Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 07-25-1994AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 26, 1994 - 7 pm. Mayor: Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 11, 1994. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. 1. Public Hearing --Consideration of improvement to 7th Street between Pine Street and Cedar Street, City Project 94-03C. IL Consideration of change order with Cardinal Hills TV project for improvements to 7th Street and Cedar StreetJOakwood Drive realignment, City Project 94-03C. 6. Consideration of a variance request to allow a pylon sign to be erected above the 32 -ft maximum height allowed. Applicant, SuperAmerica Group. 6. Consideration of vacating a portion of former Trunk Highway 26 to SuperAmerica Group and vacate a portion of the old Cedar Street utility and drainage easement. 7. Consideration of adopting an ordinance licensing and regulating the sale of tobacco within the city of Monticello. 8. Review of Liquor Store six month financial statements. 9. Consideration of installation of electrical pump lockouts for protection of the second state digester at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 10. Consideration of approval of annual MPCA Wastewater Treatment Plant survey. 11. Consideration of adopting a resolution of residential antidisplacement, relocation assistance, and displacement minimization plan for Monticello. 12. Consideration of adopting a resolution of compliance with Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. 13. Consideration of approving an application for a gambling license at J. P.'s Annex --Monticello Lions Club. 14. City Council update -old Fire Hall renovation for Motor Vehicle department 15. Consideration of appointing a replacement for Utility Billing Clerk/ Receptionist. 16. Consideration of advertising in Fall Parade of Homes booklet --Suburban Northwest Builders Assn. 17. Approval of bills for the month of July. Additional Information Item 18. City Council update --Meadow Oaks storm sewer outlet. 19. oN Trf s1 -l7 CfAyM/ic /yETy�� �0. Re,5-q jj%( of e /= Cn..Nc,'1 Mr4 f rt — PeTr7 0Lfe_) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 11, 1994 - 7 pm. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith Members Absent: Patty Olsen Consideration of approval of minutes of the reeular meetine held June 27, 1994. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to accept the meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Citizens commentatpetitions, requests, and complaints. None forthcoming. onsideration of a requgat to subdiyide two existine residential lots, an4 a reauest for a variance allowine a 10 -ft encroachment into the front Yard setback. and a request for a variance allowine creation of a substandard lot. Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that Jeff Michaelis requests City Council to allow a simple subdivision realigning Lots 6 & 7, Block 9. The subdivision and associated building plans result in the need for a 10 -ft front yard setback variance and a variance allowing a lot to be created that does not meet code in terms of lot width. Brad Fyle indicated his concern regarding creating a lot with an angled lot boundary. He was concerned that over time the precise location of the boundary line may be lost and may become a source of confusion. Clint Herbst noted that the lot that will be created will have greater front footage than the present lots thereby reducing the level of non -conformity. He also felt that the property owners can work out problems associated with the jog in the property line. After discussion, the motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren Smith to approve the 10 -ft variance to the front yard setback requirement and approve a variance allowing the creation of a lot with a front foot width of 71 feet. Variances granted based on the finding that: The level of conformity to the front yard lot width requirement will be improved as a result of the proposed subdivision. Current front yard width of each of the existing lots is 66 feet. Proposed lot widths after subdivision aro 71 ft and 94 ft. Page 1 Council Minutes - 7/11/94 Minnesota Street right of way width, at this location, is 20 feet greater than the standard city street and the existing road surface is near the center of the right of way. Therefore, encroachment on the setback requirement at this location is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. Both lots created will be of equal size. Voting in favor of the motion: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Opposed: Brad Fyle. Motion carried. Brad Fyle indicated that his opposition was due to presence of the angled property line. Consideration of a conditional use reauest to allow a motor fuel station/ convenience store in a B-3 (hiehwav business) zone. Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that SuperAmerica requests a conditional use permit which would allow operation of a convenience store at the location previously occupied by Vance s Standard. The type of use is completely consistent with uses allowed in the B-3 zone; therefore, the Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the conditional use permit. ONeill went on to note that specific approvals relating to the grading wid utilities plan are yet to he reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Department. Shirley Anderson noted her support of the proposed convenience store. She indicated her concern regarding a variance recently recommended for approval by the Planning Commission which would allow a pylon sign to exceed the 32 -ft maximum. It was her view that this item should be reviewed by the City Council prior to formal approval due to the fact that the city has recently denied a similar variance request submitted by Subway Shop. Atter discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to approve the conditional use permit to SuperAmerica Group allowing a motor fuel station/ convenience store in the 11.3 (highway business) zone. Approval is subject to the conditions as noted in the zoning ordinance. Motion approved unanimously. Consideration of Liberty Savings preliminary slat. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Liberty Savings is requesting approval of a preliminary plat affecting a 3 -acre site located directly east of Riverrnad Plaza hetween the service drive and East County Road 39. The proposed development calls for establishment of a bank/office facility which would utilize approximately half of the platted property. The other half of the property would be divided into a separate lot for future development. The property being platted was originally linked to the 16 -acre property Page 2 Council Minutes - 7/11/94 owned by Gladys Hoglund, situated directly east of the present alignment of East County Road 39. O Neill noted that the subdivision does not require extension of any public utilities or roadway systems. It simply utilizes facilities that are in place. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the preliminary plat as proposed. After discussion, the motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve the Liberty Savings preliminary plat. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of a conditional use vermit which would allow operation of an office facility in a PZM zone. In conjunction with platting of the parcel under Item 6, it is proposed that a 4,000 sq ft bank/office facility be developed. Under the site plan proposed, the facility will adhere to all the zoning standards as defined in a B-3 district. The purpose of the conditional use permit requirement for a business in the PZM zone is to provide for design standards that would allow placement of a commercial facility near or adjacent to a residential use. In this situation, it is clear that there will be no residential uses adjacent to the facility. Therefore, the site should be required to meet the minimum requirements of a commercial establishment being developed in a commercial zone. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to approve a conditional use permit to allow operation of an office facility in a PZM zone. Motion carried unanimously. Brad Fyle expressed his appreciation to Libery Savings for making a commitment to the city of Monticello and noted that, although it would have been nice to develop a facility in the downtown area, he felt that the site selected will work well. Mark Bragelman, Vice President of Liberty Savings, requested that City Council consider updating the street name of the street serving the facility from Service Drive to Liberty Drive. He noted that none of the present property owners use Service Drive as an address and none of them object to the proposed change. Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that Service Drive will likely be extended easterly across East County Road 39 into an undeveloped area and it is also planned that the road will be extended westerly to connect to Hart Boulevard. The westerly extension will likely occur within 3 to 6 years to coincide with widening of County State Aid Highway 76. Shirley Anderson noted that it makes sense to rename Service Drive to Hart Boulevard if it is the long term goal to connect Hart Boulevard to pointe east. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to rename Service Drive to Hart Boulevard. Motion carried unanimously. Page 3 Council Minutes . 