City Council Agenda Packet 02-14-1994AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 14, 1994.7 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Shirley Anderson., Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen
1. Call to order.
-4-j.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 24, 1994. /,'r ,q
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of a senior citizen center report.
5. Consideration of amendment to contract with D & K for curb -side recycling
services.
6. Consideration of purchase of 1/2 -ton 4 -wheel drive pickup for street
department (continued from 1/24 meeting).
7. Consideration of authorizing preparation of sketch plans for development of
property owned by the City in the Meadow Oak development.
8. Consideration of approving Outlot A, Country Club Manor, request for
proposals fiirmat and authorize distribution to developers.
9. Consideration to review for acceptance the Economic Development
Authority's (EDA) year-end statements and 1994 budget.
10. Consideration to review the UDAG and SCERG year-end financial reports
and consideration to approve the FDA's 1994 appropriation requests.
11. Consideration of granting a seasonal :1.2 beer license to the Monticello
Softball Association.
12. Consideration of appointing two Council members to a community arena
planning and management committee.
1:1. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 24, 1994 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Ken Maus
Members Ahsent: Patty Olsen
Consideration of aooroval of minutes of the regular meetine held
.January 10. 1993.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Clint
Herbst to approve the meeting minutes as submitted. Voting in favor:
Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad Fyle. Abstaining: Ken Maus.
Absent: Patty Olsen.
Citizens comments/Detitions, reauests. and comnlaints
None forthcoming.
Consideration of pursuing establishment of a ioint Dowers aereement
between the Citv of Monticello and Townshin of Bie Lake prohibiting
discharee of firearms on the MississinDi River.
Mark Olson reported that he has received complaints from Monticello
residents about duck hunters shooting from boats in the general direction of
homes located along the Mississippi River. Olson reported that this hunting
practice is legal as long as the duck hunters' boats are located on the Big
Lake Township side of the river. He went on to state that a joint powers
agreement between the City of Monticello and Big Lake Township
prohibiting discharge of firearms on the Mississippi River appears to be the
best course of action to take to eliminate this unsafe hunting activity.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to agree to establish a joint powers agreement with Big Lake
Township prohibiting discharge of firearms on the Mississippi River.
Motion carried unanimously with Patty Olsen absent.
Shirley Anderson thanked Mark Olson for taking the lead on finding a way
to solve this problem for residents living on the banks of the Mississippi in
Monticello.
Page 1 l f-)
Council Minutes - 1/24/94
5. Consideration of accenting a simultaneous city/township ballot procedure for
meeting sten #1 of stens that need to be achieved prior to authorizing a
general referendum on a community arena.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the City Council is asked by
the community arena association to review a proposal to conduct a
simultaneous ballot with the township regarding the arena issue.
Clint Herbst mentioned that obtaining a township commitment on payment
of the township's share of the debt service is one item among many that
needs to be accomplished. He would like to see some progress on some of
the other items.
Mark Holmes responded by saying that obtaining township participation in
the project was a major hurdle and that progress has been made on the
other items. Once an agreement is made on the process of obtaining
funding approval, we will complete our work on the other steps.
Herbst asked about the status of the Hockey Association's efforts to raise
$100,000. Holmes responded by saying that the community arena group is
at the 60% mark and that they expect to raise the remaining 40% by May.
Ken ;Haus focused the discussion by asking Council if all the other criteria
are met, does the City have a problem with a simultaneous vote? Shirley
Anderson was concerned that the proposal to conduct a simultaneous vote
changes the original deal and is not consistent with the original resolution.
Brad Fyle stated that he thought that the arena committee has followed
through. They haven't tried to get out of achieving the steps required by
the Council. Clint Herbst noted that he has no objection to a simultaneous
ballot but would like to see what type of progress has been made on the
other items that must be accomplished prior to conducting the referendum.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Clint
Herbst to accept a simultaneous ballot as meeting step 1. Voting in favor of
the motion: Ken Maus, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Shirley
Anderson. Absent: Patty Olsen.
6. Consideration of additional annual auoointment - Police Commission.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herhst, and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to appoint Liz DesMarais to fill the current vacant 3 -year
term. Motion carried unanimously with Patty Olsen absent.
Page 2
\ n
Council Minutes - 1/24/94
Consideration of waiving statutory liability limits - excess liability
insurance.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Brad Fyle to deny waiving the monetary limits on tort liability as
established by Minnesota Statutes 446. Motion carried unanimously with
Patty Olsen absent.
8. Consideration of moving ahead with phase 11 of the public works facility
expansion.
John Simola reported that on April 12, 1993, the City Council authorized
the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility report for the second phase of the
public works expansion at a cost of $2,100. The feasibility report was
reviewed by the City Council on May 24, 1993. The total project cost,
including design, was estimated at that time at $413,100.
During the discussion regarding phase 1I, some concerns were noted with
the 2,600 sq ft sand/salt mix storage building. It was suggested that this
area be downsized with the public works department hauling in sand/salt
more frequently during the winter or that a less expensive type of
construction be considered. Further consideration of phase 11 of the project
was then tabled due to funding limitations created by unexpected
maintenance expenses associated with repair of digesters at the wastewater
treatment plant. Recently, however, it has been found that the cost to
repair the digester covers is much less than previously anticipated;
therefore, Council may wish to again look at the possibility of development
of phase II of the public works facility.
Finally, Simola went on to state that we have downsized the salt, storage for
phase Il by 23`7 and revised the estimates accordingly. The new total
project cost is estimated at $379,700 and could be funded totally from
unallocated funds available this year in the liquor fund.
Brad Fyle noted that we have to watch where the money is going. He was
concerned about the size of the project. Perhaps it needs to be downsized.
Clint Herbst was concerned that by reducing the size, we might reduce the
functionality of the building.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to authorize OSM to prepare plans and specifications for
phase 11 of the public works facility. Final design of the sand/salt storage
structure is to be detennined by the building committee. Motion carried
unanimously with Patty Olsen absent. Brad Fyle and Clint Herbst
volunteered to serve on the building committee.
Page 3
L
Council Minutes - 1/24/94
9. Consideration of reaffirming R-3 zoning designation of Outlot A of Country
Club Manor. AND
10. Consider authorizing City staff to prepare request for proposals for multi-
family development of Outlot A of Country Club Manor.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed the City Council that the City has
received inquiries from developers and church organizations wishing to
purchase Outlot A of Country Club Manor from the City. O'Neill requested
that Council provide City staff with further direction as to the process to be
used in selling the parcel.
Council reviewed the present zoning designation and reviewed the Planner's
report, which stated that R-3 uses are the most suitable uses for the
property.
Citizens from the neighborhood were present to discuss their concerns
regarding multi -family development on the parcel.
Steve Walters, representing a group of neighbors, indicated that the present
neighborhood features a peaceful, safe environment. A neighborhood crime
watch group has been started to make sure that the neighborhood
maintains its safe character. However, there are drawbacks to living in the
area. For instance, there is the potential of a busy 7th Street once it is
completed, 1-94 road noise, Ruff Auto on the east side, and the apartments
next to the public works area serve to diminish the value of the Country
Club Manor residential area. He voiced the group's concern about the
possibility of another multi -family housing development nearby. The group
would not support development that would diminish residential property
values. It was felt that development of the parcel for church or park uses
would he more positive for the neighborhood and would provide a better
image of the city to travelers on 1-94.
Walters went on to note that if the City sells to a developer, he felt that a
request for proposals process would he appropriate and strongly advised in-
depth research on developers to make sure that the City sold the property
to a developer that would manage the facility well. Finally, he noted that
landscaping and boulevard tree plantings along 7th Street between the
development area and the Country Club Manor neighborhood would he
desirable.
Brad Fyle indicated that the City obtained the property through a tax
forfeiture process; and in order to recover sonic of our cost, it will need to he
sold. It is highly unlikely that the City will want to leave it vacant. He
indicated that his desire would he to press Upward a moderate density
townhouse style development.
Page 4
Council Minutes - 1/24/94
Shirley Anderson indicated that development of Outlot A will result in a
barrier built between the freeway and the Country Club Manor homes;
thus, the noise from the freeway will actually go down.
Other members of the neighborhood mentioned concerns regarding potential
development of the site for multi -family use.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad
Fyle to reaffirm the R-3 zoning district designation for Outlot A of Country
Club Manor. Motion carried unanimously with Patty Olsen absent.
A motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley Anderson to
authorize City staff to prepare a request for proposals application to be
reviewed by Council at an upcoming meeting. Motion carried unanimously
with Patty Olsen absent.
11. Consideration of change order #1 for Citv Proiect 93-02C, Cardinal Hills 3rd
Addition.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to approve change order #1 for Cardinal Hills 3rd
Addition, City Project 93-02C, in the amount of $7,893.93. Motion carried
unanimously with Patty Olsen absent.
12. Consideration of uudating welder at the public works shoo.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Clint
Herbst to offer Jim Eisele $1,500 for his used welder. If the offer is not
acceptable to Eisele, then staff is authorized to purchase a new welder from
Central McGowan in the amount of $2,450. Motion carried unanimously
with Patty Olsen absent.
13. Consideration of purchase of 1/2 -ton 4 -wheel drive oickuo for street
deuartment.
John Simola outlined the need for a 112 -ton 4 -wheel drive pickup for the
street department.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to table the iaauc until they are provided with an
inventory of all of the vehicles at the public works department along with
the primary driver of each vehicle. Motion carried unanimously with Patty
Olsen absent.
Page 5
Council Minutes - 1/24/94
14. Consideration of a resolution suonorting Prairie Island nuclear fuel storaee
rp oiect.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Brad Fyle to approve the resolution as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously with Patty Olsen absent. SEE RESOLUTION 94-2.
15. Consideration of bills for the month of January.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Brad Fyle to approve payment of bills as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously with Patty Olsen absent.
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Page 6 J�
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
4. Consideration of a senior citizen center report. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Senior Citizen Center Coordinator, Pam Loidolt, has requested to appear
before the City Council to update the City on the past year's activities at
the center. Pam will be presenting a brief outline of the activities that have
taken place and will be available to answer any questions the Council may
have on the operation for the past year.
