRAVEL EXPENSE/BLD INSP 2.25 106 SUPPLIES/STREETS 4.00 166 MISC PROF SERV/STREETS 2.00 1.66 TRAVEL EXPENSE/STREETS 3.20 166 PROF SERV/ PLAN A 2ON 1.00 106 POSTAGE/CITY HALL 16. T4 45.71 ►C 011 RECYCLING CONTRACT 2.340.90 8 SAND/PARKS DEPT 403.47 310 SANG/PARKS DEPT 6.66 24 PHONE CHARGES 62.01 24 PHONE CHARGES 67.08 24 PHONE CHARGES 116.74 24 PHONE CHARGES 35.02 24 PHONE CHARGES 133.22 24 PHONE CHARGES 45.92 24 PHONE CHARGES 20.75 24 PHONE CHARGES 89.45 24 PHONE CHARGES 31.73 24 PHONE CHARGES 747.49 1.350.92 •r 41 COPY MCH MTC/LIBRARY 111.16 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/17/93 10:06:13 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 35534 08/05/93 CULLIGAN 35535 08/05/93 FEEORITE CONTROLS, I 35535 08/05/93 FEEORITE CONTROLS. I 35536 08/05/93 HOGLUND COACH LINES 35537 08/05/93 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY 35537 08/05/93 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY 35537 08/05/03 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY 35537 08/05/93 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY 35538 08/05/93 PAGE LINK 35538 08/05/93 PAGE LINK 35538 08/05/93 PAGE LINK 35538 08/05/03 PAGE LINK 35538 08/05/93 PAGE LINK 35538 08/05/03 PAGE LINK 35538 08/05/93 PAGE LINK 35538 08/05/93 PAGE LINK 35530 08/05/03 SENTRY SYSTEMS 35540 08/05/93 STAR TRIBUNE 35541 08/05/03 UNOCAL 35542 08/05/83 'VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 35542 08/05/03 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA GENERAL CHECKING C Disbursement Journal DESCR3PTION AMOUNT C 753 WATER SOFTNER CHGS/REN 22.05 56 PROF SERVICES/WATER OE 88.00 56 ELBOW THREAD/MATER DEP 14.13 102.13 483 HEARTLAND EXPRESS C 5,258.13 115 UTILITIES 4.26 115 UTILITIES 6.89 115 UTILITIES 12.68 115 UTILITIES 28.38 52.21 703 PAGER CHARGES 42.60 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 24.50 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 194.90 198 FIRE DEPT ALARM MTC 126.00 197 NEWSPAPER SUBCRIPTION 19.50 213 GAS/FIRE DEPT 49.48 524 GARBAGE CONTRACT 11003.72 524 SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 532.44 11,630.10 TOTAL 22.622.48 oC IC BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM r 08/17/93 10:30:41 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 35531 08/11/93 BIG LAKE LUMBER 35531 08/11/93 BIG LAKE LUMBER Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT l 316 CORRECT COOING 6.66CR 316 CORRECT COOING 6.66 0.00 h't 35543 08/11/93 BARTON SAND & GRAVEL 305 SAND/PARKS DEPT 87.88 35544 06/11/93 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 159.00' 35545 08/11/93 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 158.00 35546 08/11/93 AMERICAN PLANNING AS 666 MEMBERSHIP ODES/PLAN- 146.00 35547 08/11/93 ARA CORY REFRESHMENT 408 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 84.00 35548 08/11/93 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS 17 ALARM SYSTEM/WARMING $73.27' 35548 08/11/03 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS 17 CIVIL DEF RADIOS/RE 3.368.63 35548 08/11/93 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS 10 RADIO REPAIRS/STREETS 193.26 4.135.16 35549 09/11/93 BERGSTROM BROS. INC. 21 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/STRT 5.96 35550 08/11/03 BRAUN INTERTEC ENVIO 638 ENG FEES/CARDINAL NIL 876.50 35551 08/11/93 BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 26 PROF SERV/HRA 581.25 35552 08/11/93 CITY OF BLAINE 764 PAINT/WATER DEPT 420.00 35553 08/11/93 FAIR'S GARDEN CENTER 55 SHOP LANDSCAPING 56.87 35554 08/11/03 FOREST CITY ROAD LAN 563 DUMPING CHGS/STREET OE 45.00 35555 08/11/93 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE 64 RENTALS FOR PARKS DEPT 30.95 35558 08/11/03 GOPHER STATE ONE CAL 