7/11/94 Review of bids and consideration of award for building demolition of old Gille house at 1324 West Broadway. John Simola reported that on Thursday, July 7, 1994, the city received two bids for demolition of the Gille house. The lowest bid was from Veit and Company of Rogers, Minnesota, at a total cost of $7,993. The second bid was received from Schluender of Monticello for a total cost of $9,800. After discussion the motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley Anderson to award the bid for building demolition and site preparation of the Gille site to Veit and Company of Rogers for a lump sum of $6,193 and an estimated cost of $1,800 for soil excavation and replacement based upon actual unit prices in cubic yards for a total estimated project cost of $7,993. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of obtaining independent appraisals for proposed land swan-- Outlots C and D and Emmerich parcel. Rick Wolfsteller reported that at the previous meeting Council authorized the City Engineer to continue with developing grading plans for development of Eastwood Knoll plat, but also authorized staff to investigate the feasibility of a possible land exchange proposed by Tony Emmerich which would result in the city obtaining industrial property for the residential parcel that the city now owns. Wolfsteller went on to review the costs associated with development of the industrial site and estimated that the city would need to average between $26,000 and $30,000 for acre to recapture the original $164,000 investment that we have in the property we would be trading. Wolfsteller went on to note that in discussing the proposed trade with Jay Johnson. It is their feeling that an independent appraisal should be obtained on both the city's and Mr. Emmerich's parcels to establish a fair market value for determining an appropriate land exchange value. Wolfsteller asked Council if it wishes to share the cost of obtaining these appraisals as part of the further consideration of the land swap proposal. After discussion, the motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren Smith to inform Emmerich that the City continues to have interest in the idea of a land swap but declines to participate in the cost of obtaining appraisals as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. 10. onsideration of approval of planfl and omcificationg for 7th Street between Fine Street pnd Cedar Street. pnd realignment of Cedar Street at Oakwood Drive, City Project 94-03f, and authorizption to negRCi04o the CoJ113LB change order to inclpde this lyork vfith the Cardinal Hills 4th Addition in performed by R. P. Utilitica. Inc. After discussion, the motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve the plans for 7th Street reconstruction and Pago 4 Council Minutes - 7/11/94 Cedar Street realignment, Project 94-03C, and authorize city staff to negotiate change order costs with R. P. Utilities to be reviewed at the July 25th council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of approval of plans and specifications for the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet to the Mississippi River. Citv Proiect 93-12C. John Simola reported that staff has been moving ahead with development of final plans and specifications for the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet. We have reached an agreement with Kerry Saxton of Wright County Soil Conservation Office with regard to the project design having no impact on existing wetlands on the Gene Bauer property. The storm sewer system will have an adjustable inlet at the manhole near the south end of Gillard which will allow adjustment of the water level in the wetlands. Kerry Saxton's office will perform a wetland delineation and the water level will be adjusted accordingly after the project is completed. The City Engineer has discussed the current design features with Mr. and Mrs. Bauer and they are continuing under the premise that easement and drainage rights costs equal storm sewer benefits from the project. The city will be working out a written agreement with the Bauers prior to the award of the project. Staff is continuing to work with the county and state in regard to their participation in the project. We've received a request from the county to bid three alternate pipe sizes in addition to our base project. It appears that the state may also request a similar three alternative design. At this time, however, it has not been determined how or who would pay for a deeper or a larger pipe size designed to serve the Ditch 33 area. In order to keep the project on schedule for 1994 completion, it is imperative that we move ahead with the project. Consequently, we are asking the City Council's approval of plans in this preliminary stage and authorization to go to bids prior to next council meeting after the selection of alternative pipe size and depth by the county and state. Clint Herbst noted that this is the prime time to design the pipe to help solve the Ditch 33 problem. It does not make sense to complete the project without addressing the problem to the east. Bret Weiss noted that we will need to provide an outlet to the Meadow Oaks pond relatively soon. We could delay creating the outlet if the county would allow us to break the present bulkhead blocking the outflow of water from Meadow Oaks pond. Brad Fyle noted that if the storm sewer is developed to serve a portion of Ditch 33, then the city should he reimbursed for some of the costa above and beyond oversizing. Such costs would include paying a portion of the replacement of Gillard Avenue. It was the consensus of Council to direct the City Engineer to contact the county and state and township with an update on 6ty plans to move forward on the project and encourage them to come to an agreement as to participation in funding a share of the oversizing costs. After discussion, a Page 5 Council Minutes - 7/11/94 motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve plans and specifications in preliminary form and authorize advertising for bids based upon our base system and one alternative pipe size and depth. Motion carried unanimously. 12. Consideration of change order #1 for City Proiect 93-07C. Second Staee Anaerobic Dieester Cover Replacement Proiect. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve change order #1 with greater construction costs for additional work on the second stage digester cover project in the amount of $1,985.10. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Consideration of City involvement or sumDort of a community -owned conereeate care/assisted livine senior housine oroieq Rick Wolfeteller reported that on June 22, 1994, presentations were made to the Hospital District. Board and members of the City Council, HRA, and Planning Commission regarding development of a congregate carelassisted living senior housing project adjacent to the hospital district campus. As a result of the presentations, it appeared that the proposal by BRW and Presbyterian Hunies would be best suited for the Monticello project. Followup to this meeting was presented to the HRA on July 6, which outlined development of a 40 -unit senior housing project to be located just east of the hospital clinic building expansion site. Wolfsteller went on to now his concern regarding the location of the facility in close proximity to the wastewater treatment plant. He noted that it is antiepated that the treatment plant will be expanded at its present location. John Simola expressed his concern regarding the potential for odor problems at the site proposed by the Hospital District He noted his preference that the facility be constructed on the west aide of the hospital district campus. Wolfsteller outlined various scenarios under which the project could be financed and reported that it was his understanding that those present at the meeting were leaning towards creation of a non-profit corporation that would be made up of representatives from the Hospital Board, City and HRA. After discussion, the motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to support a community-based non-profit corporation but recommend that the committee look at alternative sites due to the proposed location's proximity to the wastewater treatment plant. Motion carried unanimously. Shirley Anderson and Clint Herbst voluateen:d W serve on the non-profit corporation. Page 6 Council Minutes - 7/11/94 14. Consideration of an application for a one-dav eambline license --Monticello Rod and Gun Club Steak Fry. Wolfsteller reported that the Monticello Jaycees is requesting approval of a one -day gambling license to conduct a raffle as part of the Monticello Rod and Gun Club's annual steak fry to be held on August 13, 1994. Before the State of Minnesota will grant a license, the City Council must adopt a resolution supporting the request or denying the application. After discussion, the motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to adopt a resolution approving issuance of the license. Motion carried unanimously. 15. Consideration of adopting Heartland Express Bus Management Plan for 1995. Assistant Administrator O Neill outlined the proposed Management Plan for 1995. He noted that bus ridership continues to climb while expenses remain relatively consistent. He noted that, as in years past, the cost to the city to operate the bus under the plan in 1995 will amount to 25% of the total cost to operate the system or $16,000. 75% of the cost to operate the system will be derived from the combination of fare revenue and state and federal funding. After discussion, the motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt the Heartland Express Management Plan and associated budget for 1995. Motion carried unanimously. 16. Consideration of aDnointine Wanda Kraemer to the Development Services Technician position. Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that City Council consider appointing Wanda Kraemer to the position of Development Services Technician. He noted that in response to the posting of the job opening internally, city administration received 3 applications from current employees. A staff conunittee made up of the Assistant Administrator, City Administrator, Building Inspector, Economic Development Director, and Office Manager reviewed the applications in terms of experience, education, etc. and recommended Wanda Kraemer for the position. Brad Fyle indicated that based on his assessment of her performance she will do fine in her new position. Shirley Anderson expressed her support for hiring Wanda Kraemer for the position and expressed her appreciation to the other employees that applied. Clint Herbst noted his concern regarding the step increases in pay as proposed. He recommended that the step increase beyond the initial increase granted at the time of promotion not be granted at the end of probation but be granted at the first anniversary of being awarded the new position. Page 7 Council Minutes - 7/11/94 After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to appoint Wanda Kraemer to the position of Development Services Technician and to authorize posting of the job Wanda Kraemer is vacating. Eligibility for a step increase is to occur one year from the date of the appointment. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff ONeill Assistant Adnrinistrator Page 8 Council Agenda - 7/25/94 I. Public Hearing—Consideration of improvement to 7th Street between Pine Street and Cedar Street Citv Prosect 94.03C. II. Consideration of change order with Cardinal Hills IY arolect for imorovemente to 7th Street and Cedar Street/Oakwood Drive realignment Citv Prosect 94-W. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As previously discussed, this project involves the reconstruction of 7th Street between Highway 25 and Cedar Street. The current street was installed in 1982 and lasted 12 years, about 60% of its expected life. Failure of the street was most likely due to heavier and more frequent vehicle trips than the design could tolerate for a 20 -year period. The feasibility study for the project indicates a construction cost of $34,410 for this portion of 7th Street. $1,720 would be allowed for contingency and $6,503 for engineering and indirect costs. This would bring us to a project cost of about $42,650. With the City picking up the north half of the street due to the cemetery, we would propose to assess Perkins and Taco Bell for the south half of the street. Since Perkins owns 198 feet. and Taco Bell 172 feet, the 2 assessments would work out to $11,412.72 and $9,914.08 respectively. Since the street did not live up to its full useful life, there is a reason to credit the benefitting properties with the 40% unused life of the existing street and charge them only 60% of the cost of the new street. We have set such a precedent with the Mississippi Drive construction and also have charged only 50% for the Industrial Park upgrade of the street system. This is concurrent with the spirit of the city's assessment ordinance. We, therefore, sent notice to Perkins for a 60% assessment of $6,847 and to Taco Bell for a 60% assessment of $5,948. Again, these estimates are based upon the costs noted in the feasibility study. We are continuing to work toward having the change order costs from R. P. Utilities in time for the agenda or at least by Monday evening's meeting. At the close of the public hearing, the Council is asked to discuss the cost for both the 7th Street construction and the Cedar Street/Oakwood Drive realignment. Both aro parts of Project 94-03C. The construction cost estimate for the Cedar Street realigmuent is $10,610. Adding a 5% contingency of $530.50 and an 18% indirect cost brings the total project cost to $13,145.79. There are no anticipated assessments for this project as we are making improvements to the realignment for the good of the entire community. The total estimated construction costs based upon the Council Agenda - 7/25194 feasibility study for both projects is $55,800. There are adequate funds in the 1994 budget to complete these projects. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The first alternative, when reviewing the change order to R. P. Utilities on the 4th Addition of Cardinal Hills, would be to approve the change order and order the improvements to both Cedar Street and 7th Street should the change order costs be near the cost of the feasibility study estimates. The second alternative, upon reviewing the change order costs or the lack thereof, is to order the advertisement of bids for the two projects with the bids to be reviewed at a future meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since we do not have the change order costs at this time and the alternative action selected depends upon having, or lack of having, that information by Monday evening, staff withholds its recommendation until that time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of change order (should it arrive in time). Please refer to your council agenda of June 27, 1994, for these items and a copy of the feasibility study. ki Council Agenda - 7/25/94 5. Consideration of a variance reauest to allow a x►vlon sitrn to be erected above the 32 -ft maximum height allowed. ADDlicant, SuoerAmerica Grouo. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND SuperAmerica requests that the City allow a pylon sign to be extended above the 32 -ft height maximum allowed by ordinance to a level of 55 ft. As with each variance request, in order to retain the integrity of the ordinance, the applicant needs to demonstrate a unique circumstance or hardship associated with the variance request. What are the unusual circumstances that limit reasonable use of the property without a variance? As you know, on a 3-2 vote, the Planning Commission recommended granting a variance based on the finding that a hardship exists due to the fact that SuperAmerica must attract freeway -bound customers, and the pylon sign height at 32 ft is not high enough to be visible from the freeway. Apparently there are trees on adjoining property that block the view of the sign. There is a precedent relating to a similar request in 1991. In 1991, the Subway Shop submitted a very similar pylon sign height variance request. The Subway Shop request for a higher pylon sign was denied based on the finding that there was no hardship. Therefore, to approve the variance for SuperAmerican would appear to be inconsistent with the Subway Shop decision. Furthermore, the hardship defined by the Planning Commission in their finding supporting the higher SuperAmerica sign does not establish a specific standard as to when a variance should be granted to allow visibility of the sign from the freeway. It could be argued that anv business that needs freeway exposure could argue that they suffer from a hardship because their business sign cannot be seen from the freeway. Where then does the City draw the line? From a planning and zoning code administration standpoint, it would appear that if the Planning Commission and City Council aro comfortable with the 55 ft high sign at SuperAmerica, then the ordinance should be recrafied to allow for higher pylon signs but perhaps limit the area eligible for such signs. Under the variance as granted, the door has been opened up to allowing higher pylon signs throughout all areas within 800 ft of the freeway bonus area. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to grant the variance allowing a sign in excess of the 32 -ft height maximum. Council Agenda - 7/25/94 This motion should be accompanied by a finding defining the hardship or unique circumstances. Please see attached letter from the attorney representing Superhmerica which outlines SuperAmerica's showing of hardship. If City Council selects this option, Council may wish to reference reasons for the variance as outlined in the letter. Motion to deny the variance request based on the finding that no unique situation or hardship erdsts to justify the variance. Under this alternative, City Council would determine that allowing a sign height in excess of 32 ft is not acceptable because SuperAmerica can achieve reasonable use of the property without the variance. SuperAmerica might argue that the Amoco station had a sign in excess of 32 ft; therefore, SuperAmerica should be allowed to have a sign at the same height. According to the zoning ordinance, maintenance of non -conforming signs is acceptable; however, complete removal and replacement of a non -conforming sign with another non- conforming sign is not allowed by ordinance. 1. Motion to deny variance but call for a public hearing on a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow establishment of higher pylon signs in the freeway bonus area, Under this alternative, Council would deny the bariance based on lack of hardship but be willing to explore the potential of amending the zoning ordinance to allow SuperAmerica and other businesses in the freeway bonus area (Subway, Holiday Stationstores, Kmart, Hoglund Bus, Dave Peterson Ford, etc.) to construct pylon signs at an elevation higher than 3211. As you will note in the attached information collected in 1989, the City reviewed the matter thoroughly and decided not to raise the standard. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is our view that the variance be denied based on the difficulty in defining a hardship completely unique to the site. If Council is inclined to support pylon signs in excess of 32 ft in order to provide the freeway businesses with the opportunity to allow pylon signs to be completely visible E rom the freeway, then it is recommended that the process of amending the ordinance be initiated. Council Agenda - 7/25/94 D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of letter from SuperAmerica's attorney; Copies of meeting minutes pertaining to the Subway Shop pylon sign height variance request and research on sign issues and associated ordinance amendments discussed in 1989. Mayor Ren Maus J Members of the City Council City of Monticello P .0. Box 1147 Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245 Re: SuperAmerica Sign Variance Request :ar Mayor Maus and Members of the City Council: This letter is offered in support of the request of the SuperAmerica Group for a sign variance to construct a 55' sign at the former location of Vance's Amoco in the Plaza at TH-25 and I-94. This variance request was approved by the Planning Commission and comes to the Council on appeal. SuperAmerica proposes to redevelop the Amoco site with the construction of a new SuperAmerica station convenience store. The Amoco site is presently vacant. SuperAmerica estimates the total project costs to be approximately $1 million. The Conditional Use Permit for the SuperAmerica proposal was approved by the Monticello City Council at its meeting of July 11, 1994. The key issue in the consideration of a variance request is a finding of hardship. The Monticello Planning Commission, based on the record before it, determined that a hardship existed in approving the variance request. The subject site upon which SuperAmerica proposes to construct this facility is one that is located within the TH-25/I-94 interchange that is designed and intended to serve the traveling public. The traveling -7blic must have an opportunity to visually determine what businesses --re available to serve its traveling needs in order to make the LARKIN, HOFFMAN. DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. pa( w ATTORNEYS AT LAW uo�l owKou 16M NORWEST FWANCIAL CENTER uI•' o«a r.womw.n �a. K 7800 %ER%ES AVENUE SOUTH +okw+mw v _ A ooww 9lO0MINOTON, MWNESOTA 65431 -1104 T w-rew<[[racrtw TELER14NE 18111 9367500 r.,p rr no[•vr r,walydr• i w:u:uwW'•'���� FAX 16121 589-3377 mow' [e''u� co•u rw ntmpct �+�wae � o rury ✓xl anew a�rWlir r�r�w wrt�D cawr [ vwacuv[• July 21, 1994 rao wlwrtco «wrca.m. Mayor Ren Maus J Members of the City Council City of Monticello P .0. Box 1147 Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245 Re: SuperAmerica Sign Variance Request :ar Mayor Maus and Members of the City Council: This letter is offered in support of the request of the SuperAmerica Group for a sign variance to construct a 55' sign at the former location of Vance's Amoco in the Plaza at TH-25 and I-94. This variance request was approved by the Planning Commission and comes to the Council on appeal. SuperAmerica proposes to redevelop the Amoco site with the construction of a new SuperAmerica station convenience store. The Amoco site is presently vacant. SuperAmerica estimates the total project costs to be approximately $1 million. The Conditional Use Permit for the SuperAmerica proposal was approved by the Monticello City Council at its meeting of July 11, 1994. The key issue in the consideration of a variance request is a finding of hardship. The Monticello Planning Commission, based on the record before it, determined that a hardship existed in approving the variance request. The subject site upon which SuperAmerica proposes to construct this facility is one that is located within the TH-25/I-94 interchange that is designed and intended to serve the traveling public. The traveling -7blic must have an opportunity to visually determine what businesses --re available to serve its traveling needs in order to make the LARKIN. HOFFMAN. DALY & LINDGREN. LTD. Mayor Ken Maus imbers of the City Council lly 21, 1994 pace 2 decision to timely exit at Monticello/TH-25 and patronize the businesses located there. Without that visual communication to the traveling public, the businesses at the interchange have no opportunity to intercept those trips and be afforded an opportunity for business patronage. The land use pattern and uses along the south side of the interchange are almost exclusively designed and located there to serve I-94 travelers. Due to the topographical relationship to I-94 and the TH-25 overpass, travelers along I-94 cannot see the businesses without adequate signage. SuperAmerica, working with Lawrence Sign Company, conducted a "balloon study" to establish that height necessary to allow signage to be seen by eastbound and westbound I-94 traffic and allow an opportunity for safe exit. A seven foot wide balloon was elevated to various heights to determine visibility. At the 32' height, it was impossible to see a sign located on the subject site from eastbound or westbound. At 42' in height, a sign is barely visible to westbound, but not visible to eastbound traffic. At the proposed 55' height, a sign would be visible from one-quarter mile and one-half mile distances to the eastbound and westbound exits respectively. noco had a 55' sign prior to abandoning the subject site. Other :eeway businesses identified on this side of the interchange with 50+ foot signs include Comfort Inn, Tom Thumb/Amoco, Wendy's, and Beet Western Motel. The subject site is uniquely suited to the freeway service use at this interchange. The subject site is burdened with a unique hardship if not afforded the opportunity with this variance to provide adequate signage to the travelers of I-94. Conclusion SuperAmerica Group respectfully requests affirmation and approval of the sign variance request to permit erection of a 55' sign. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Timothy J. Keane, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. kw -c: Ken Olson, SuperAmerica Group, Inc. Roman Mueller, SuperAmerica Group, Inc. TJK:LM6s 05— Planning Cormnission Agenda - 4/4/89 3. Cons iderat ion of amendments to Section 3-9(El4 and 3-9(E)4(c) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the reguiatlon of onion sign height, sign area , and the number allowed per business along the Highway 25/ Interstate 94 corridors in the city of Monticello. Applicant, City of Monticello. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In response to recent sign ordinance variance requests pertaining to sign height and size limitations, the City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to examine the sign ordinance and consider making recommendations to Council which would modify the ordinance. Two variance requests were tabled pending the outcome of the deliberation over amendments to the sign ordinance. The first variance request involved First National Bank, which desired to place a pylon sign with a sign area that is slightly more than twice as large as that which is allowed in the 30 mph zone. The other variance involved the Tom Thumb Store, which desired to place two pylon signs on the Tom Thumb property. Following is a review of the major sign related issues that the Planning Commission has grappled with to date, a review of research done on other communities, treatment of such issues, and also included is an assortment of proposed changes to the existing sign ordinance. FOUR MAJOR ISSUES The planning Commission did not attempt to disect and rewrite the entire sign ordinance; rather, four areas were singled out for analysis and review. They included sign height and sign area, restrictions in the Highway 25 corridor, the number of signs allowed, and sign night and size limits for signs located near the intersection of Highway 25 and I-94 were examined. RESEARCH In conducting our research in this matter, the City collected six sign ordinances from various communities in the metro and outstate areas and also obtained seven sign ordinances from various communities as chosen by First National Bank. Each ordinance was reviewed in terms of the four issues noted above. An abbreviated version of how those ordinances treat those issues can be found on Exhibit A. Exhibit A lists each community roughly on the basis of most liberal to most restrictive. Following is a quick review of Exhibit A in terms of the four issues studied. Maximum Height In the 30 mph zone in a business district, sign height in Monticello is limited to 18 feet. Sign heights in other coarmities in business zones range from a low of 18 feet in Monticello to a 36 -foot maximum allowed in Plymouth. There are a number of communities such as Waconia, Elk River, Lakeville, Chaska, and Mound which limit sign height to lean than 25 feet, It, therefore, appears that relative to other communities, limiting sign height to 18 feet in the business zone is relatively restrictive. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89 Maximum Square Foot Area Allowed. In the 30 mph zone, sign area is limited in Monticello to 50 sa ft. The research shows that sign area allowed in other communities ranges from 48 sq ft allowed in Mound to 250 sq ft allowed in Anoka. This particular regulation was difficult to get a handle on, relatively speaking, because each community tends to apply the maximum square foot area allowed for pylon signs in a slightly different manner. However, generally speaking, it appears that the average maximum square foot area allowed tends to fall somewhere around 80 sq ft for signs located in a business area similar to the Highway 25 corridor. Number of Pylon Signs Allowed Per Property. In looking at the research, you will note that most co=mnities limit pylon signs to one pylon sign per property. However, some communities do allow more than one pylon sign as long as certain conditions are met. For instance, Minnetonka allows one pylon sign per every 200 feet of frontage that a property might have on a corner lot. Minnetonka also restricts pylon development to the extent that the pylon signs on a corner lot must be at least 200 feet apart. The City of Fairbault allows more than one pylon sign but limits the total sign area of all the signs to the same area allowed for a single sign. Freeway Sign Height and Size Limits. As you know, the City of Monticello has provided variances to this section of the ordinance on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, on some occasions, a hardship or special circumstance was not clearly defined when granting the variance, thus setting a precedence which has, in effect, raised the sign height and size maximum allowed in the community. The Planning Commission desired to look at this issue and determine if it wishes to change the ordinance to reflect the variances, or if it would rather reaffirm the pre-existing ordinance and hold firm on variance requests until sufficient hardship can be presented to justify individual variance requests. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance allows a 32 -toot sign to be placed in the freeway bonus area, which is within 800 feet of the freeway. The maximum sign area allowed for the freeway signs is 200 sq ft. Due to the granting of variances, the sign height maximum has been indirectly set at approximately 50 feet. Many of the communities noted in this survey do not have a freeway passing through the co=unity. Therefore, their sign ordinances are not as applicable. However, it appears that for those communities that do have freeways passing through their coununieies, it generally appears that the sign height limitations range between 30 feet in Coon Rapids to 36 feet in Plymouth. It appears then that the Monticello maximum of 32 feet is reasonable relative to how other commmunitieo limit sign height along freeway areas. Planning C0mmn453ion Agenda - 4/4/84 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SIGN SECTION OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE The survey noted above has been shared wit^ the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission has provided staff with some input prior to development of the proposed changes to the sign ordinance. The following outlines proposed changes in terms of each of the four issues noted above. Pylon Sign Height The ordinance amendment proposes that the Pylon sign height along Highway 25 be increased from 18 feet to 22 feet. 'Nenty-two (22) feet happens to be the sign height maximum for the 35 mph and seems to be an appropriate height relative to height restrictions found in other communities. In addition, if the pylon sign area allowed along the Highway 25 corridor is allowed to increase, then the sign height should be allowed to increase as well in order to maintain the proper sign height and size proportions. Maximum Square Foot Area Allowed. At tate last meeting of the planning Commission, the Commission directed staff to apply the 35 mph restrictions to the Highway 25 corridor, which would have allowed all signs along the Highway 25 corridor to have a maximum sign area of 100 sq ft. There was some concern, however, at the time that we needed to look at some of the smaller lots on Highway 25 and possibly develop some kind of formula that would limit pylon sign size on smaller lots to avoid the potential of 'stacking" 100 sq ft signs. in response to that concern, staff put together an inventory of properties on Highway 25 which included the existing front footage of those businesses. We then star ted to work with numbers to try to establish a formula that would on the one hand allow properties with significant frontage to have a 100 sq ft sign, but on the other hand limit properties that are stacked together to signs of a lesser size. Exhibit A-1 reveals the property inventory and outlines a proposed formula for calculating sign area allowed along Highway 25. The basic formula is as follows: 10 sq ft of sign area would be allowed per every 3.03 lineal front feet with the following exceptions: a) All properties would be allowed a minimum of a 50 sq ft sign, which is consistent with the existing ordinance. This sign area allowance of 50 sq ft would be provided regardless of the lineal front feet cwned by a business along Highway 251 b) The maximum size allowed would be capped at 100 sq ft regardless of the lineal front footage of the business along Highway 25. The impact of the proposed sign ordinance on individual properties can be found in Exhibit A-1. in summary, those businesses with 330 feet such as Security Financial, First National Bank, and Wright County State Bank would be allowed to place signs with a total sign area of 100 sq ft. On the other hand, numerous properties possessing 165 lineal front feet (one city block) would not be impacted by the proposed change, as those properties could be allowed a 50 oq ft sign. Under this ordinance, properties such as Royal Tire with 254 front feawt would bo allowed a sign that is greater than 50 sq ft but less than 100 sq ft, as 254 x 3.03 • 77 sq ft allowed. Businesses such Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89 as the Plumbery, which only has 122 lineal feet, would still be allowed to have a 50 sq ft sign. Businesses such as Monticello Ford, with 646 lineal feet, would not be allowed to have a 196 sq ft sign, as this ordinance calls for capping the allowable sign area at 100 sq ft. Planning Commission and Council may want to insert an adjustment which might allow a business with a very long frontage to install more than one pylon sign. This has been done in other communities such as Minnetonka. The formula, along with the maximums and minimums provided, will result in a potential increase in sign area along Highway 25 of 31 percent. Number of Signs Allowed. It is proposed that the number of pylon signs allowed remain at one sign per property. It is the view of staff and the Planning Commission that this is reasonable given the practice of other communities and given the character of the community. Sign Height and Size Limitations in the Freeway Bonus Area. The Planning Commission recommends to Council that no changes be made to this section of the zoning Ordinance and that the 32 -foot height maximum in the freeway bonus area be reaffirmed. It is also the view of the Planning Commission that future variance requests should be required to show unique circumstances associated with the development which require that variances be granted. B. ALTERNATIVE A(7TIONS: 1. Motion to recommend adoption of proposed amendments. 2. Motion to modify and adopt proposed amendments. 3. Motion to deny adoption of proposed amendments. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance amendments as presented. It is staff's view that the amendments as proposed do comply with Section 22 of the Zoning ordinance: 1) The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipal Comprehensive Plan; 2) The proposed amendments will not negatively affect the character of the surrounding area or geographic area involvedl 3) The amendments as proposed will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which the amendments will take effect; 4) The demonstrated need has been sufficiently demonstrated. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A, comparison of freestanding/pylon sign regulations administered by various communities; Exhibit A-1, proposed elements of sign ordinance amendments pertaining to pylon signs located along Highway 251 Proposed amendment to sign ordinance, Section 3-9-4(c). COMPARISCN OF FREESTANDING/PYLCN SIGN REGULATIONS �1TY ADMINISTERED BY VARIOUS COR"ITIES ,3/.JC/g� 04-, � 1. 2. 3. a. MAX IMAX I NUMBER IFREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT COWEN 75 IHT. ISO FT I ALLOWED IANO SIZE LIMITS I AREA I SROOKLYN CENTER I ' I I --i' SIGN HEIGHT & AREA 132 I 160 E PYLON PER 400' INO SPECIAL LIMITA7IONS BASED ENTIRELY I I I OF FRONTAGE. GAS ICONSIDE.RATICN ON SIZE OF BUILDING. I I I STATIONS ALLOWED ONE I I I ADDED PUMP PYLON I MAX HEIGHT 15' I I I MAX AREA 20 SQFT. I ANOKA I I I I TOTAL SIGN AREA I 35 1 250 1 TOTAL SIGNS NOT TO INOT APPLICABLE IS LIMITED TO 250 SOFT 1 1 I TO D(C. E) SO FT MAX. INCLUDING WALL SIGN I I I I I FARISAUI T I I I I I 2 SO FT OF SIGN AREA I 1 125 1 NOT TO EXCEEO THREE 1 55 FEET HIGH/STGN ALLOWED PER LINEAL FT I I I WITH TOTAL SIGN AREA IMESSAGE LIMITED TO SIMPLE OF BUILDING FRONT UP I I I ALLOWED NOT TO EXCEED I IDENTIFICATION TO 125 SO FT, INFORMATION I I I SUM OF INDIVIDUAL SIGN I SIGNS SEPARATE I I I AREAS I I 'ASKA I I I I I I ? SO FT SIGN PER FRONT FT 124 1 100 1 MORE THAN ONE WITH INOT APPLICABLE ,F BU I LDING PLUS 1 SO FT I I I SIGN AREA LIMITED I SIGN AREA PER LOT FRONT FT I I I I NOT TCD EXCEED 100 SO FT I I I I I I LAKEVILL-E I I I SIGN BEGS ESTABLISHED 1 20 1 100 1 ONE IVARIABLE-OWED ON BY ZONING DISTRICT - I I I ICONDITICNAL USE PROCESS NOT BY SPEED LIMIT 1 I I I OF ADJOINING ROADWAY I I I I I I OWATONNA I SIGN SIZE REGJLATED BY 135 1 100 1 TWO PYLONS ALLOWED (SIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT DISTRICT. OWATONNA 1 I I ON CORNER IAT 135' MAXIMUM HEIGHT B-2 DISTRICT IS EQUAL I I I PROVIDED TOTAL SIGN 1 200 SO FT MAX SIZE TO OUR 8-4 DISTRICT. I I I AREA DOES NOT EXCEED IADOITIONAL 1 SOFT I I I MAXIMUM ALLOWED AND ISIGN AREA ALLOWED I I I EACH CORNER HAS MIN IFOR EVERY ADOITCNAL I I OF 75' FRONTAGE 1 100 SO FT OF BUILDING I I I (OVER 2.000 SO FT. I I I ICOND USE PERMIT NEEDED I I ( FOR LARGER SIGNS W/I 500' COON RA PIDS lI 30 I1 100 I, 1 SIGN PER FRONTAGE IINO SPECIAL CONSIDERATION I I I WITH LIMITS IF -OR HIGHWAY 10 SIGNAGE I I 1 1 30' MAX HEIGHT .,MDJT7-H 1 36 1 95 1 ONE INO SPECIAL CONSIOCRATION 1 COMPARISON OF FREESTANDING/PYLON SIGN REGULATIONS rITY ADMINISTERED BY VARIOUS CCMMJNITIES 1. 2. 