At this time, there is no specific request that the senior center is asking for,
and the update by the Coordinator is strictly for the purpose of keeping the
Council abreast of the activities that are taking place at the center because
of the City's financial commitment to the program. No action is necessary
by the Council other than acceptance of the report.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Memo from Pam Loidolt; 1993 statistics. p
*nticel/
Monticello Senior Center
Z��;107 Cedar Street, Monticello, MN 55362
;Senior Center Phone: (612) 285-2000
10: Ci t. Counc 1 1 hlembers
FRLIM: Pam Loi dolt. Senior
Center Coordinator
SUUJ: Purpose in Attending
Corn iciI Meet ino
DATE: February 9. 17170
1 recently contacted flick. Wol Istel ler arnl asb.ed to tre put on the
agenda for the February 10t1r Lily Council Meeting.
The purpose of my atternr.lrny your meeting :s to give you a summar'v
of what all went on at Lhe Monticello Senior Center :n 199.5 and
to answer questions you may have.
Please review the enclosed statistics sheet prior to the meetinq
to familiarize yourself with how many older adult; in the
cummunity are utilizinq the senior center. We have ,een a
definite increase in the r,umbrr of peuple tal.inq advai,t.atjF of
center proyrams, servlcen and acl.:vitlas.
I look forward to meetinq with you un February 10th.
1
l
MONTICELLO SENIOR CENTER
1993 Statistics
Duplicated
Duplicatea Partipants
Participants (organized 6 Phone Activities
Unduplicatea (organized unorganized Volunteer Calls Offered
Participants activities) activities) Hours Received (unduplicated)
1992 4d0 2.009 3,319 1.06.5 417 29
1st Quarter
1993 447 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
1992 504 3,199 4,400 1,461.5 728 37
3rd Quarter
1993 628• 3.8336 5,100 1,656.5 737 34
1992 501 2.052 3,707 1,118.5 686 37
4th Quarter
1993 542 3,099 4,028 1.536 681 42
1992 960 1u,632 15,398 5.078 2,532 70
TOTALS
1993 1,104 13,037 17,628 5.854 3,027 65
•Includes those attending the Pie 8 lee Cream Social
Activities offered include: trips, pool, cards, tax assistance, exercise classes, walking group, ceramics, bingo,
defensive driving, legal aid, flu shots, senior spelling bee, dinner club, craft classes, blood pressure checks,
dances, 60. and Healthy Clinic, Adopt -A -Highway litter pick up, Caregiver/Grief Support Group, Board of Director
meetings, wreath making classes, activities with other senior centers, seasonal parties, monthly birthday/anniversary
dinners, movie matinee, videotape service, Menu Planning for 1 or 2, Over 90's Party, volunteer appreciations,
Grandparent/Child events, line dancing, Pie 6 Ice Cream Social, arthritis presentation, sponsor local 6th grade essay
contest, ,jigsaw puzzles, exercise bike, Nursing Home Card Club, Life Experience Project.
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
s. Consideration of amendment to contract with D & K for curb -side
reevelint[ services. (J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
We have recently learned from Randy Linn of D & K Refuse and Recycling
that a significant change has occurred in the market for newspaper. D & K
markets their newspaper through Pythons in St. Cloud. As of January 21,
D & K went from receiving $7 a ton for the newspaper to paying $10 a ton,
a difference of $17. When we generate approximately 20 tons a month, this
is about $340. Randy Linn from D & K says that his firm cannot absorb
this significant cost increase. Mr. Linn has, therefore, requested that we
consider paying the additional cost and ask that we consider this under
Section V, Disputes Force Majeure, of the contract. This is believed to he a
temporary situation and, hopefully, by summer would be resolved.
Currently we pay 1) & K $.85 per multiple dwelling unit and $1.25 per
single family unit for a total of $2,389.65 per month based upon 2,073 total
units. This gives us an average cost of $1.15 per month. The additional
cost of $:340 per month would equate to about $.16, which would bring our
average unit cost to $1.31, an increase of $4,080 a year. This would change
our total contract value from $28,676 to $32,756 a year. A couple of other
things to consider in our recycling cost is that we receive funding from the
County of $12,500 for our program. Should we decide not to recycle but
send these materials to the Wright County Compost Facility with the
garbage, our increase in tipping fees alone would he $44,500 per year, not
including extra hauling costs.
Haven with the $.16 additional cost, the City of Monticello has one of the
must economical full programs around, pulling out near 40 tons a month,
with participation rales on it hi -monthly basis near 807. Recycling in
Monticello showed it strung gain in late 1993 and has leveled off slightly for
the beginning of 1994. Some of this, of course, is due to the cold weather
we have had and the snow, which are, it little unusual. The amount of
recycling is up over last summer. I've included it copy of the January report
for recycling and a copy of the fierce majeure section of the contract. Due to
the contract bulk, it's not included with your agenda packet, but there are
copies for you to review at city hall.
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. The first alternative would be to amend the current contract with
D & K Refuse and Recycling and pay them an additional $17 a ton
for recycling newspaper on a temporary basis effective February 1,
1994.
2. The second alternative would be not to pay the additional $17 a ton
but to negotiate further or rebid our contract.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and the City
Administrator that the City Council amend our current contract with D & K
and pay them an additional $17 a ton for recycling newspaper on a
temporary basis. It is our feeling that this will correct itself this summer.
Our current contract with D & K Refuse and Recycling will expire on
April 1, 1995. We don't believe we would be successful in negotiating
further with 1) & K, as they have laid their true costs on the table, and it
would not be in our best interest to rebid our recycling contract at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of January 1994 recycling summary from D & K Refuse and Recycling;
Copy of force majeure section of the current contract with D & K.
D&K Refuse and Recyclin&opy
29 South 21st Ave.
St. Cloud, Mn 56301
6t2-251-09�20 p�@
DATE: 1-31-94
City of Monticello,
The following is your recycling summary for the month of January.
Please remit payment to DSK Refuse and Recycling, 29 South 21st Ave,
St. Cloud, MN 56301.
Material
Residential Apartments Total Ton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1-03-94 1-06-94 1-17-94 1-20-94 1-05-941-19-94
Metals 1,954 1,566 1,632 1,804 834 617 8,407 4.20
Newspaper 9,493 7,721 7,431 8,649 3,598 2,687 39,579 19.79
Cardboard 952 618 468 723 125 80 2,966 1.48
Glass 3,460 3,675 2,688 3,234 689 365 14,111 7.06
Plastic 818 795 876 1,069 427 211 4,196 2.10
Magazines 392 413 384 529 75 59 1,852 0.93
Nail 55 25 25 75 20 15 215 0.11
Total Lbs 17,124 14,813 13,504 16,083 5,768 4,034 71,326 35.66
Month/Ton 35.66
YTD Total 35.66
Liquor Store: 14 bales Q 175 lbs o 2,450
Batteries: 1
Charges
Residential: /5439 x 1.25 - $
Apartments: S"a Y x .85 = $ o
Total $
Sincerely,
Randall J.9Linn
DSK Refuse and Recycling
6�
` IV. TERM AND TERMINATION
1. The term of this agreement shall be three years
commencing on April 20, 1992.
2. Either party may terminate this agreement for a material
breach of the agreement by the other party after giving
written notice of breach and allowing the other party
fourteen (14) days to correct the breach.
3. Either party may cancel this agreement without cause by
giving the other party one hundred eighty (180) days'
written advance notice.
V. DISPUTES FORCE MAJEURE
1. Neither party shall be liable for its failure to perform
its obligations under this agreement if performance is
made impractical, abnormally difficult, or abnormally
costly due to any unforeseen occurrence beyond its
reasonable control. However, this article V 1 may not be
used by either party to avoid, delay, or otherwise affect
any payments due to the other party.
Both parties indicate their approval of this agreement by their
signatures below.
D 6 K REFUSE AND RECYCLING
it ss }'
Date
CURBSIDE.AGR: 4/10/97
CITY OF MONTI ELLO
ld++-
K n Maus, ayor
witnes��
Date
Pago 6
Council Agenda - 7/14/94
5. Consideration of purchase of 1/2 -ton 4 -wheel drive nickuo for street
deuartment (continued from 1/24 meetine). (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last Council meeting, City staff' discussed the need for an additional
pickup in the street and park department. Prior to approving such a
purchase, the City Council requested a list of all similar equipment and
information as to the use or drivers for each vehicle. I, therefore, developed
a list of all of our light duty vehicles and cross-referenced them with the
primary and secondary drivers. This is enclosed for your review along with
a list of our heavier trucks.
By referring to the spreadsheet for the light vehicle usage, it is easy to see
the two vehicles get spread quite thin during the year. The first one is the
1988 red Ford 1/2 -ton pickup that Roger usually drives. There are len
secondary drivers for this vehicle. The second is the 1989 orange Ford ]-ton
dump truck. This vehicle has five primary drivers and five secondary
drivers during our husy season.
As you may recall, we kept the 1982 orange Chevy van for use by Tom Buse,
the Construction Inspector. It's $500 trade-in value has already paid for
itself in one year, as Tom liaise was renting the City his vehicle; and at
6,000 miles it year, in excess of $1,500 a year in mileage, it was costly. Tom
had indicated that the mileage payment was not enough tea cover the cost of
damage to his vehicle driving in and over the rough wnst,ruction sites. One
other item that does not, show on the sheet is that John Lukaeh, who is a
union grounds and building maintenance worker, utilizes his own vehicle
much of the summer at a cost. to the City of approximately $1.200 as year.
We believe the spreadsheets will demonstrate the need for the additional
vehicle. Please refer to your agenda supplement from the previous meeting
for additional information nn this agenda item.
It. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The first niternative is to authorize purchase of a new 1/2 -ton 4 -wheel
drive pickup from Monticello Ford for $16,331.74, including tax. , p
2. The second ultenuative would he to purchnse the pickup from
Superior Fiord of Plymouth, Minnesota, for $16,292.34, including tax.
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
3. The third alternative would be not to purchase a new pickup at this
time but to continue as we are using dump trucks for transportation.