60 PROF SERV/WATER DEPT 162.00 35557 08/11/93 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 78 SHOP 6 GAR SUPPLIES 6.82 35551 08/11/03 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREE 15.71 35557 08/11/93 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 78 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 58.13 82.66 35558 08/11/93 HERMES/JERRY 81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50 35559 00/11/03 INFORMATION CENTER S .90300 COMPUTER CLASSES/K 00 390.00 35560 08/11/93 J M OIL COMPANY 95 OIl/FIRE DEPT 18.70 C35561 08/11/93 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN 601 PROF SERVICES/ANIMAL 101.10 Tl qj BkC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/17/93 10:30:41 (—WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 35562 08/11/93 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 35562 08/11/03 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 35563 08/11/93 MAUS FOODS 35563 08/11/93 MAUS FOODS 35563 08/11/93 MAUS FOODS 35564 08/11/93 MINN DEPUTY REGISTRA 35565 08/11/93 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 35,566 08/11/93 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 35567 08/11/93 MONTICELLO TIMES 35561 09/11/03 MONTICELLO TIMES 35567 08/11/93 MONTICELLO TI14ES 35567 08/11/93 MONTICELLO TIMES 35567 08/11/93 MONTICELLO TI14ES 35567 08/11/93 MONTICELLO TIMES 35568 08/11/93 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN 35508 08/11/93 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN 35568 08/11/93 MOON MOTOR SALES. IN 35569 08/11/03 NORTHERN STATES POWE 35568 08/11/93 NORTHERN STATES POWE 35569 08/11/93 NORTHERN STATES POWE 35569 08/11/93 NORTHERN STATES POWE 35580 08/11/03 NORTHERN STATES POWE 35509 08/11/93 NORTHERN STATES POWE 35580 08/11/93 NORTHERN STATES POWE 35560 00/11/93 NORTHERN STAPES POWE 35560 09/11/03 NORTHERN STATES POWE 35569 08/11/93 NORTHERN STALES POWE 35570 08/11/93 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS 35571 08/11/93 OMANN BROTHERS. INC. 35572 08/11/03 ORR- SCHELEN-MAVERON 35572 08/11/93 ORR- SCHELEN-MAVERON 35572 00/11/93 ORR-SCHELEN-MAVERON 35512 08/11/03 ORR-SCHELEN-MAVERCN Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C 107 PARK SUPPLIES 75.43 107 STREET SUPPLIES 59.64 135.07 108 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 109.16 108 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 5.42 108 SHOP R GARAGE SUPPLIES 6.98 121.56 121 REG FEE/DEPUTY REGISTR 15.00 185.ANIMAL CONTP.OL CONT 1,100.00 136 OFFICE SUPPLIES 130.99 140 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES 73.36 140 BLO PERMIT INFORMATION 67.20 140 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 477.10 140 ANNUAL FINANCE REPORT 561.20 140 DIGESTER REPLACMT NOTI 68.12 140 WEST BRDV ROAD WORK 108.00 1.354.98 142 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/PARK 9.90 142 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARK 348.20 142 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/TRE 58.59 417.79 148 UTILITIES 2.622.55 148 UTILITIES 28L.45 148 UTILITIES 4,454.98 148 UTILITIES 73.12 148 UTILITIES 1,002.76 148 UTILITIES 14.05 148 UTILITIES 394.81 148 UTILITIES 258.61 148 UTILITIES 557.70 140 UTILITIES 847.69 10.508.38 550 PROF SERV/PLAN @ ZON 440.85 334 SANO/STREET SUPPLIES 407.78 162 ENGINEERING FEES 5,057.72 162 ENG FEES/HART BLVD 3.052.58 1G2 ENG FEES/WWTP DIGES 5,530.00 162 ENG FEES/CARDINAL H 0,627.08 22,073.72 *C ►C ►C ►C rc- ►C BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/17/93 10:30:41 C"WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 35573 08/11/93 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 35573 08/11/93 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 35574 