3_ 4• IMAx IMAX I NUMBER IFREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT CCMr1ENTS IHT. ISO FT I ALLOWED (ANO SIZE LIMIT I (AREA 1 I I 1-1—! I I I IMAX HEIGHT IS 36' WACONIA 120 1 80 1 ONE 1 I INOT APPLICABLE 1 HOPK I NS I I 1 I APoLICATION OF SIZE LIMITS 1 35 1 60-80 0, TOTAL SIGN AREA INO SPECIAL DEPENDS ON WHICH ZONING I I I OF BOTH NOT TO EXCEED 1PROVISIONS NOTED CATAGORY SIGN IS PLACED IN I I I MAXIMUM SIGN AREA 1 35' MAX HEIGHT APPLIES I I I ALLOWED I I BUFFALO I I I 1 25 1 64 1 ONE I I INOT APPLICABLE I ELK RIVER I I I I 1 SIGN REGG BASED ON 1 20 1 66 1 ONE INOT APPLICABLE DISTRICT REGS 1 I I I I i I I MINNETONKA I I TOTAL SIGN SURFACE PERMIT- 1 32 1 60 NE PER 200 1ZCNING DISTRICT ED WALL/PYLCN COMBINED I I I FOOT FRONTAGE. IRULES APPLY - NO IASEO ON BLONG FRCNTAGE 1 1 I TWO PER CORNER (SPECIAL CONSIDERATON OF STRUCTURE - OR 15% OF I I I LOT IF MORE THAN 1 32' MAX HEIGHT APPLIES JILDING FACE - NOT TO I I I 200 FEET APART 1 EXCEED 300 SO FEET. 1 1 I I I I I I MCNTICELLO I I I I SIGN BEGS BASED ON 1 18 1 50 1 ONE 1BY ORDINANCE -32' MAX WALL SIZE/ROAD CLASS/SPEED 1 (30 MPH ZCNE) 1HEIGHT S 200' MAX AREA FIRST NATIONAL BANK/ I I I IBY VARIANCE - 50' MAX TOM THUMB ON MAJOR I I OR I (HEIGHT & 7?' MAX AREA THOROUC+IFARE - POSTED SPEED 1 22 1 100 I ONE IWITHIN 800' OF FREEWAY OF 30 MILES PER HOUR. 1 (35 MPH ZONE) I I MCUNO I I I 125 1 48 1 ONE I_I I INOT APPLICABLE I RECOMMENDATION I I I I CONSIDER ADOPTING FORMULA 1 22 1 50 T01 ONE IREAFFIRM MAXIMUM SIGN FOR SIGNS ALONG HWY 25 I 1100 1 (NO CHANGE) 1HEICHT OF 32' FOR PROvIDING MAX OF 100 SO FT/ I I 1 1PROPERTIES IN BONUS AREA. MIN OF 50 SQUARE FEET AND I I I I (NO CHANGE) 10 SO FT SIGN AREA PER 3.031 1 I 1 LINEAL FEET FOR OTHERS. I I I I See o,4, 6,el A 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Planning Commission Minutes - 4/4/89 Public Hearing - Cons ideation of amendments to Section 3-9 IE14 and 3-9 (El4(c) of the =oninq Ordinance perta_ning to the regulation or pylon sign heignt, sign area, and the nu=er allowed per business along the E:r awaX 25/Interstate 94 corridors :n the city of Monticello. Appi:cant, C:tv or Mcnt:cello. Ms. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant ,Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and members of the public the background to the research which led to the flow chart as indicated in the agenda supplement. The proposed sign ordinance amendment, with the changes as indicated, came out of discussions with the Monticello Planning Commission and the Monticello City Council at previous meetings. tie proposed element of the sign ordinance asendment pertained primarily to the corridor of the Highway 25/1-94 area. If adopted, the proposed ordinance would increase the maximum amount of sign area Prom 50 feet of sign area to 100 feet of maximum pylon sign area. The pylon sign height would be increased from 18 feet in height to 22 feet in height. Zn the area of the properties lying within 800 lineal feet of the I-94 freeway, there would be no proposed changes to the maximum sign height of 32 feet above the public right—of-way from whir`: it gets its major exposure; no increase in the maximurn amount of pylon sign square footage which would be 200 sq ft; and no additional pylon signs allowed per property, one being the maximum number allowed per property. With no further input, Chairperson Richer! Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the public. There being no input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any additional comments from the Planning Commission memoers. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that City staff had done a good job in researching this proposed ordinance amendment, and they felt quite comfortable with the proposed changes as presented. With no further input from the Planning commission members, motion was made by Richard Martie:, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the formula for the establishment of the maximum sign square footage in the Highway 25/1-94 corridor as follows: a) The 10 sq ft of sign area per 3.03 lineal feet of front footage with the following exception: 1. All properties allowed a minimum of SO sq ft of sign area regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25. 2. The maximum size allowed would be 100 sq ft regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25. The motion carried unanimously, with Dan Mcrprsnon absent. In case of the subject property directly abutting State Highway 25, pylon sign area may range from SO feet to 100 feet, depending on the total lineal feet fronting Highway 27. Ten 1101 square feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 3.03 feet of lineal front footage with the follcwing exception: 2 s Planning Commission Minutes - 4/4/89 1. All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 50 sq ft regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and the maxi..mm pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting Highway 25. b) Motion by Mori Malone, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the maximum sign height in the I-94/Highway 25 corridor to a maximum of 22 feet in height. Motion carried unanimously, with Dan Mctonnon absent. c) Motion by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Martie, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage remain at 200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. d) Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemur, to add to the three above motions that these amendments do comply with Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendments will not negatively affect the character of the surrounding area or geographic area involved. 3. The amendments as proposed will not tend to actually depreciate the area in which the amendments will take effect. 4. The demonstrated need has been sufficiently demonstrated. motion carried unanimously, with Dan McCamon absent. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow additional pylon sign height anc sign area. Applicant, Security Financiai. Cary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members Security Financial's variance request to be allowed an additional 25 square feet of pylon sign area and an additional 8 feet in Pylon sign height. Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the public. Linda Mielke, Branch Manager of Security Financial, explained the request for the additional 25 square feet of pylon area to accommodate the express teller message. They would like to just change the faces on the existing 10 x 10 pylon sign to reflect their new name change to Security Pinancial Banking a Saving. with no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. The Planning Cotmnission members felt a little uncomfortable considering an application for a variance from the newly proposed ordinance amendments to the Monticello Sign Ordinance. 3 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 4/4/89 With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemur, to deny the variance re -quest to allow additional pylon sign height and sign area. notion carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon absent. Reason for denial: LAx . Martie felt, the Planning Commission should stay within the newly proposed sign ordinance amendment. Applicant failed to demonstrate hardship and approving variance request would defeat intent of Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 5. Public hearinc--A variance recuest to allow additional avlon sicn heicht than the maximum 22-foct ovion heicr.t allowed. Aoolicant, Mark Anderson. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and tate public Mr. Anderson's request to be allowed additional pylon sign height over the maximum allowed, which should have been 32 feet rather than 22 feet, as Mr. Anderson's property lies within the freeway bonus 800 feet from the freeway right-of-way. Mr. Anderson's proposal was for a 13 -fact height variance for a total height of 45 feet. Mr. O'Neill explained to Planning Commission members the City Council action that was taken on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the 1-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage to remain at 200 square feet, and the maximum height to remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure, and the number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input from the public. Mr. Mark Anderson, applicant, was present to explain to Planning Commission members and the public his rationale for granting approval of the variance, citing other instances where additional height for pylon signs was granted for fast food places, convenience stores, motels, and gasoline service stations. He indicated the precedent had already been set, and he was merely asking to be treated the same. He explained that a good share of his business would be in the form of 200 or more new people per day coming to the Subway Shop to eat. The intent wasn't to attract patrons from other eating establishments or local residents but to attract people traveling on the freeway that are looking for a Subway Shop in which to stop and eat. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that his primary exposure would be the east bound I-94 traffic and the people exiting the first exit off I-94, and he acknowledged the exposure that would be gained from his sign if placed at the 43 -foot height. He also explained that some exposure would be gained from the west bound traffic on I-94 if the sign was placed at the 45 -foot height. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt sympathetic to Mr. Andersons request to have additional pylon sign height as do other businesses in the area. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission and the City Council reaffirmed their ordinance requirements in regard to the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the 1-94 area as follows: Maximum sign square footage remain at 200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 Therefore, a notion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Jon Bogart, to deny the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height over the maximum 32 feet allowed. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial: The Planning Commission would like to stick to the City Council's decision made on April. 