This alternative, as in the last agenda packet, does not appear to be
practical unless we are willing to contract out almost all of our
summer work.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director, City Administrator,
and Street and Parks Superintendent that the City Council authorize the
purchase of a new pickup as outlined in alternative t11. The $39.40
difference in quotes would be more than used up by just having to pick the
vehicle up once from Superior Ford in Plymouth.
As in the last Council packet, it is our opinion that contracting for services
normally provided by part-time, temporary, or seasonal employees with the
City will prove not to he cost effective. We will be contracting out summer
grounds maintenance at the liquor store, library, and fire hall so that we do
not have to expand the public works department by hiring an additional
part-time union employee to do that work. Contracting can be a good tool to
slow the rate of expansion of full-time city employees; but for other tasks
not normally performed by union employees, contracting these many duties
and overseeing the contract operations will he more costly than our existing
operations.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Spreadsheet fir light vehicle usage; List of heavy vehicles; Please refer to
agenda item q13 un 1/24/94.
CITY OF I NTICELLO
LIGHT VEHICLE USAGE
PICKUPS
J
Purch. Primary
Secondary
Year
Make
Model
Color Miles
Used Drivers
Drivers
11987 (Ford
11/2 Ton Short Box
lBrown 59,000
IX#1
I
1988
Ford
112 Ton
Red 52,000
1 '#2
6� 7, 8, 9 11 fL5)
1989 lFord
11/2 Ton
Blue 36,000
1
1
VANS
I
Purch.
jPrimary
Secondary
Year
Make
Mode_I
Color
Miles
Used
IlDrivers
Drivers
11983 IChev
IVan
Orange
79,000
1#11
1988 Dodge
Caravan
1Brown
60,000
X W_
I -TON TRUCKS
1
Color
Year
Make
Model
Miles
Purch. Primary
UseDrivprs
Secondary
(Drivers
1983
Chev
Flatbed Dump
White
72,000
IX Li 31la4J
I
11989
Ford
Dump 4x4, Diesel
Orange
28,000
�6 7, 8, 9, 11
Q5l 10 11, ft 19
11992 (Ford
Utility 4x4
Blue 110,000
tgi
CIT_Y_EMP_LOYEES:
1 John Simola
6 Tom Moores
1 1 John Lukach
Summer Help #2
2 Roger Mack
7 Al Gapinski
Rich Cline
7 Summer Help #3
Matt Theisen
8 Keith Trippe
t 3 Seasonal #1
Summer Help #4
Gary Anderson
Jim Eisele
A
1 4 Seasonal #2
9 Alt. Learning Temp.
#1
Tom Bose
John Middendorf
Summer Help 01
NOTES:Water
8 Sewer Collection Worker
13 Seasonal
t4
(Apr -Nov) Park Cleanup 8 Mowing Crew
Inspectors, Building or Construction
Summer Help (June -Aug) Park,
Street, 8 Tree Depts.
VEHUSAGE: 01/25/94
CITY OF MOrMCELLO
LIST OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS
Unit # 1 1992 Ford L8000 dump truck with plow, wing, & sander
Unit #2 1988 Ford L8000 dump truck with plow, wing, & sander
Unit #3 1988 International dump truck with plow, wing, & sander
Unit #11 1978 International loadstar 1800 series dump truck with
plow, wing, & sander
Unit #39 1946 Chevrolet fire truck with 200 -gallon water tank and pump
Unit #41 1981 Chevrolet C-70 series jet truck (retired snow plow truck)
Unit #54 1975 Ford heavy duty vac -all truck
HEAVYTRK.LIS: 2/10/94 Cb)
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
7. Consideration of authorizing preparation of sketch clans for
development of propertv owned by the Citv in the Meadow Oak
development. I R. W. I
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
In an effort to promote the development of the Meadow Oak Estates in the
mid -1980's, the City of Monticello agreed to a request from Dickman
Knutson, dba Ultra Homes, to respread some of the improvement costs that
were assessed against lots in the Meadow Oak Estates development to 18
acres of land known as Outlots C & D of the Meadow Oak Estates. The
purpose of this reallocation of the assessments was to make the lots in the
Estates portion more affordable to encourage the development.
In 1985, the City agreed to transfer $130,000 of assessment debt to the
unplaced Outlots C & D. In turn for this reallocation, the City took a first
mortgage on the property. Since none of the payments were kept up by
Ultra Homes since 1985, the City recently proceeded with foreclosure on the
mortgage; and as of last October, the City of Monticello became the owner of
these outlots.
For those of you not familiar with the property, the 18 acres is located
directly north of the Briar Oakes development and also lies west of the
existing developed Meadow Oak Estates parcels. The property should he a
desirable piece of property for residential development in that it has rolling
terrain and it large amount of trees. If developed properly, this area could
be it desirable location for larger treed lots, which is in limited supply in the
city of Monticello. The original debt against the property, including the
assessments that were transferred to the property, totaled about $164,000.
See the attached summary outlining the original costs that were placed
against this property. In addition to the original investment, the actual
debt, has grown substantially from this amount to approximately $,950,000 if
you consider penalties and interest that have accumulated since the default.
While it does not seem feasible that the City will ever receive those kinds of
funds for this property, I think we should focus on trying to get our original
investment back at it minimum.
Ultra Humes had originally prepared a preliminary plat of these two uutlots
showing how the property could be developed into 42 residential lots. The
staff does not believe that the original concept took into account tiny
attempt to use the existing terrain of the property, nor did they attempt to
save as many trees as possible_ In addition, the lot sizes were pm}nised at a
Council Agenda -2/14/94
minimum standard, around 12,000 sq ft. Since this property could be a
desirable piece for development, it is suggested that the City consider
developing the parcels for sale to individual buyers and/or builders by
creating larger executive style lots that currently appear to be lacking in
Monticello. While there are a number of building lots being developed in
the city, most of the lots are tied up by one developer and/or builder and are
not necessarily for sale to the public to choose their own builder, etc. In
addition, most of the lots available are of minimum size, thus limiting
individuals from building larger homes who may want larger -sized parcels.
To do a development properly and save as much of the existing grade and
trees as possible, it may mean that the outlots should only be developed into
:30 lots or less as compared to 42 lots originally proposed.
Most of the lots available or being platted today have limited "width" of
around 80 ft, which is not very conducive to building larger, higher -valued
homes. The staff feels that lots should he created that are at least 100 ft to
125 ft wide with appropriate depth to create the atmosphere of a nicer
neighborhood. Lot sizes may approach 17,000 sq ft to 20,000 sq ft,
depending on how the property is layed out to retain the basic features of
the property. This is where the need conies in for good planning and design
at the front end. 1 don't think the property should be developed under the
past history of "what's the maximum number of lots 1 can get out of this
properly."
In discussing this development proposal with our City Engineer, Bret Weiss,
it was suggested that the City consider utilizing the services of a planner
for preparing some sketch plans on how this property could be developed.
Bret had suggested an individual who he has worked with in the past that
could prepare a number of different sketch plans utilizing the existing topo
information and tree layout to put together concepts that the City could
consider that would create larger lots without destroying the character of
the land. The cost estimate to create a number of sketches for our review
would probably he in the $500 to $700 range. Utilizing this approach would
appear 1.0 give us the best opportunity to create a development that is
currently lacking in the city, i.e., larger treed lots for higher -valued homes
that. would he available to individuals and/or local builders.
OSM had prepared a feasibility study for developing these parcels under the
original concept of 42 lots and had estimated the cost of improvements for
street, sewer and water, and storm sewer at $364,500. Depending on the
actual layout of the property, if larger lots were created, this estimate could
vary slightly but would, generally speaking, be in this cost range or less.
When adding this cost to the $164,000 that the City has invested so fur,
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
even if the number of lots was reduced to only 30 lots in the entire
development, the cost per lot would be in the $19,000 range. For large,
executive, upper scale lots, it would seem that we would he able to market
these parcels in a competitive fashion and stand the best chance to
recapture our investment. We would also be able to fill a void in the
market by making lots available to the general public, whereas most of the
current residential lots that do exist are tied up by a few builders or
developers and are not necessarily available to individuals to buy and select
their own builder. I would also think it would give us the opportunity to
create a neighborhood that should possibly have restrictions on minimum
building size or building values to protect the investment we would be
making. Since there are only limited areas available for development that
have any kind of character and trees, these parcels, if developed properly,
should be easily marketable building sites.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The first alternative would be to authorize preparation of a number of
preliminary sketch plans on how this property could be hest
developed and platted to create an executive type neighborhood. It is
suggested that the individual planner recommended by Bret Weiss be
utilized, as they have done similar proposals that OSM is familiar
with, and utilize the existing topographical information, including
tree layouts, in their efforts to preserve the existing conditions in
their developments.
If this option is selected, the staff would bring back a number of
sketch plans that the Council could choose from at the next Council
meeting before continuing on with the platting process. Based on the
eventual sketch plan acceptance, the Council could then decide
whether to do such a project in phases or entirely at one time.
Council could decide to offer the property for sale outright in its
undeveloped state for the highest dollar offer.
Under this option, the Council would be deciding that the City should
not get into the development business and does not wish to control
the type of residential subdivision that could he developed in this site.
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As noted earlier, now that the City owns this 18 -acre parcel, it does provide
us the opportunity to create a suhdivision that., in my opinion, is currently
lacking in the city, and that is larger treed parcels for higher -valued homes.
I think if a survey was done among area builders, we'd find that a number
of homes of higher value have been built outside of the community because
of the unavailability of decent -sized lots in nicer neighborhoods in the city
limits. The existing homes within the Meadow Oak Estates could blend
very well with 30+ additional lots in a rolling, treed development. The
likelihood of the City selling this property outright for sufficient funds to
recapture our investment seem remote; and in analyzing the cost estimates,
it appears that the City has a better opportunity to get its money back by
actually being the developer and selling the residential lots ourselves. 1
think it would be especially important to use the services of the planner
suggested by OSM in laying out a development that would minimize the
destroying of trees and the terrain. Too many times we've seen wooded
acreage being bulldozed strictly for the purpose of maximizing the number
of lots that can he created, and I think the City has an opportunity now to
create a nice neighborhood by being the owner of the property and
developing it ourselves.