08/11/93PROFESSIONAL EOUIPME 35575 08/11/93 QUALITY LAWN MAINTEN 35576 08/11/93 RIVERSIDE OIL 35577 06/1'/93 ROYAL TIRE OF 14ONTIC 35578 08/11/93 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 35579 08/11/93 SCHARBER & SONS. INC 35580 08/11/03 SHAMROCK INDUSTRIES, 35581 08/11/93 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 35581 08/11/03 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 35581 08/11/93 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 35581 09/1h/03 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 35582 08/11/93 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 35562 08/11/93 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 35582 08/11/03 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 35582 08/11/93 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 35582 08/11/93 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 35592 08/11/93 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 35583 08/11/93 WRIGHT COUNTY AUOITO 35583 08/11/93 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 38584 08/11/03 Y.M.C,A. OF MINNEAPO GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL. 173 FIRE HALL CLEANING CON 50.00 173 CITY HALL CLEANING CO 400.00 450.00 765 CHEMICALS/SEWER COLL 45.40 319 MOWING CHARGES 158.75 496 GAS/'STREETS 865.65 227 LAWN MOWER TIRE REPAIR 6.50 184 MTC AGRMT/SHOP & GAR 65.50 229 VEH REPAIR PARTS/DARKS 17.94 576 RECYCLING CONTAINERS 863.58 193 WARMING HOUSE BLO 163.56 193 03 -OIC CTY RD 75 IMPR 480.31 193 BLO REPAIR SUP/PARKS 14.82 193 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 0 137.37 796.06 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 17.10 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 35.40 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 16.00 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 16.00 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 71.36 211 UNIFORM. RENTAL 71.37 227.85 219 SHERIFF'S CONTRACT 21.783.00 210 ADO'L LANDFILL CHG 12,870.04 34,463.04 224 MONTHLY CONTRACT PAYM 625.00 TOTAL 83.860.05 "CH BCH 4CH *CH 8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/17/93 10:58:50 CWARRANT DATE VE140OR GENERAL CHECKING 35231 08/16/93 DAVIS WATER EOUIPMEN 35231 08/16/93 DAVIS WATER EQUIPMEN 35385 08/16/93 ANNANDALE SOD SERVIC 35385 08/16/93 ANNANDALE SOD SERVIC 35581 08/16/93 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 35581 08/16/93 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 35585 08/17/93 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 35585 08/17/93 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 35585 08/17/93 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 15586 06/17/93 ASTECH 35587 06/17/93 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS 38587 08/17/93 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS 35587 08/17/93 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS 35588 08/17/93 AUTOMATIC GARAGE 000 35589 08/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35589 08/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35589 08/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35589 08/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35580 08/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35589 08/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35580 08/17/03 COAST TO COAST 35569 06/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35580 08/17/03 COAST TO COAST 35589 08/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35589 08/17/03 COAST TO COAST 35589 00/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35f80 08/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35589 08/17/93 COAST TO COAST 35589 08/17/03 COAST TO COAST 35589 08/17/93 COAST TO