10, 1989, to reafflsa the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the 1-94 ar-a, as no hardship was sufficiently demonstrated. 0 VARIANCE REOIEST FORM (See chapter 23 of Zoning Ordinance? Sub 'y � J17�� APP1-ICANT: 1 , DATE FILED: Rlb rJ,�,.FEE ON APPLICANTS AODRESS:9a`Sl Izar;-JkACi..Iwrn.,PHCNE: HmI/ 5-6)12 WK 9HI•57VO LEGAL OESCRIPTICN: LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION DESCRIBE VARIANCE REQUEST: Ie 5j1A CURRENTLY ZCNED:1�-3 VARIANCE TO SECTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE Describe any applicable precedents: Z04, A,.r M a. yg``o ; S� �v i Oros s1a S DEFINITION OF ALLEGED HARDSHIP: What are the unicue circumstances associated with the tot that create exceptional difficulties when utilizing lot in manner customary and legally permissable7 �j jQr4AC ry� M/' -�tl / / -h ja, Y,Xo;Trof hr'ch-,6- Qf _n;, Si to 4J,%/ o li%n -o `1, D(Iny 4k.+ 1RTp will approval of this variance impair the intent of the ordinance to the extent that a zoning ordinance amendment might be more aopropriata? YES - NO PLANNING CGMISSICN FINDING: DATE: PLNG CORM. FINDING WILL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST: A. IMPAIR ADECUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR TO ADJACENT PROPERTY? YES - NO B. CREATE AN UNREASONABLE INCREASE THE CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREET? YES - NO C. INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SAFETY) YES - NO 0. UNREASONABLY DIMINISH PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN NEIGHBORHC007 YES - NO E. BE CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE? - NO CCWENTS REGARDING PLANNING CDM"ISSICN FINDING: REPORT CCUNCIL FINDING IF PLANNING C"ISSION DECISION IS APPEPLEO:- APPEAL DATE: CO"4e4TS: Consideration of amendments to Section 3-9(E)4 and 3-9iE)4(c) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of pylon sign height, sign area, and the number allowed per business along Highway 25/ Interstate 94 corridors in the city or Monticello. Applicant, city of Monticello. Assistant Administrator o'Nei 11 informed Council that the Planning commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed sign amendments and recommended passage of the sign ordinance amendments as noted in the agenda supplement for the special meeting held April 3, 1989. It was noted by Ken Maus that this item had been discussed at length at the previous Council meeting and at that time it was agreed that the amendment represents a workable compromise between the desire by some businesses for larger signs and the need to control the size of signs that might be placed in close proximity to each other. The amendment does not propose to reduce the size of signs now allowed to any of the property owners on Highway 25; while at the same, the total sign area with any business, no matter how much frontage they own, is limited to loo sq ft. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to adopt an ordinance amendment and approve the formula for the establishment of a maximum sign square footage in the Highway 25/ I-94 corridor as follows: a) The 10 sq ft of sign area per 3.03 lineal feet of front footage with the following exception: 1. All properties allowed a minimum of 50 aq ft of sign area regardless of the 1 ineal front feet on Highway 25. 2. The maximum size allowed would be 100 eq ft regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25. In case of the subject property directly abutting State Highway 25, pylon sign area may range from 5o feet to 100 feet, depending on the total lineal feet fronting Highway 25. Ten ( 10) square feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 3.o3 feet of lineal front footage with the following exception: 1. All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 50 aq ft regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 eq ft regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting Highway 25. b) Approve the maximum sign height in the I-94/Highway 25 corridor to a maximum of 22 feet in height. C) Reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage remain at 200 aq ft, the maximum sign height rennin at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. d) notions all based on the conclusion by the City Council that such action is consistent with Section 22 of the Zoning ordinance which requires that: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipalt Comprehenaive plan, J Public hearing --A variance request to allow additional pylon sign heicht than the maximum 22 -foot pylon height allowed. ADolicant, Mark Anderson, Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Anderson's request to be allowed additional pylon sign height over the maximum allowed, which should have been 32 feet rather than 22 feet, as Mr. Anderson's property lies within the freeway bonus 800 feet from the freeway right-of-way. Mr. Anderson's proposal was for a 13 -foot height variance for a total height of 45 feet. Mr. O'Neill explained to Planning Commission members the City Council action that was taken on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage to remain at 200 square feet, and the maximum height to remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure, and the number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input from the public. Mr. Mark Anderson, applicant, was present to explain to Planning Commission members and the public his rationale for granting approval of the variance, citing other instances where additional height for pylon signs was granted for fast food places, convenience stores, motels, and gasoline service stations. He indicated the precedent had already been set, and he was merely asking to be treated the same. He explained that a good share of his business would be in the form of 200 or more new people per day coming to the Subway Shop to eat. The intent wasn't to attract patrons from other eating establishments or local residents but to attract people traveling on the freeway that are looking for a Subway Shop in which to stop and eat. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that his primary exposure would be the east bound I-94 traffic and the people exiting the first exit off I-94, and he acknowledged the exposure that would be gained from his sign if placed at the 45 -foot height. He also explained that some exposure would be gained from the west bound traffic on I-94 if the sign was placed at the 45 -toot height. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt sympathetic to Mr. Anderson's request to have additional pylon sign height as do other businesses in the area. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission and the City Council reaffirmed their ordinance requirements in regard to the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: Maximum sign square footage remain at 200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Jon Bogart, to deny the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height over the maximum 32 feet allowed. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial: The Planning Commission would like to stick to the City Council's decision made on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed In the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area, as no hardship was sufficiently demonstrated. Council Agenda - 7/25/94 8. Consideration of vacating a portion of former Trunk Highway_ 25 to Super America Group and vacate a portion of the old Cedar Street utility and drainage 4Basement. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND City Council is asked by SuperAmerica to vacate the entire section of old Highway 25 now encumbering the proposed development site and vacate a 15 - ft section of the 60 ft right of way for utility and drainage easement associated with old Cedar Street. Both actions are necessary to allow construction of the facility as identified at the previous meeting. Please see the attached map for detail regarding the area proposed to be vacated and their relationship to the site plan. Vacation of the 15 -ft portion of the Cedar Street easements leaves the city with a 45 -ft wide easement which is quite sufficient to accommodate existing and future needs. The vacation of old Highway 26 right of way is essentially a housekeeping matter that stems from action taken some time ago to realign State Highway 25 in conjunction with development of the freeway overpass. When Highway 25 was realigned to its present position, the authority over the old right of way automatically passed from the state to the county. Later, when the 1-94 Tri - Plaza area was platted over the old right of way in 1979, no concurrent action was taken to vacate the affected portion of right of way. As a result, Vance's Standard building was actually constructed on the old Highway 25 right of way. SuperAmerica spotted this problem and is unable to develop the site until old Highway 25 is vacated. The city is now involved because the county, in an effort to step out of the situation, simply passed a resolution revoking a portion of the former Hiighway 25 right of way to the city. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to vacate a 16 -ft section of the old Cedar Street easement and vacate the entire portion of the old Highway 26 right of way as identified on the attached map and require SuperAmerica to enter into an agreement accept future liability for future costs associated with repairing or replacing private site improvements impacted by future city improvements constructed in the remaining 45 -ft easement area. Under this alternative, the entire building and sidewalk area on the east side of the naw structure will be located outside of the easement area. The requirement that SuperAmerica accept liability for costs associated with repairing or replacing site improvements damaged by Council Agenda - 7/25/94 city construction activity in the easement area is similar to the requirement imposed by the city on Taco Bell when the city vacated a portion of the Cedar Street utility easements. In this situation, since the roads vacated were not part of the original plat and therefore never "owned" by the city, the city has no authority to require a cash payment in exchange for the road area vacated. 