At this point, it is the staffs recommendation that we proceed with sketch
plans for further review and then have the engineer prepare a feasibility
cost study after we have selected what we feel is an appropriate subdivision
plan. At that time, we can analyze whether we still want to proceed with
being the developers ourselves or whether some other options should be
looked at.
1). SUPPORTING DATA:
Summary of current investment in property and general cost estimates on
development of property; Map depicting area in question; Feasibility study
on outlots under "old" design concept.
ORIGINAL NET CITY INVESTMENT COST
LNTO OUTLOTS C & D, MEADOW OARS
1982-2 improvement
Assessments transferred from
Meadow Oak Estates
1993 Briar Oakes/Meadow Oaks
long pond connection assessment
TOTAL COST INVESTED
(original dollars --no interest)
$164,200 + 18 acres = $9,125 per acre
MOI NV EST.CST: 219/94
Outlot C
Outlot D
Total
$20,280
$13,260
$33,540
85,000
45,000
130,000
330
330
660
$105,610 $58,590 $164,200
COST ESTIMATES
OUTLOTS C & D, MEADOW OARS
(For Discussion Purposes)
Original land costs to date $164,200
Development cosi.s for sewer, water,
storm sewer, & streets (based on
original platting concept) per OSM 7/93 $364,500
Additional allowance for grading within plat $50,000
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST $578,700
Assumation: That only (30) large executive
type lots are developed:
Cost per lot would be $19,290 each
Based on the final design of this property, the number of lots could vary from
estimation of 30, and final estimate of improvement cost would depend on plat
layout. The above is to give Council a general idea that the project appears
feasible to consider.
MOCOST.EST: 2/9/94 • J
--».
.., ca,
OUTLOT
i• M1
i� •
OUTLOT A
... O t Oy
MEAPO w OAK AVE.. s
' m p00 ••� OAK z.. .',.ESTATES ' tQ t
• j .1• ' q r
7 cl
ar
....>� OUTLOT C J041'
+ ~$
13
ve
t •r '" v
• 14
Da 410 OUTLOT 0 ' '�•.
M Q fl•,I +!7 J '( 1 f OUT L
J +
V
MEADOW 1
Is 1 Iz
OUTLO
.71 ♦ .Ii
1., ...
MEAD
O
JUL 12 '93 1-1:39 CSM MPL5, MI .. .. _.. - P.2
�0AM& br-
300 Park Place CMM
5775 waymn eoWerard
M Mr=p0U& fM 55+1&iZn
6a-59&5775
1.800-753.5775
July 12, 1993 PAX S95677+
r
Arwteeo
Plannef
UWVes—
Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Feasibility Report
Outlots C&D: Meadow Oaks Development Area
Utilities and Street Improvements
Monticello, MInnesota
OSM Project No. 4960.10
Dear Mayor and Council:
Transmitted herewith is a Feasibility Report covering utility and street improvements for
Outlots C&D: Meadow Oaks Development Area
We would like to discuss this report with all interested parties at your convenience.
Please give us a call if you have any questions. !'G
Sincerely, 41
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 0410'
O� J
& /ASSOCIATES, INC.
oe
Bret A. Weiss, P.E. O 0
City Engineer VQ
0
Enclosure Oy PCO
co
a,
AL 12 '93 14.40 0SM r>LS, ni
OUTLOTS C & D. MEADOW OAKS DEVELOPMENT AREA
UTILITIES AND STREET IMPROVF.ME,Nn
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
P. 3
SUMMARY: This project provides for the installation of streets and utilities to
serve Outlot C & D of the Meadow Oaks Development Area
located in southeast Monticello. The lot layout utilized is a
modified version of the original preliminary plat, but with an access
street to the south into proposed Briar Oakes Estate Second Phase.
The grading of the Iots are proposed to be completed under a
separate contract.
This Feasibility Report proposes the construction of approximately
1,910 lineal feet of sanitary sewer, 2,420 lineal feet of watertnain,
870 lineal feet of storm sewer, and 2,400 feet of street construction
to provide service to 43 residential lots. The total estimated project
cost is $364,500. The funding for the project will come entirely from
assessments to the benefitted property.
This project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and can be
constructed in one or more phases. No project schedule has been
set at this time.
LOCATION: The project is located in the northwest quarter of the southwest
quarter of Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, adjacent to and west
of Meadow Oak Estates, and north of Briar Oakes Estate. The
project location is shown on the Location Map, Drawing No, I at
—4 ww drr tr -
the end of this report.
AL 12 '93 14:40 OSn PPL„ Pv P.4
Meadow Oaks Development Area
Outlom C & D
City of Monticello, Minnesota
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS:
The sanitary sewer design is in line with the overall plan for the
area and will match the existing g inch diameter stubs. The existing
sanitary sewer stubs are located at the northwest end of Meadow
Oak lane, southeast end of Meadow Oak Lane and a manhole west
of White Oak Circle. The proposed sanitary sewer is shown on
Drawing No. 2 at the end of this report.
The watermain will be extended from Meadow Oak Estates along
Meadow Oak Lane from the north and southeast, and will be
stubbed south along Wood Crest Drive to provide for looping with
the Briar Oakes Estates Second Addition. The waterrttato will
consist of g inch diameter pipe with I inch services to each of the
lots. Hydrants will be installed throughout the project to provide
adequate fire protection for the residential area. The proposed
watermain is shown on Drawing No. 2 at the end of this report.
The proposed storm sewer facilities will generally discharge the
northwest quadrant of the site to an existing storm sewer stub at the
northwest end of Meadow Oak Lane. The remainder of the
subdivision will discharge to the east into an existing storm sewer
stub west of White Oak Circle, then into the Meadow Oaks Pond.
AA 12 '93 14:41 OSM PFILS, MJ P'S
Meadow Oaks Development Area
Outlots C & D
City of Monticello, Minnesota
The proposed storm sewer system will serve as the street storm
sewer network for all 10 -year rainfall events. The proposed storm
sewer is shown on Drawing No. 3 at the end of this report.
The proposed street construction will include the completion of
Meadow Oak Lane, two cure -sacs, and the north end of Wood
Crest Drive. The proposed bituminous street will match Meadow
Oak Estates streets which is a 32 -foot wide face-to-face street with
surmountable concrete curb and gutter. The street section will P
consist of 3-1/2 inches of bituminous, 8 Inches of Class 5 aggregate
base, and 12 Inches select granular borrow, based on the soils
information known at this time.
RIGHT -OP -WAY AND EASEMENTS:
The right-of-way and easements will be acquired with the
acceptance of the final plat.
PERMrM: 7be Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution, Control Agency
permits will be acquired by the City after completion of the plats
and specifications.
ASSESSMENTS: All project costs associated with street and utility construction will
be assessed in fail to the developer.
-3- 7
JUL 12 103 14:41 OSM hFLS, MN P.6
Meadow Oaks Development Area
Outlots C & D
City of Monticello, Minnesota
ESTIMATED COSTS:
Detailed cost estimates can be found in the back of this report. A
summary of these costs is shown below:
Sanitary Sewer S113,400
Watermain S 86,200
Storm Sewer S41,500
Street Construction S123,4Q4
'total $364,500
T'he above -referenced total estimated project cost includes a
contingency factor and all related indirect costs. Indirect costs are
estimated at 289'* and include legal, engineering, administrative, and
fiscal costs.
M 12 '93 14:42 OSM MLS. MN P.7
Meadow Oaks Development Area
Outlots C & D
City of Monticello, Minnesota
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
8" PVC Sanitary Sewer SDR35
1970
LF.
530.00
$59,100.00
8°x4' PVC Sewer Wyes
43
Each
545.00
S1,935.00
4" PVC Sanitary Sewer SDR26
1720
LF.
5630
$11,180.00
STD. Manhole (4' DIA) (0'•1(Y Deep)
9
Each
$3,100.00
$9,900.00
Connect to Existing Manhole/Stub
3
Each
5500.00
$1,500.00
Oracular Foundation Material
100
Ton
$8.00
S800•00
Subtotal
$84,415.00
5% Cont
S4,22vs
Subtotal
$88,635.75
28% Indirect
324,81$.01
TOTAL
$113,400.00
AL 12 '93 14:43 OSM MDLS. ni
Meadow Oaks Development Area
Outlots C & D
City of Monticello, Minnesota
DESCRIPTION
r DIP Class 52
6' DIP Class 52
Hydrants (including 6' gate valve)
8' Gate valve
Fittings
i' Corporation Cocks
1" Curb Stop & Box
1' Copper Service Pipe
Connect to Existing Waterrnain
Subtotal
5% Cont.
Subtotal
28% Indirect
TOTAL
-riv tkfra
-6•
P.8
TOTAL
$33.880.00
5840.00
S7,Oo0.00
$3,500.00
51,73280
$1.290.00
53,010.00
512,112.50
$64,16530
567,37357
586,200.00
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
2420
L.F.
$14.00
70
LF.
Si2.00
5
Each
$1,400.00
7
Each
5500.00
412
Lbs
$1.90
43
Each
530.00
43
Each
$70.00
1615
L.F.
5750
2
Each
$400.00
-6•
P.8
TOTAL
$33.880.00
5840.00
S7,Oo0.00
$3,500.00
51,73280
$1.290.00
53,010.00
512,112.50
$64,16530
567,37357
586,200.00
AL 12 '93 14:43 OSn PPIS, M
Meadow Oaks Development Area
Outlots C & D
City of Monticello, Minnesota
DESCRIPTION
12' RCP
15' RCP
18° RCP
24• RCP
STD. 4' Dia Sun Manhole (0'-10')
Catch Basins
Subtotal
5475 Cont.
Subtotal
28% Indirect
TOTAL
P.9
532,419.75
34.flms
541,500.00
-7• 1
a
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNTf
PRICE
TOTAL
340
LF.
518.75
5075.00
410
LF.
222.00
$9,020.00
120
LF.
524.00
22,880.00
30
LF.
530.00
5900.00
7
EA
51,100.00
$7,700.00
5
EA
5800.00
S4.0OO.ti4
S30,875.00
532,419.75
34.flms
541,500.00
-7• 1
a
AUL 12 '93 14: 44 OSM MPLS, MN P.10
Meadow pales Development Area
Outlots C dt D
City of Monticello, Minnesota
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
Subgrade Preparation
24
R.S
$100.00
$2,400.00
Select Granular Borrow
3900
C.Y.