COAST Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL! 290 CHANGE CODING 339.01CR 290 CHANGE CODING 339.01 0.00 585 CHANGE COOING 335.48CR 585 CHANGE CODING 335.48 0.00 193 CHANGE CODING 35.98CR 1,,93 CHANGE CODING 35.98 0.00 10 VOLLEYBALL NET/PARKS 69.30 10 SIGNS AND PAINT/STREE 5.71.55 10 HANDICAP SIGNS FOR RE 124.80 765.65 371 STREET SEALCOATING 34,618.30 17 RADIO INSTALL/STREETS 585.25 17 RADIO INSTALL/PW INSPE 59.68 17 RADIO BATTERIES/STREE 137.70 782.63 260 REP GARAGE DOOR/FIRE 0 76.22 35 SHOP & GARAGE SUPPLIES 2.64 35 CORRECT COOING TO PK S 13.27CR 35 SUPPLIES/ANIMAL CONTRO 93.71 35 CLEANING SUP/ANIMAL 4.89 35 STREET SUPPLIES 40.68 35 LIBRARY CLEANING SUP 40.66 35 BLD REP SUP/SHOP & GAR 9.04 35 BLO REP SUPPLIES/PARKS 28.94 35 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 16.93 35 MISC PARK SUPPLIES 210.52 35 EQUIP REP PARTS/PARKS 65.47 35 SMALL TOOLS/PARKS 20.18 35 BLD REPAIRS/SENIOR CIT 5.52 35 BLD REPATRS/CITY HALL 2.76 35 WATER SUPPLIES $4.46 35 EQUIP MTC/PARKS DEPT 03.30 847.73 35590 09/17/93 COMMUNICATION AUDITO 38 NEW PAGER/FIFE DEPT 414.22 C35591 08/17/03 CONTINENTAL SAFETY 6 256 SMALL EQUIPMENT/FIRE 178.07 *CHf *CHI *CHI RCHI 'ICH *CH BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/17/93 10:58:50 VARP.ANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 35592 08/17/93 OOTY/KAREN 35593 08/17/93 DYNA SYSTEMS 35584 08/17/93 FEEORITE CONTROLS, I 35594 08/17/93 FEEORITE CONTROLS. I 35595 08/11/93 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE 35596 08/17/93 KEN'S 66 SERVICE 35597 08/17/93 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA 35597 08/17/93 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA 35596 08/17/93 LIBERTY COMPUTER SUP 35599 08/17/93 MARCO BUSINESS PROOU 35600 08/17/93 MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP 35601 08/17/93 MONTICELLO-8IG LAKE 35602 08/17/93 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 35602 08/17/93 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 35602 08/17/93 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 35602 08/17/03 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 35601 08/17/93 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 35003 08/17/93 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS 35604 08/17/03 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 35004 08/17/93 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 35804 09/17/93 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 35604 08/17/93 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 35604 08/17/93 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 35605 08/17/93 PLUMBERY-PURCELL'S P 35606 08/17/93 RELIABLE CORPORATION 35806 08/17/93 RELIABLE CORPORATION Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA 48 MILEAGE EXPENSE 96.34 50 MISC NUTS/BOLTS-SHOP 198.36 56 MISC PROF SERV/WATEP 12.00 56 CHEMICALS/WATER DEP 2.230.38 2.242.38 VCHE 510 CLOTHING SUP/FIRE DEP 333.09 766 VEHICLE MTC/FIRE DEPT 72.75 98 REG FEE/S ANDERSON 115.00 98 REG FEE/JEFF 0 115.00 230.00 I'CHE 98 COMPUTER PAPER/CITY H 189.04 106 COPY MCH REPAIRS/P WOR 07.60 ` 399 OAA PAYMENT 13.750.00 403 TRAINING SCHOOL/FIRE 420.00 144 SHADE TREE SUPPLIES 9.03 144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/$TREE 29.05 144 WARMING HOUSE SUPPLIES 11.45 144 VECH MTC/FIRE DEPT 38.81 144 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 9.05 97.19 +CHI 550 PROF SERV/PLAN L ZON 519.00 160 BLD MTC/FIRE DEPT 59.38 160 EQUIP REPAIRS/SEWER C 218.87 160 BLD REP SUP/SHOP & GAR 31.51 160 MISC SUPPLIES/WATER DP 40.87 160 PLUMBING/NEM WARMIN 6.016.81 6.367.24 tcHk 251 INSTALL WATER PIPE/FI 250.05 179 MISC OFFICE SUP/C HALL 21.00 170 COMPUTER SUP/C HALL 20.78 51.58 OCH ( 35601 08/11/03 RUFF AUTO PARTS 