$330
$13,650.00
Aggregate Bax, Class 5
4700
Ton
54.70
$22,090.00
Type 2331 Bituminous Base Course
1,000
Ton
$1630
$16,500.00
Type 2341 Bituminous Wear Course
800
Ton
$18.80
515,040.00
Bituminous Material For Tack Coat
490
Gal
50.75
$36750
Concrete Curb dt Gutter Surmountable
4840
LF.
$4.00
$19,360.00
Permanent Baricade
1
PAIR
5300.00
$300.00
Sodding
890
S.Y.
$2.40
S2,136"00
Subtotal
$91,94350
5% Coro
_S4,592.1
Subtotal
$96,433.68
28% Lsdlrect
S27-001.99
TOTAL
$123,400.00
:jrr Jti*o
M\4Qft10�aVU\MAAR&o1rr 4;-
1 p�S�O MrNNES i P
ofttp G S�G��yO.
ttTt � „� GN WN•p?
-- PROPOSED STORM SEWER
7-1
I •
_
?'�,3�
14 ,
,;� 1Z I 2� C
I 19CII _ I
- I _ W
IL
to
WOODGBESIHIY�
n�rr
RROPOSED TORN SEWER
3115
\
. � -"' •• I��jjl 3
10
In I 18 i h
--I& I1 icy �L
WHITE OAK CIRCLE
4p01 y
0 220 400
IN FEET
Drown 6y: Drowinq Title Comm. No.
r
c�d�n STORM SEWER toe0.to
Dates •s�°ct�
•>r Oant •
tes' Inc. OUTLOT C d D Sheet,
Lylu.n • tnlllwM• • Pluw•141.11U"07—
7.9.93 �• �^ ^'� �'•"" "^ 9:9.— •'•""'•3(7 MINNESOTA 3 7
•4..ru.. •• VMU•1O�• WW1
— PROPOSED WATERNAIN PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
I EXIS} NO STREET
t
i 137-7
U 4
t4 ,
�i z a
t^_ •-�-- 1111_ —_ I t` � , -.
w000C EST -DRIVE I'1— „ 19 1 i
Q Zi
Is
1
2.0
Lu 1.5 L � ..
PROPOSED WdLGRI"TN-- PROPOSED SA TARP SEWER
I4 .
WHITE OAK CIRCLE
fi%ISTINB STRfifiT
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
Drawing Title COMM. No
SANITARY SEWER $ WATERMAIN 4900.10
OUTLOT C b 0 Sheet no
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA r
r
04
Drawn Ey:
Orr
MAytlen
eran 1,
Auoeletu, Inc.
tat" s In►iU.l. s ►i...m s Ai..y.n
awn ft— C.-0n»..m.l..w.w
w*wv". of N.,.nC! w its-ma.'N
DOttl
7.9.93
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
Drawing Title COMM. No
SANITARY SEWER $ WATERMAIN 4900.10
OUTLOT C b 0 Sheet no
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA r
r
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
a. Consideration of aaarovine Outlot A. Country Club Manor, reauest
for oronosals format and authorize distribution to developers. W.O.I
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Following you will find a copy of the proposed request for proposals format,
which is proposed to be provided to developers interested in purchasing
Outlot A of Country Club Manor. Council is asked to review the request for
proposals format and make comments accordingly. Staff requests that
Council pay special attention to the selection criteria portion of the RFP and
determine if the wording is consistent with the City Council's goals for
development of Outlot A.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to modify and/or adopt the proposed request for proposals and
authorize its submittal to multi -family and senior housing project
developers.
Under this alternative, City staff would send a copy of the request for
proposals to numerous multi -family housing project developers.
Responses to the RFP must he submitted to the City by interested
developers no later than March lb, 1994. Staff will then compile
responses to the RFI' for City Council review at a following meeting.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the proposed request for proposals and do
not authorize submittal to multi -family and senior housing project
developers.
This alternative should be selected if Council no longer believes that
the property should be sold through a request for proposals process
and that perhaps the best concept is to sell the property to the
highest bidder.
C. STAFF RECOMMENI)ATION:
Staff recommends alternative t11.
1), SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of request for proposals; List. of interested buyers.
10
250 East Broadway
P. O. Brix 1147
Monticello, hIN
55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295.4404
MEMO
TO: Developers/Managers of Multi -Family Housing Projects
FROM: JOTO'Neill, Assistant Administrator
DATE:
SUIIJECT: City of MunLicello Heyuesl. for Proposals for purchase and development of
City property designated for nnKlerate-high density residential development
The Ci1:V ttf Moldicello, through its Cil;v Council and Housing and ltedvvelopoent
Acid oril.y, is requestlttg prollosals fol' t.lo! developliond, ownership, ,,,if inimageueut ora
16 -acre purcel zoned for nrtdl.i-liunily uses.
As indicated in Life enclosed Impiest lin• Proposals, the City's objective is to negotiate it
development, agreement with an experienced organization proposing a project concept
appropriate for Life city of Monticello and t be Lural neighlsn•hood. The City would
facilitate the project through Life sale tuf t.ho property only. Nu public assistance fin• the
project is contemplated by the City.
Prolwscds cur clue back to the City no later than March 15, 1994.
Any questions abouL the RFP and land use/site planning issues should Ice directed Ut Jeff
O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, al 111-5719.
The Cily appreciates your potential inl.erest. in this projecl., and would welcome the
opportunity In review it proposal from ,your urgnnization.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CITY PROPERTY
DESIGNATED FOR MODERATE -HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Monticello is seeking proposals from for-profit and not-for-profit
developers for the purchase, development, and management ofsenior or multi-
family housing on all or a portion of a 16 -acre parcel of land presently owned
by the City. The City's objective is to negotiate a development agreement with
a firm found to be experienced in the development and management of senior
or multi -family housing which proposes a project concept appropriate for
Monticello. Accordingly, the City is seeking proposals from developers which
describe plans for the physical development, management, and financing of the
project.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION/CONDITIONS
A. Location/Zoning
The parcel (Outlot A of Country Club Manor) is located in a multi -family
zoning district at the intersection of 7th Street and West County
Road 39.
B. 7th Street Extension
According to the comprehensive plan, the segment of 7th Street on
which the parcel is located will be extended easterly and to meet an
existing segment of 7th Street, thus providing direct access to
MULTIHSC.RFP: 2/11/94 Page 1 Q
Highway 25. It is expected that construction of the new segment of 7th
Street will occur within the next five years.
C. Storm Sewer Ponding
Development of a storm sewer pond encompassing approximately 2 acres
must be completed in conjunction with development of the site. The
pond is needed to serve both the storm water needs of the parcel and
other properties in the area. City participation in sharing cost to
develop the pond area is negotiable. Please see the attached plan for
the approximate location of the pond.
3. PARK DEVELOPMENT
Residents of the project will have poor access to existing neighborhood park
facilities-, therefore, at least one acre of land in addition to the ponding area
should be dedicated for recreational use by residents.
4. EXISTING BERM
A berm has been partially constructed along the freeway boundary. This berm
is constructed in part from construction debris.
5. MAP/UTILITIES DATA
The parcel has direct access to sewer and water lines. The precise location of
service ties can be found in the attached plans.
6. FREEWAY SIGNS
At the present time, three billboard signs are located on the property.
Removal of the signs in conjunction with development of the property will be
required.
MULTIHSG.RFP: 2/11/94 Page 2 ti
7. SITE UTILIZATION
Although the City prefers proposals to purchase and develop the entire site,
the City will consider selling a portion of the site with the remaining portion
retained for sale by the City to another developer or to a church organization.
8. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The City of Monticello operates a 'direct service or "dial -a -ride" bus that
provides convenient transportation to senior citizens living at all locations in
the city of Monticello.
9. HOUSING DEMAND
Please see the attached summary of senior citizen housing needs study
completed in 1993. The City has no data on the existing demand for family
housing. Attached you will find a summary of the existing mix of housing
stock within the city.
10. SITE DESIGN STANDARDS
Attached are minimum standards as outlined in the zoning ordinance for
development in an R-3 zone. All proposals must meet or exceed minimum
standards to be considered unless developed under a planned unit development
concept.
11. PROPOSAI, REQUIREMENTS
The following information must be submitted with all proposals:
A. Develouer Background Information
Describe the developer's size, ownership, and development expertise.
13. Developer Qualifications
State in detail the developers experience in developing and managing
rental housing. Prior projects should be described in terms of location,
MULTIHSG.RFP: 2111/94 Page 3
size, cost, date of completion, and ownership. Prior projects should
utilize the same funding program contemplated under the Monticello
project.
o, C. Development Concent
i
`i � tib' Site plan. Developer shall provide sketch plan information which clearly
describes the physical development of the project, including its size,
N4 p des)
1 r gn, and orientation. Specifically, the plans should include location
and dimensions of the following:
1. Residential structures and garages, including setback data.
2. Drive aisle design and outside parking.
3. Solid waste and recycling bin location and associated screening
design.
i
4. Sidewalk locations and dimensions. At a minimum, a 5 -ft
concrete sidewalk must be constructed along 7th Street at a
length equal to the portion of the parcel encompassed by the
project.
5. Freeway noise mitigation measures which would include location
and height of proposed berms, fences etc.
6. Landscaping plan.
7. Location and design and proposed ownership (city or developer)
of recreation area.
R. Location of service connections to city sewer and water service
lines.
9. Define the portion of the parcel that would need to be purchased
from the City wider the proposal.
10. Describe phasing of development if applicable.
I I (, ,-n'! f i(" ., ...� fit, r t tI
D. Building Design
Include the following information about structures identified in the
sketch plan.
MULTIHSG.RFP: 2/11/94 Page 4
I .
Basic Floor plans of apartment units, including dimension of
rooms, etc.
2.
Identify pre -finished or low -maintenance materials used in
construction.
3.
Describe any special noise mitigation measures within each
structure.
4.
Architectural rendering showing appearance of structures.
E. Financing,
1.
Describe the concept for construction and long-term financing for
the project, including a description of ownership. The financing
concept should also include projected initial and future rents to
be charged at the housing project.
2.
Describe the form of funding subsidy, if any, that supports the
funding program. Describe restrictions imposed on the
management of the project resulting from funding program
utilized.
3.
Is any direct subsidy of individual rents paid to renters
contemplated under the project?
4.
Describe maximum and minimum annual income levels for
families or individuals. Are maximum or minimum levels
dictated by financing limitations or by company policy:
5.
Describe the market area from which the project will derive
tenants.
6.
Describe City/Developer cost sharing proposal to develop pond.
7.
Provide a purchase price offer.
F. References
1.
References must be provided which include the names, addresses,
phone numbers, and contact people at public agencies, lenders,
and bond counsel the developer has worked with previously.
12. SI i,w,rION
CRITERIA
The City
will evaluate proposals based on the following criteria:
MUI.TIHSC.RFP: 2/11/94 Page 5
A. The demonstrated capability of the developer to develop and manage
rental housing.
B. The developer's previous track record with rental housing.
C. Information from public agencies and others who have had direct
experience in working with the developer.
D. The development concept proposed for the Monticello project. The
development concept will be evaluated on a number of criteria, including
but not limited to the following:
1. Site plan design, adherence to city codes, etc.
2. Minimization of outside storage through development of ample
garage space.
3. Minimization of clutter through screening of solid waste bins and
recycling bins, etc.
4. Safe and convenient pedestrian walkways.
5. Freeway noise mitigation measures, both within each structure
and incorporated into the site.
6. Landscaping plan.
7. Integration of storm water pond/recreation area into overall site
plan.
8. Visual appearance of project from both the 7th Street and from
the freeway.
9. Livability of apartments.
10. Level of pre -finished or low -maintenance materials used in
construction.
11. Site density and the segment of housing market served. Lower
density family projects (townhome design) and/or senior housing
project proposals will be given preference over higher density
family housing proposals.
E. Price willing to pay for the land.
MULTIHSG.RFP: 2/11194 Page 6
13. SELECTION PROCESS
The City Council will review the proposals using the selection criteria listed
above. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at its sole
discretion.
The City intends to subsequently negotiate a development agreement.
14. SUBMITTAL
Six copies of the proposal are to be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on March 15, 1994,
to:
City of Monticello
Attn: Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator
250 East Broadway, PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
MULTIHSG.RFP: 2/1 V94 Page 7
CITY OF MONTICELLO
CURRENT HOUSING MIX
Total Housing Units
2,257
Single Family
1,181 54%
Town Homes
137 6%
Apartment Units
737 30%
Mobile Homes 207 10%
Source: Transportation Study/Utility Billing Records
MULTIHSG.RFP: 2/11/94 Page 8
COUNTRY CLUB MANOR, OUTLOT A
LIST OF INTERESTED BUYERS
I. Shenehnn Company
Stephone T. Hosch
801 Nicollet Mall, Suite 900
Staff Appraiser
Minneapolis, MN 55402
333-65:33
344-1635 ( fax )
2. Sheller Corporation
Garrett Carlson, Jr.
900 Second Ave. S., Suite 880
Associate, Proj. Dev.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
341-7800
332-8284 (fax)
3. Edina Realty
Wally Coudron
124 West 6th St.
Monticello, MN 55362
295-3456
4. Hoyt Development Corporation
John Bessessen
113400 15th Ave. N., Suite 1�
Plymouth, MN 55441
551-4944
551-4943 (fax)
5. Affordable Suburban Housing, Inc.
Ilill Schatzlein
4032 Grand Avenue South
Fxecutive Director
Minneapolis, MN 55409
8'24-16'28
6. Cottage Builders
Richard Helgeson
8202 Middletown Itoad
Spring Lake Park, MN 554:32
CCMANOKIAS: 2/7/94
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
9. Consideration to review for accentance the Economic Development
Authoritv's (EDA) vear-end statements and 1994 budget. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
This item is presented to comply with City Ordinance Amendment No. 172,
Section 2-3-6 (A), "The Authority shall prepare an annual budget projecting
anticipated expenses and sources of revenue"; and (B), "The Authority shall
prepare an annual report describing its activities and providing an accurate
statement of its financial condition. Said report shall be submitted to the City
Council by March 1 of each year."
The financial reports were prepared by EDA Assistant Treasurer Bob Mosford
and Executive Director Koropchak, and reviewed by Treasurer Rick
Wolfsteller. The EDA approved the year-end reports and budget at their
annual meeting held January 26, 1994. All GMEF loan paybacks are current.
Therefore, the EDA submits to the City Council a copy of the EDA's Balance
Sheet; Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
for the Year; 1994 Cash Flow Projections (Budget); and an Annual Activity
Report for review. Also, enclosed for your information is a copy of the annual
loan payback schedule for the six existing GMEF loans through 2001.
After questions or comments by City Council, the EDA requests the City
Council make a motion of acceptance of the reports. This to affirm ordinance
amendment compliance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. A motion W accept the EDA Balance Sheet; Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance; 1994 Cash Flow
Projections; and the Annual Activity Report as presented.
2. A motion W deny acceptance of the EDA Balance Sheet; Statements of
Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balance; 1994 Cash Flow
Projections; and the Annual Activity Report as presented.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation is for alternative # 1. Reason for the recommendation is that
all reports are reported as true and correct; the budget is based on projections
only; and thereafter, said motion would affirm compliance of City Ordinance
Amendment No. 172.
I). SUI'I'ORTING DATA:
Copy of the Year -End Statements, 1994 Cash Flow Projections, Annual Activity
Report, and GMEF payback schedules.
IR
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Year Ended December 31, 1993
REVENUES
Appropriations -
1993 Liquor Fund- rmN#-'IcO
1993 UDAG
Interest Income - Notes
Interest Income - Investment
Loan Fees
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
Legal Fees
Service Fees
Int. Adjustment - Notes
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures
FUND BALANCE - Beginning of Year
FUND BALANCE - End of Year
$ 75,000.00
$ 42,500.00
$ 18,245.59
$ 3,064.41
S 600.00
$ 0
$ 200.00
$ 0
$139,410.00
S 200.00
$139,210.00
8497.604.08
8636.814.08
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
Balance Sheet
December 31, 1993
ASSETS
Cash in Bank
Notes Receivable - Tapper, Inc.
Notes Receivable - Muller Theater
Notes Receivable - SMM, Inc.
Notes Receivable - Aroplax Corp.
Notes Receivable - Custom Canopy, Inc
Appropriations Receivables -
1993 UDAG
Standard Iron and Wire Works, Inc
1993 Liquor Fund
TOTAL ASSETS
FUND EQUITY
Fund Balance
Reserved for Participation Loans
(Economic Development)
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
$ 70,504.21-
$ 80,986.26
$ 46,450.47
$ 48,308.43
$ 73,824.50
$ 41,740.21
$ 42,500.00
$ 75000.00
8157:500.00A—
"7
3636„814.08
9636,814.08
$636,814.08
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
1994 Cash Flow Projection
BEGINNING CASH BALANCE, January 1994 $ 70,504.21
RECEIPTS
Appropriations, Expected $200,000.00
Notes Amortization Payments -
Tapper Inc. ($736.07 Mo.) 8-97 $ 8,832.84
Muller Theatre ($418.22 Mo.) 12-95 $ 5,018.64
SMM, Inc. ($316.32 Mo.) 12-97 $ 3,795.84
Aroplax Corp. ($1,241.73 Mo.) 12-99 $ 14,900.76
Custom Canopy, Inc. ($269.03 Mo.) 6-98 $ 3,228.36
Standard Iron (est. $1,060.05 Mo.) 4-01 $ 9,540.45
Interest Income - Investment $ 3,000.00
Loan Fees S 2.000.00
TOTAL RECEIPTS
5250,316.89
TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE AND RECEIPTS $320,821.10
EXPENDITURES
;MEF Loans $ 200,000.00
.egal Fees $ 1,000.00
Service Fees S 250.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
5201,250.00
EXPECTED CASH BALANCE, December 1994 $119,571.10
Accepted EDA 1992 Year -End Financial
Statements and Activity Report. All
existing GMEF loan payback$ are current.
3-30-93. Reviewed the preliminary and formal GMEF
applications from Stephen P. and Joan M.
Birkeland, Jr. (Custom Canopy, Inc.).
Approved the Birkeland-GMEF Loan No. 006
for $42,500 at 4.5% fixed interest rate
and amortized over 20 years ballooned in
five years.
Reviewed the accumulated payback balances
of the UDAG and State Economic Recovery
Loans.
6-7-93. Reviewed the financial package for the H -
Window expansion as prepared by BDS. Inc.
Denied endorsement for the issuance of
$1,175,000 G.O. Taxable TIF Bonds at 7.61
over 20 years for the H -Window expansion;
however, recommended the maximun use of
TIF, an aggressive approach for the
State's $500,000 request with an
explanation of the EDA's rational to Mr.
Lemme.
11-9-93. Reviewed the preliminary and formal GMEF
applications from Lawrence T. Demeules
(Standard Iron and Wire Works, Inc.).
Approved Demeules-GMEF Loan No. 007 for
$75,000 at a 5% fixed interest rate and
amortized over seven years.
Reviewed and gave preliminary concept
endorsement for use of GMEFs or issuance
of revenue bonds if backed by the
corporate guarantees for the Advanced
Food Sciences, Inc. project.
1993
ANNUAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACTIVITY REPORT
MEETING DATE
SUBJECTS
Annual Meeting
EDA officers elected for 1993:
held 1-27-93.
President - Ron Hoglund
vice President - Barb Schwientek
Treasurer - Rick Wolfsteller
Assistant Treasurer - Bob Mosford
Secretary - 011ie Koropchak
Accepted EDA 1992 Year -End Financial
Statements and Activity Report. All
existing GMEF loan payback$ are current.
3-30-93. Reviewed the preliminary and formal GMEF
applications from Stephen P. and Joan M.
Birkeland, Jr. (Custom Canopy, Inc.).
Approved the Birkeland-GMEF Loan No. 006
for $42,500 at 4.5% fixed interest rate
and amortized over 20 years ballooned in
five years.