268 VEH MTC/FIRE DEPT 45.00 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/17/93 10:58:50 C -WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 35608 08/17/93 SCHLVENDER CONSTRUCT 35609 08/17/93 SPARKLE WASH 35610 06/17/93 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CO 35610 08/17/93 WATERPRO SUPPLIE'S CO 35611 08/17/93 WRIGHT COUNTY HUMAN 35612 08/17/93 ZIEGLER, INC. GENERAL CHECKING C Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLr 187 OIG WATER LINES/CR 75 275.00 768 STREET CLEANING 87.86 670 METERS FOR RESALE/WAT 564.00 670 WATER UTILITY MTC SUP 868.38 1.432.38 *CHI 767 VACCINES/FIRE DEPT 539.00 425 EQUIP REP PARTS/STREE 275.43 TOTAL 65.060.01 F3RC FTNAN'CTAL SY.STEM 13:4,0:53 Disbursement Journal ty.01'/21/93 `WARRANT DATE VENDOR OESCPTPTION AMOUNT Olt LIQUOR FUND 17030 07/2.gc33 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 000012 WINE PURCHASE 37.62 11030 07/21/93' EAGLE WING COMPANY 800012 MIX FOR RESALE 44.92 82.44 0, 17031 07/21/t73 GRIGGS. COOPER A COM 8'00018 LI9UOR PURCHASE 6.106.49 17032 07/21/93 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 285.36 17033 07/21/93 MPOOWAI.L COMPANY 800065 REPAIR COOLER 347.33 1#014 C7/21/93 PHILLIPS A SONb CO/E 600037 LIQUOR PUP_HASE 3.140.17 17034 07/21/93 PHIL1 TPS R SONS CO/E 80-0037 WINY PURCHASE $32.90 3.679.07 xCF 11035 07/21/93 QUALITY WINF & SPIRI 800060 WINF PURCHASE 406.88 17035 07/21/93 QUALITY WIVE & SPIRI 800040 MILL ITEM FOR RESALE TOO .53 17035 07/21/93 QUALITY WINF. � SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 3.531.19 4.128.38 *CF 17036 07/21/83 ST. CLOUn FIRE E001P 800072 MTC OF FIRE EXTINOUISH 14 .11 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 14.54'3.3? BPC FINANCIAL SYSTEM „07/30/03 12:37:08 Disbursement Journal CARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL C •CF +cr *CN . LIQUOR FUND 10725 07/29/93 MINN DEPART OF PUBLI 800086 CHECK VOIOEO 347.33CR 10737 07/29/93 QUALITY WINE R SPIRI 80004-0 LIQUOR PURCHASE 4.483.16 10737 07/29/93 QUALITY WINE & SPIPI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 168.10 4.651.28 10738 07/29/93 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 302.84 10738 07/20/93 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 1,023.83 1.386.77 17039 07/29/93 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI $00040 LIQUOR PURCH4SE 542.94 17040 07/29/93 JOHNSON PRO$ WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1.255.70 17040 07/29/93 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 8000?2 WINE PURCHAS 814.15 21069.85 17041 07/29/93 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 WINE PURCHASE 564.55 17041 07/29/93 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 LIQUOR PURCHASE 3.017.07 4.181.62 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 12.485..13 C •CF +cr *CN . BkC FINANCIAL SYSTEM �I 08/03/93 10.46'tII Qisbur%e'ment Journal L'ARRA"T PATE VENDOR D@SCRIPTION AMOUNT Cts LIQUOR FUND 17042 08/04/93 BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA 800401 POP PURCHASE 283.55 17043 06/04/03 CITY OF MONTICELLO 800003 SEWER AND WATER BILL 120.10 17044 08/04/93 COAS4 TO COAST 800004 CLEANING SUPPLIES 29.55 17045 08/04/9,3 OAVMOR HAMCO 800085 COMPUTER PAPER 23.96 17046 08/04/93 DICK WHOLESALE CO.. 600011 BEER PUP.CHASE 3.328.10 17046 08/04/03 OICK WHOLESALE CO.. 8OOD11 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 48.48 3.376.56 KCh 17047 08/04/93 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 000012 WINE PURCHASE 444.20 17047 06/04/93 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 KISC MIXES FOR RESALE 97.70 541.99 fct 17049 06/04/93 G & K SERVICE 800129 MTC OF BLD/fL,OOR MATS 31'.01 17049 08/04/93 