Reviewed the accumulated payback balances
of the UDAG and State Economic Recovery
Loans.
6-7-93. Reviewed the financial package for the H -
Window expansion as prepared by BDS. Inc.
Denied endorsement for the issuance of
$1,175,000 G.O. Taxable TIF Bonds at 7.61
over 20 years for the H -Window expansion;
however, recommended the maximun use of
TIF, an aggressive approach for the
State's $500,000 request with an
explanation of the EDA's rational to Mr.
Lemme.
11-9-93. Reviewed the preliminary and formal GMEF
applications from Lawrence T. Demeules
(Standard Iron and Wire Works, Inc.).
Approved Demeules-GMEF Loan No. 007 for
$75,000 at a 5% fixed interest rate and
amortized over seven years.
Reviewed and gave preliminary concept
endorsement for use of GMEFs or issuance
of revenue bonds if backed by the
corporate guarantees for the Advanced
Food Sciences, Inc. project.
GMEP LOANS
GMEF LOAN N0. 001 - TAPPERS $88,000 8% AMORTIZED 20 YEARS
BALLOONED IN 7 YEARS. ($736.07)
8-13-90 $ 2,944.28
91 8,832.84
92 8,832.84
93 8,832.84
94 8,832.84
95 8,832.84
96 8,832.84
97 5,888.56
BALLOON PAYMENT 70,989.14
PAYBACK $132,819.02
GMEF LOAN N0. 002 - MULLER THEATRE $50,000 8% AMORTIZED 20 YEARS
BALLOONED IN 5 YEARS. (S418.22)
12-1-90
$ 418.22
91
5,018.64
92
5,018.64
93
5,018.64
94
5,018.64
95
4,600.42
BALLOON PAYMENT
43,762.79
PAYBACK $ 68,855.99
GMEF LOAN NO. 003 - NULL AND VOID
GMEF LOAN NO. 004 - BARGERS $50,000 4.5% AMORTIZED 20 YEARS
BALLOONED IN 5 YEARS. ($316.32)
12-1-92 $ 316.32
93 3,795.84
94 3,795.84
95 3.795.84
96 3,795.84
97 3,479.52
BALLOON PAYMENT 41,350.00
PAYBACK $ 60,329.20
GMEF LOAN NO. 005 - SCHOENS $85,000 6% AMORTIZED 7 YEARS
($1,241.73)
12-1-92
$ 1,241.73
93
14,900.76
94
14,900.76
95
14,900.76
96
14,900.76
97
14,900.76
98
14,900.76
99
13,338.57
PAYBACK $103,984.86
GMEF LOAN NO. 006 - BIRKELAND, JR $42,500 4.5% AMORTIZED 20 YEARS
BALLOONED IN 5 YEARS. ($269.03)
6-1-93 $
1,883.21
94
3,228.36
95
3,228.36
96
3,228.36
97
3,228.36
98
1,345.15
BALLON PAYMENT
35.157.40
PAYBACK $ 51,299.20
GMEF LOAN NO. 007 - DEMEULES $75,000 5% AMORTIZED 7 YEARS.
(EST. $1,060.50)
4-1-94
$ 9,544.50
95
12,726.00
96
12,726.00
97
12,726.00
98
12,726.00
99
12,726.00
00
12,726.00
01
3.181.50
PAYBACK $ 89,082.00
UPDATED 1-21-94
PREPARED BY OLLIE KOROPCHAK
GMEFLOAN.ACC
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
10, Consideration to review the UDAG and SCERG year-end financial
reports and consideration to approve the EDA's 1994 appropriation
reauests. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Enclosed are the year-end financial reports for the Urban Development Action
Grant (UDAG) and the Small Cities Economic Recovery Grant (SCERG). The
UDAG fund has a December 31, 1993, balance of $71,170.80 and a projected
remaining payback of $165,497.45. The SCERG fund has a December 31,
1993, balance of $33,346.77 and a projected remaining payback of $175,685.07.
All loan paybacks are current.
In 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance Amendment No. 172 establishing
the Economic Development Authority (EDA). The Greater Monticello
Enterprise Fund (GMEF) Bylaws were approved in 1990 followed by the first
loan approval in 1991 to Bill and Barb Tapper. Funding for the GMEF
program was determined to be an annual appropriation of $200,000 from the
liquor fund. In unwritten words, both the City Council and EDA
Commissioners estimated that the GMEF program would he self-supporting
within approximately five years. Since 1991 the EDA has approved GMEF
loans totaling $390,500 ($263,000 from liquor fund and $127,500 from the
UDAG fund).
At the annual EDA meeting, the commissioners agreed the GMEF public
purpose and criteria has worked to benefit the community by meeting its
bottom-line objectives: To increase the local tax base and create jobs. The
commissioners also agreed the current guidelines were sufficient.
Additionally and first, the commissioners considered the end -year GMEF cash
balance of $70,504.21, UDAG cash balance of $71,170.80, and SCERG cash
balance of $33,345.77. Secondly, they considered the GMEF loan payback
schedule and noted the first balloon payment is due in December 1995. They
agreed this would be a real test of the program. And thirdly, the
commissioners considered and speculated on the loan paybacks from the
potential second SCERG (The H -Window).
Based on the above three considerations, the original intent of the GMEF to
he self-supporting within five years, and to ensure stability of the GMEF
program, the EDA requests the City Council consider the following:
Commit the projected remaining UDAG payback of $165,497.45
to the GMEF.
12
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
2. Upon UDAG commitment approval, approve a 1994 liquor fund
appropriation of $100,000.
The FDA's request, comes with a remrd of earned credibility, consideration to
ensure long-term stability of GMEF, and as an act of good faith with an early
request for the reduced 1994 appropriation of $100,000.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to commit the projected remaining UDAG payback of $165,497
to the GMEF and to approve the 1994 liquor fund appropriation of
$100,000 for the GMEF.
2. Motion to deny the EDA's request of alternative ill.
3. Motion to deny commitment of the projected remaining UDAG payback
of $165,497 and to approve a 1994 liquor fund appropriation of $200,000
for the GMEF.
4. Motion to commit the projected remaining UDAG payback of $165,497
to the GMEF and to approve a 1994 liquor fund appropriation at less
than $100,000.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation is for alternative ill.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the year-end UDAG and SCERG financial reports and summary of
available GMEF cash fund sources.
13
URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT (UDAG)
FINANCIAL REPORT
January 26, 1994
Payback began in January, 1988 for 12 years ending in January, 2000.
Annual principal and interest payback total is 527,971.40.
GRANT TOTALS
ORIGINAL PAID REMAINING
Principal $256,957.71 $119,321.21 $137,636.50
Interest $78,699.09 $50,838.14 $27,860.95
TOTAL $335,656.80 $170,159.35 $165,497.45
REVENUES
Principal Payback
$119,321.21
Interest Payback
$50,838.14
Interest Income - Investment:
1990
$3,562.62
1991
$8,593.59
1992
$8,436.32
1993
$7,918.92
TOTAL REVENUES $198,670.80
EXPENDITURES
1991 Transfer to GMEF $65,000.00
1992 Transfer to GMEF $20,000.00
1993 Transfer to GMEF $42,500.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $127,500.00
FUND BALANCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $71,170.80
December 31, 1993
SMALL CITIES ECONOMIC RECOVERY GRANT (SCERG)
FINANCIAL REPORT
January 26, 1994
Payback began in December, 1992 for 7 years ending in November, 1999.
Annual principal and interest payback total is $29,801.40.
First $100,000 principal payback ends April, 1997.
GRANTTOTALS
Gram must be expended by December 31, 1994, up to $170,000.
EXPENDED: $116,556.75
$16,996.18
$12,356.59
$145,909.52
Principal Payback
ORIGINAL
PAID
REMAINING
Principal
$170,000.00
$22,342.18
$147,657.82
Interest
$37,969.92
$9,942.67
$28,027.25
TOTAL
$207,969.92
$32,284.85
$175,685.07
APRIL 30. 1997
GMEF
STATE
Principal
$170,000.00
$99,400.23
$70,599.77
Interest
$37,969.92
$31,803.44
$6,166.48
TOTAL
$207,969.92
$131,203.67
$76,766.25
Gram must be expended by December 31, 1994, up to $170,000.
EXPENDED: $116,556.75
$16,996.18
$12,356.59
$145,909.52
Principal Payback
$22,342.18
Interest Payback
$9,942.67
Interest Income - Investment:
1993
$1,061.92
TOTAL REVENUES
$33,346.77
EXPENDITURES
Transfer to GMEF $0.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $0.00
FUND BALANCE FOR SMALL CITIES GRANT $33,346.77
December 31, 1993
CASH BALANCES FOR GMEF USE
JANUARY 26, 1994
GMEF Cash Balance
$ 70,504.21
UDAG
$ 71,170.80
SCERG
S 33.346.77
TOTAL CASH BALANCE
$175,021.78
RECOMMENDATION:
1994 LIQUOR FUND APPROPRIATION REQUEST
$100,000.00
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
LOAN STATUS
January 26, 1994
Economic Development Authority (EDA) was created in 1989.
APPROVEDLOANS
Tapper/Genereux (1990)
$88,000.00
Muller/Monti Theatre (1990)
$50,000.00
Barger/Suburban (1992)
$50,000.00
Schoen/Aroplax (1992)
$85,000.00
Birkeland/Custom Canopy (1993)
$42,500.00
Derneules/Standard Iron (1993)
$75,000.00
TOTAL APPROVED LOANS $390,500.00
December 31, 1993
LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
Liquor Fund:
1991 to GMEF $73,000.00
1992 to GMEF $115,000.00
Total Liquor Fund $188,000.00
UDAG Fund:
1991 to GMEF
$65,000.00
1992 to GMEF
$20,000.00
1993 to GMEF
$42,500.00
Total UDAG Fund
$127,500.00
In Process: $75,000.00
TOTAL LOAN DISBURSEMENTS $390,500.00
December 31, 1993
Council Agenda - 2/14/94
>> • Consideration of granting a seasonal 3.2 beer license to the
Monticello Softbali Association. (R.WJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Softball Association has again requested a 3.2 beer license to
sell at the NSP softball field concession stand. The Softball Association will
be presenting a letter of intent to acquire dram shop liquor liability
insurance upon the approval of the City issuing the license; and as a result,
the Council can approve this license contingent upon receipt of the
certificate of insurance for liquor liability and the appropriate fees for the
seasonal license. The fees for this license were previously $137.50, but the
Council will be asked to consider an increase in the liquor license fees at the
March 14 Council meeting; therefore, your approval can be stating that the
license will be required to pay the appropriate fees in effect by April 1994.
I've also enclosed again for the Council's review a copy of the 1993 Softball
Association income report that I had previously distributed in January. The
Softball Association has brought all their fees up to date with the City for
the year 1993, including their contribution for the lighting at the softball
complex and their agreement to pay all electrical costs for the ballfield
lighting.
B. ALTERNATIVE, ACTIONS
1. Grant the license contingent upon receipt of necessary insurance
documents and appropriate fees.
2. Deny the license.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the license he granted contingent upon proper
insurance coverage being provided. The City has not been aware of any
problems with this license in the past and can see no reason why the
Association should not be granted a license for 1994.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of 1993 financial report.
14
1993 MONTICELLO MEN'S SLOWPITCH INCOME REPORT
Revenue
22 teams @ $375
$8,250.00
League Early Bird Tournament
1,924.00
Men's Class C USSSA Districts (includes concession stand revenue)
2,370.80
Men's Class D ASA Districts (includes concession stand revenue)
5,627.75
Concessions
15.6:35.44
TOTAL INCOME
$33,807.99
Expenses
Tractor maintenance
$130.23
Phone bill - 12 months
229.56
Dram shop insurance
700.00
City of Monticello
Liquor license
137.50
Yearly installment for lights
500.00
Field fee (22 teams @ $125)
2,750.00
Tournament field fee
500.00
Electric bill for lights
1,288.40
Balls
1,395.48
Trophies for league and league tournament
535.70
Lime for chalking fields
199.90
Person to drat; and chalk fields and empty garbage
725.00
MSF and MRPA sanction fees
629.00
MSF District fees (2 teams @ $90)
180.00
USSSA District fees (3 teams @ $100)
300.00
Lindenfelser Meats
1,876.28
Viking Coke
1,995.00
Budweiser for USSSA Tourament
430.00
Dahlheimer Distributing
2,926.80
Maus Foods
1,050.07
D & S Sales - candy
2,682.40
Umpires
4,195.00
People to run concessions
5,136.25
Miscellaneous Propane for grill, gas for tractor, nes: grill, material
for standings board service, charge on checking,
ice, schedules, postage, Monticello Times, & other
numerous items purchased at various retailers
1.035.24
TOTAL EXPENSES
$31,527.81
TOTAL INCOME
$33,807.99
TOTAL EXPENSES
$31.527.81
NETINCOME*
$2,280.18
Note: $1,500 was used from income to cover previous year's losses.
Adjusted income is $780.18.
Council Agenda - 2/1V94
12. Consideration of auaointing two Council members to a community_
arena planning and management committee. W.O. )
A. REFERFNCE AND BACKGROUND
City Council is asked to review the attached summary of a meeting held
between City staff, School District officials, the Hockey Association, and
Township officials regarding planning necessary in conjunction with a
potential community arena referendum. As you will note in the summary of
the meeting, there are a number of issues that need to be better defined and
understood prior to the referendum that cannot be adequately defined
unless the City, School District, and Township participate jointly in the
planning process. The first meeting of the proposed arena planning and
management committee is scheduled for February 17 at 8 p.m. at the School
District offices.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Council members interested in serving on this committee should step
forward at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Summary of community arena meeting, February 8, 1994.
15
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
MEMO
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
T0: Dennis Taylor, Mark Fluharty, Mark Holmes, Dennis Suedbeck, Shelly
Johnson, Ken Scadden, and Ted Koppff� (�
FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administratbt UJ • la
DATE: February 10, 1994 `UJ(
RE: Community arena meeting summary, 2/8/94
Following is a quick review of the discussion at the recent meeting.
Mark Holmes noted that further progress on achieving the steps required by the City
Council will require input from the School District, Hockey Association, City, and the
Township. The purpose of this meeting is to identify some of the issues that need to be
discussed jointly and to set up a process for resolving such issues.
Holmes noted that a number of the issues require joint review such as development of the
site plan, design of the facility, management of the facility, and distribution of ice time.
A number of general topics were discussed.
Prevarat.ion of oreliminary plans. Mark Holmes and Fluharty asked if funds spent
on preparation of preliminary plans by the Hockey Association would be considered
part of the $100,000 contribution toward development of the facility. O'Neill noted
that he would check with the City Administrator regarding this question; however,
it was his view that since this expense is a cost of development that certainly it
would seem appropriate that it should be considered as a part of the $100,000
contribution to the project.
2. Communitv arena budget. It was noted by Shelly Johnson that the total budget
for development of the site does not adequately include expenses associated with
grading, parking lot, landscaping, etc. The group agreed that a complete inventory
of potential expenses and a refined budget for the project needs to be established
very soon.
Memo
Community Arena Meeting Summary
February 10, 1994
Page 2
3. Zoning. It was noted that the present zoning designation would not allow for a
multi-purpose arena and that rezoning would need to occur in conjunction with
approval of the site plan.
4. Arena Management Committee. It was the consensus of the group that an arena
management committee needs to be formed to address specific issues in an effort to
define the project prior to the referendum. O'Neill noted that he would request
two volunteers from the City Council to serve on the arena committee. Shelly
Johnson indicated that School Board members serving on the facilities committee
will be available to meet on February 17 at 8 p.m. It was the consensus of the
group to meet at this time. The agenda for the first meeting could include but not
be limited to the following topics:
Identify a process for preparation of the preliminary building plan and
identify responsibilities with regard to development of plans and
specifications, bidding, etc. This item to include development of a
plan for defining specific site improvements and associated costs.
Identify School District issues relating to land acquisition and discuss
school use of the facility, etc.
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned.
/?
CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Month of January, 1994
PERMITS 6 USES
21
7
6
6
7
TOTAL VMUAIION
Las]
This
Same Month
Last Year
This Year
PFRMI TS ISSUED
Morph DEC
Month JAN
Last Year
To Date
To Dale
RESIDENTIAL
$963.95
511.50
544.10
$44.10
011.50
Number
4
5
2
2
5
Valual-
$240.900.00
579,00000
$75,200,00
$75.200.00
$19,000,00
Fees
$1,923.16
520830
$610.97
$610.97
5209.30
Surcharges
$12040
$925
$3760
537.60
$9.25
COMMERGAL
0 0
Number
3
2
2
Vat"?-
$ mq.w no
s3,5Mr10
S3,5aO on
0 0
Fees
51,475.55
$3500
535.00
0 0
Surcharges
$94.50
$1.50
$1.50
0 0
INDUST RIAL
0 0
Number
5
I
I
1
1
Valualr
$1.509.100,00
$3.500,00
$9.00000
$9.000.00
53,50000
Fees
$10.383.02
53500
$109,00
$109.00
$35.00
Swcherges
$754.55
$1.75
$4.50
54.50
$1.75
PLUMBING
1
$3500
$1.75
$3.50000
1 1
Numbor
9
1
1
t
1
Fees
$307.00
$1300
$23.00
$23.00
$1300
Surcharges
$4.50
50.50
$0.50
$0.50
$0.50
OTHERS
VaW horn
Fees
Sumhemal;
TOTAL N PERMITS
21
7
6
6
7
TOTAL VMUAIION
_51,919,400_0022500.W
_{67,700
$87,_700 W_
522,500.00
TOTAL FEES____,
_$t3 W8.73
__52. 57 30
5718.07
_;776.87
>FZ✓7.30
TOTAL SURCHARGES
$963.95
511.50
544.10
$44.10
011.50
CURRENTMONTH
FEQ_
NLtMBERTO DATE__
PEFTMIT NATURE_
Numbo,
Parmlj
Surcharge
VdWallon
TMs Yea Lae1 Ygm
Srglo Family
0 I
D.Ple.
0 0
Co orcml
0 0
IMuStrwl
0 0
Ties Garngrre
0 0
SQrts
0 0
PLOC Blegs
0 0
AL I t:RA I IOwnEPAln
liwollutgs
5
$209 30
$925
$19,000.00
5 1
F.[M .Wcml
0 Z
Ink"Ww
1
$3500
$1.75
$3.50000
1 1
PI UMBING
All Iypos I 613 DO $050 $000 1 1
ACCESSO14Y
S T n11C I LITES
Swt N Pools 0
Docks 0
IfMPOnARY PI:IIMIt 0 0
nF-IA01IIIITN__
IQI ALS 1 . __ _f_?57 aQ ____fll_K
i
CITY OF MONTICELLO INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of January, 1994
PERMIT
FEES
XgMBER
DESCRIEnON
TYPE
NAMFILOCADON
vALVAIIGN _
PERMIT UBCtIARGE_2LUMBING—SURCNAPGE"
9<-2204'Loadmo
ooCk enclosure
At
John 6anohu&1400 East Broaowav
$3,60000
$35.00
;1.75
9a-2205
Emnr Aoaaan
AD
Thomas and Sharon Snzer213 New Street
S1,50000
S1500
SO �0
94.2206
Basement finish
'AD
Marty Jones/1007 East Rlvar Street
55000.00
po.00'
S2.50 S1300 $050
9A-2207
House and oaraoe res'dino
AD
Ham and Marr Ann Ouialeyt50ft West River Street
$1,80000
11 a 00'
10.90
91-2208
Housa and oaraoe res,clinc
AD
Jellrev and Dicksse Neisem209 Washinpton Street
$7,700 OQ
$9630
$3 a5
94.2209
Basement I hash
AD
Kirk Hanzler/2761 Oakmew Lane
55,.3. 000 00
S3000
11 50
TOTALS
522.500.00,
S244.30
511.00 813.00 !;0.50
PLAN RF,VIFW
"
I
I
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW
$0.00
I
I
I
-
,
I
TOTA.AEVENDE
I
I
'
$258.80
I
'
I
I
I
I