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800'018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2.1.34.20 17050 08/04/93 HOME JUICE 800136 JMICE PURCHASE 1;1.30 17051 08/04/03 JUDE CANOV S TOBACCO 80009-1 CIGS & CIGARS FOR RES 282.00 17051 08/04/93 JUDE CANDY 8 TOBACCO 800021 LIAUOR STORE SUPPLIES 64, R0 320.80 4CI 17052 08/04/93 MIDWEST GAS COMPANY 800028 UTILITIES 11.63 17053 08/04/03 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY 800,130 !COOLERS FOR RESALE 122.49 17054 04/-,4/03 MINNESOTA CROWN DIST 800145 WINE PURCHASE 21.8.00 17055 073/04/93 MONTIGELLO' OwFICE PR 800031 OFFICE SOPPLIE3 12.95 1'1056 00/04/93 MONTICELLO TIMES 000032 ADVERTISING 80.10 17057 00/04/93 MONTICLLLO VACUUM CE 000050 VA(, BAIiS +3.93 17059 06/04/83 NORTHERN S AIF9 POWE 800035 UTILITIES 1.103.11 17058 03/04/93 QUALITY WINC & SPI3'I 800040 LIOUCR PURCHASE 2.790.93 17099 00/0b/93 OUA4ITV WINO & SPX01 000040 WINE PURCHASE 133.10 2,,354.03 #C 17fJf)O 00/04/03 ROWS ICC COfM;kANV 800041 ICE PUPCNASF. 000.26 C11061 00/04/93 THOWPE UIGTR113UTING 600040 CLFR PUWCHASf 27,514.55 BRC FTNANCTAL SYSTEM 08/03/93 1.0:46:11 Disbursement .-ournal C_ARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL LIQUOR FUND 1706? 08/04/93 TOTAL P,EC.TSTER SYSTE 800112 LA6ELS 21.30 17063 08/04/93 VIKING COCA-COLA BOT 800051 POP PURCHASE $68.00 17004 08/04/99 WRIGHT WAY SHOPPER 800106 ADVERTI-SING 44.00 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 40.712.22 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 08/10/03 12:43:55 ..APRANT DATE VENDOR Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C 17068 LIOUOR FUND DAY DISTRIBUTING CUM 800010 BEER PURCHASE 637.15 17065 08/10/93 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 800002 PHONE CHARGES 102.63 17066 08/10/93 CARLSON REFRIGERATIO 800094 COOLER REPAIRS 313.14 17067 08/10/93 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 BEER PURCHASE 21,491.40 17067 08/10/93 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 JUICE FOR RESALE 12.50 17067 08/10/93 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 MISC MIXES FOR RESALE 21.00 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 29.28 21,524.90 17068 08/10/93 DAY DISTRIBUTING CUM 800010 BEER PURCHASE 637.15 17068 08/10/93 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 MISC MIXES FOR RESALE 50.40 17068 08/10/93 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 MISC F000 ITEMS 26.30 713.85 17069 08/10/83 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 92.96 17070 08/10/93 FLESCH'S PAPER SERVI 800116 BAGS/OPERATING SUPPLI 286.66 17070 09/10/93 FLESCH'S PAPER SERVI 800116 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 29.28 315.94 17071 08/10/93 GRIGGS, COOPER & CON. 800018 LIQUOR. PURCHASE 2.166.58 17071 08/10/93 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800018 MIX FOR RESALE 44.56 7.211.14 17072 08/10/93 GROSSLEI71 BEVERAGE 1600010 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 45.74 17072 08/10/93 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1 800019 BEEP. PURCHASE 11,740.35 11,786.09 17073 08/10/93 GTE DIRECTORIES SERV 800126 ADVERTISING 32.00 17074 08/10/03 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 358.37 17074 08/10/93 JOHNSON B ROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 1.077.74 1,436.11 17075 08/10/93 LIEFERI TRUCKING 800025 FREIGHT CHARGES 557.47 11076 08/10/03 MCDOWALL COMPANY 800065 COOLER REPAIR 24.50 17077 08/10/93 MINK DEPAR-IME14T OF R 800000 SALES TAY DUE JULY 14,560.04 11018 08/10/93 NEW PROOUCIS SALES & 800152 MUGS FOR RESALE 238.82 17079 08/10/93 OLSON 6 SONS ELECTRI 800033 BUILDING REPAIR. 41.44 11080 08/10/93 PAUSTIS & SONS 800103 WINE PURCHASE 324.00 7061 08/10/93 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 WINE PURCHASE 159.30 17081 09/10/93 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/F. 800037 LIQUOR PURCHASE 589.61 746.91 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM O0/10/93 12:43:55 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C LIQUOR FUND 17082 08/10/93 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 600040 WINE PURCHASE 403.36 17062 08/10/93 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 707.94 17082 08/10/93 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 BEER PURCHASE 41.45 1.152.75 •( 17083 08/10/93 SENTRY SYSTEMS. INC. 600066 REPAIR ALARM SYSTEM 521.85 17064 08/10/93 SERVICE SALES CORPOR 800042 GENERAL OPERATING SUP 40.65 17085 08/10/93 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE 129.25 11085 08/10/93 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 JUICE FOR RESALE 11.99 17085 08/10/93 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 130.95 278.19 *( 17066 08/10/93 U S WEST COMMUNICATI 800093 ADVERTISING 24.60 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 57.041.08 C BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM '9/16/93 15:21:55 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR OESCRIP1"]ON AMOUNT C LIQUOR FUND 17087 08/16/93 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 6.550.09 17088 08/16/03 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1800019 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 68.70 17088 08/16/93 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 800019 BEEP. PURCHASE 9.577.65 0.646.35 't 17089 08/16/93 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 233.65 17090 08/16/93 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 800055 INSURANCE PREMIUM 2.762.00 17091 08/16/93 QUALilY W1r4E & SP1Rl 800040 WINE PURCHASE 462.05 17091 08/16/93 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 TAXABLE ITEMS FOR RESA 41.09 17091 08/16/93 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 4.193.05 11091 08/16/93 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 BEER PURCHASE 110.75 4.815.94 •C LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 24.008.03 INFORMATIONAL ITEM August 23, 1893 Setting workshop for 1994 for preliminary hudget review. (R.W.) It's that time of the year again and I'm working on preparing a preliminary 1994 budget proposal which will indicate our preliminary proposed tax levy requirements for next year. The City is required to notify the County Auditor on our proposed tax levy by September 15, 1993. Between the end of November and mid-December, the City Council will hold its actual public hearing on adopting a tax levy for next year, which cannot be more than the preliminary levy established prior to September 15. It is my intention to have the City Council adopt a preliminary levy at our September 13, 1993, Council meeting. Prior to this September 13 Council meeting, I am assuming the City Council would like to meet in a workshop session with City staff to review a proposed budget and establish a maximum lax levy you would be willing to consider later on. Again in 1994, there are no levy limitations, which will allow the City to levy any amount it feels is necessary. While 1 do not yet have a good indication where our levy requirements are at this point, the workshop should provide the Council with a good insight as to what our future needs might be and will outline the areas that may require us to consider an increase in our tax levy for next year. If the City is going to increase services and/or construct projects such as the Pathway and Bikeway System, additional funding sources will he necessary. Along with normal inflationary pressures, it may he difficult to keep the tax levy at its present level. After we adopt our preliminary levy on September 13, we would still have a couple of months to prepare a more detailed budget proposal. The only thing to remember is that we cannot levy more than the amount we adopt on September 13, but we can always go lower. Therefore, it is normally best to propose a preliminary tax levy that may be higher than necessary allowing flexibility in reducing the levy at the final hearing in December. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE August 20, 1993 Update of Gille Auto vrorerty. (G.A. ) See attached information. AGASSIZ ENVIRONMENTAL Wltwe ousatess arta the environinem come together 1-800-362.7087 August 20, 1893 Mr. Gary Anderson City of Monticello P.O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Gilly/s Auto Dear Mr. Anderson, As per our phone conversation i have prepared recommendations, an updated cost estimate and a tentative schedule. Veit 6 Company inc.of Rogers MN. is low bid for both demolition and tank removal services at a combined cost of $11,493.00. It is my lation to contract Veirs services for this project. Because (4) vent pipes are present on the site but only (2) tanks have been located, a strong possibility exists of (2) additional tanks that may need to be removed. Veirs costs for this was included in the Bid Review. The tentative schedule for this work is to begin demolition on Monday August 30, 19M, and to complete the entire project on Tuesday Septembor 7, 1993. Two items remain to be finalized; (1) the exact land farm costs and (2) the need for monitoring wells. Mw (912) 7ttb-21,tXj. FAX (ut2j M2t1)ti The lend farm casts Wl9 be detenydned on Monday August 23rd and tomarded to you at that time. The need for monitoring WOOS asnrat be "..,3 urdtt after the is wff plated and the laboratory results are received. I have also sWosed a sdmdWe of AgaseWs soft for this pmoaL It you have any question or O I oan be of further assistance please contact me at my office. G3chhn Landwehr K WY OF MO"CELLO ENVIRONMENTAL COST ESTIMATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ' Disposal Totals $2.M.00 1 $40" I 000 $1.400.00 SAOOO.00 400yrd 1140 W.parrd I LAS SAMPLES ORO LEAD DRO SM RCRA HANDLING TOTAL CHARGE SAMPLES Anwurd 2 needed 2 7 7 6 11 20 Cost per $92. $16. $92. $92. $370. 1120. Total $184 $20 $644 W" $2220 $22O $3932.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ' Disposal Totals $2.M.00 1 $40" I 000 $1.400.00 SAOOO.00 400yrd 1140 W.parrd I CITY OF MONTICELLO BID REVIEW PRICMQ Companies Demolitlon Tank Removal Corttarttinatlon Removal Total I i Veit & Company 54,983.00 $2,530.00 53,980.00 511,493.00 Jay Bros., Inc. $19,300.00 56,600.00 54,800.00 $29,700.00 Schhordw $11,500.00 541500.00 $6,300.00 522,300.00 ' Consbvalon Co. i Petro Tank Serview $12,200.00 $3,500.00 58,800.00 $22,600.00 ' ADDITIONAL S . Companies Addi lona) Tanks Remwal of Oquid in tanks Viet 6002000 $1,034. 53.30 water or 2O0080M $1,177. product sooa10000 $1,375. Jay Bros.,lnc. 6002000 $1,600. $2.00 Liquid 2001-6000 $2,200. $6.00 Sludge 6001-10000 53,000. . Schkonder 2002000 S2,OOO. 54.00 water Cans<rucdm Co. 20008000 53,000. 514.00 Sktdge 800010000 $4,000. 58.00 00 Petro Tank 200.2000 S 960. Services 20008000 $1,360. 6000.10000 $2,600. CLARIFICATIONS Companies Additlonals Gsted: Vert & Company Disposal in MPCA approved landfill, no asbestos, no testing, no well abandonment, no hazardous wastes. Jay Bros., Inc. Bond coat by others, peards by others, testing by others, all work to be completed at 1 mobdizatlon,eledric & sewer & water disconnect by others, baiting by others. Seduender Construction Co. Petro Tank Does not include hazardous waste disposal, bang, electirc, Services sewer or wader disconnects.