2. Motion to deny vacation requests as submitted. This alternative does not make sense unless it is found that the city needs to maintain fiill control of the 60 ft right of way associated with the old Cedar Street. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map showing street vacation area; Copy of resolution and associated documentation from county revoking a portion of the former Trunk Highway 25 right of way to the city of Monticello. II Plat of —MONTI CELLO I-94 TAI PLAZA" c ^ r W N N yy� Q 94 kfp(i1QSY .�W'--. M� a 1 -�suo- 1 -was- 7 • _tea»etie'�►.oatr- ama I L. BLOCK OLD HIGHWAY 25 '� McDooaldo Co i !• RIGHT OF WAY Z VACAIE 9NTIRE EASEMENT \ )i ROW. ` OLD CEDAR $T' aMcDonalde Restaurn t _ VACATE '15� / 'w APPROXIMATE .0CAT10 r� \ OF SUPER ERICA o \ STRUC F. ancen 3ery ce nC. ItEMAINIt� EASEMENT AREA c � b j P 0 i � JUL-22-94 FRI 11:43 WRIGHT COUNTY FAX N0. 6126826178 P.06 Resolution Revoking a portion of former Trunk Highway 25 Right of Way to City of Monticello WHEREAS, the construction of Internat0 94 within the City of Monticello caused a relocation of Tnuhk Highway 25 thereby leaving a portion no longer needed for Trunk Highway purposes, and WHEREAS, this portion of former Trunk Highway was conveyed to the County of Wright in 1981 for highway purposes, with no further conveying action since acted upon by the County of Wright, and WHEREAS, this parcel is currently under a plat known as MONTICELLO 1-94 TRI PLAZA being used commercially and is not required as a part of Wright County's Highway system, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello and Wright County have agreed that the conveyance of this former segment of Trunk Highway 25, no longer needed for highway purposes, to the City of Monticello, would be in the best interest of the City and the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Ne Wright County Board of Commissioners, that the former portion of Trunk Highway 25, a 100 That wide parcel of land lying between the south right-of-way line of Interstate 94 and the northerly right-of-way line of County Road 117 In the City of Monticello, described as follows: That pact of Tract A described below: Tract A. The South 40 rods of Lot "A' of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Seaton It, Township 121 North, Range 25 West, Wright County, Minnesota; which Iles within a distance of 50 feet on each side of Line I described below and southerly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet southerly of Line 2 described below: Lino 1. Beginning at the point of intersection of the center Imes of Broadway Avenue and pine Street In the Village (now City) of Monticello; thence run southwesterly along the center line of said Pine Street and Its southwesterly extension for 2594,1 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 4 degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 28 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds) for 707.5 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 314.8 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 4 degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 30 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds) for 370 feet and there terminating; Line 2. From a point on the east line of said Section 11, distant 99.8 feat north of the southeast comer thereof, run northwesterly at as angle of 64 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds from said east section line (measured ftom north to wast) ibr 209.8 fest; thence deflect to the Ish at an angle of 10 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds for 2090A3 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 84 feet to the point of beginning of Line 2 to be described; thence deflect to the tight at an angle of 85 degrees 34 minutes 13 seconds for 336.67 fat; thence deflea to the left on a 6 degree 00 minute 00 "mad curve (delta angle 17 degrees 28 minutes 12 aeaonds) for 191.2 feet; thence on twilm to said curve for 303.7 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 4 dsgta 00 minute 00 second curve (delts angle 12 degrees 54 minutes 38 secothds) for 322.8 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 200 feet and there tertoithating. together widh any rights, Interests and easements of record. BE, and is hereby revoked to the City of Monticello in accordance with Statute 163.11, Subd. S. 1f/ JUL-22-94 FRI 11:40 WRIGHT COUNTY FAX NO. 6126826178 P.01 oe WRIGHT COUNTY ,NTY 4 Office of County Attorney 4 q Wright County Government Center a to N.W. 2nd Street 9r dY BWfalo, Minnesota 55313.1193 74366 Wyman A. Nelson Phone: (612)682-7340 Metro: (612) 3394881 C-1, All.—, Toll Free: /-800.362.3667 Fax: (612) 682.6178 honwe N. 11y M�Ltwa ML — elah.aa+ Du ChW Cwww� DiuLiw r'M„w C. f,, ti,.'r r,.,r�. Brian J. AstesOn Kahl— A. MaN chi./ Civil a,o4w. Sc M. s—w'p 17 February 1994 Pa"" brow tax var,sm flat memo 70 1 t of Paw@ 7 "i- e r '"" . QRS' les. n Mr. Jeff O'Neill C o 2-: ^ q(-* Ccs Assistant City Administrator °`" pb.-r482- 73 Y.�, 250 East Broadway "'' 09S-'ii0y F1i1 L$a- W.? P. 0. Box 1147 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 RE: Revocation of Former Trunk Highway 25 to City of Monticello Dear Jeff: As per our phone conversation earlier this month, the Wright County Board of Commissioners, on February 8, 1994, passed a Resolution revoking to the City of Monticello e portion of the former Trunk Highway 25 right-of-way. You will recall that this former right- of-way bisects the Plat of Monticello 1-94 Tri Plaza. I have enclosed a copy of the Resolution revoking the former right-of-way to the City of Monticello. 1 have also enclosed the original Quit Claim Deed for the same parcel from Wright County to the City of Monticello. I expect that Matt Burton, Bankruptcy counsel for Vance's Service Center, Inc., will be anxious for the City to undortako a vacation of this same former right-of-way. If and when the City undertakes that, you will probably want to record this Quit Claim Deed from the County at the some time as you record your vacation documents. Resolution 94-11, from the Wright County Board, hes already been submitted to the County Recorder for recording. e--] JUL-22-94 FRI 11:41 WRIGHT COUNTY FAX NO, 6126826118 P.02 Mr. Jeff O'Neill PAGE TWO 17 February 1994 If either you or Mr. Burton have any additional questions for the County, please let me know. Very truly yours, Brian J. Asleson Assistant Wright County Attorney BJA4b Enclosures cc: Matthew R. Burton (with enclosures) Attorney at taw Southdale Office Centra, Suite 526 6600 France Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 cc: Richard Marquette, Wright County Highway Department, with enclosures �K] JUL-22-94 FRI 1142 WRIGHT COUNTY FAX N0. 6126826178 P. 03 e ,,,. w. ae r_auir..•rnr•n ,.,_.....e.,.._,.__...,.. a,....nn.r _.a..... .......... u.enr,.uo..,r.or.Ib V � Vo d.livqucnt ta:c..nd uun(a .nlr„+I; (:.nifie.te of ft..l Eu•l. V.Ivc I 1 fihd ( 1 not reauved CuG Gw4 u( Kw F—W Vat— N,,. I ..__ — ---�—i (..vdy Audlter t,y ly u .V ATN ONAl)TA% DUE INA(Cr1N: Dol.•Its _.. (resened for recordlnp data) FOIL VALUABLE CONSIDERATION County of Wright, a municipal corporation uad"aw I..•of t;h9_*to to .91v'._tlAPRL0.9!t e_. , (l, Uw, hrr.by.. -y. and quikl&6m to, �lt]L £i.21311kff,1:,13__�_�— ,Oronlre, r_.Q(yp�=1,�1 cerYorwtl,Qp,tuwllm to+a ur_kq State of Minncaota ,r Im.lydyln Wright__(%ouoL7.Mh,n..ol.,d.srribedaa follows: See Blthibit 'A' attached hereto In..n r• Y.rl.anw r cal Iayrther ..In all hrlodllaturnu and apptplanuwr b.loanq Uwr.se. COUNTYT�9IIi i ill„ I i.wl I'm Nh,mp Ilwn �/ er 'ice p'a� o -yoor VTATM or MINNFSOTA lb Bouncy �ooraanac.r I;UUN'1'Y Uy WRIGHT r• Thr runWyulna w u Kknowledpd before ms Wb eta day of February Or* �Oj�9d.YAtIK^ ua :I+theca w. Mormon Urr ghalrpa Inns County Board rad county Coorarnst r u[ _49MRCY�GS-�Lj9ht ,a munscoras corroracaun wwlcr llm tows or 3 5o tat 0 or ntnn9ooce a„ bel of 0* grwGcor I .,,,. ., r.mvt,row oiiiia lnu eu:au Ww'wIIMMNMrIW nIrIAN I AEI.FBr1N �Vl,n1' MCJ41 COON rr E •a.11� cul o. Y.awaAr ...,�p/. ., sry tra ttr mal. saps AMMI. city of Montiealle ISO Beat Broadway Ibnticalle, rinnoaote 55167-914S urrr.u.r. •no.Pnaaur ...na.ane or IrOrion a. Aaleaon i.n, 911656y J"a"son Aaai slant County Attorney W,Ight County Government canter 10 Norhwoot Second Stroot Burfale, tinncoota 55111-1191 (6171 6e7-11,7 JUL-22-94 FRI 11:42 NRIGHT COUNTY FAX NO. 8128828178 P.04 That part of Tract A dc=lbed belov. .. Trsat A. The South 40 rads of Cat 'A' of tno SoAust Qhuum of du Southwest Quuur of Soudan It, Tomblp 111 North, Asage 25 West, Wtlght County, Minnesota; wtilch liri'Mtnin a dlstsoee of SO Rat on auh tide of Una 1 desalbed below androudwiy of a Itnt ran parallel i ldt and d4mi 100 fees southerly of Line 1 described below: 1.10. 1. -t ftInning at the point of imusecdon of the center lima of Broadway (tvtaus and Pins Savd to the Village (pow City) of Monticello; diem run southwesterly along the'c6ner Itne of said Pine Serest and Its wuthwahsty esteruioo for 1594.1 feet; thence deflat to the! Isft on a 4 degree 00 minute 00 second ane (dolts angle 28 degrees 11 MIMM 00 seconds) for 707.1• fee; O=s on unCat to uld carr* lbs 714.1 fat theaee dollar to tae clot on a 4 dcgrss 00 mlmae 00 s=ad t:arve (pelts angle 70 dq= 14 mimu s; 00 seconds) for )70 Orel and there terminstiv, t [Jae 1 From a poles an the eau line of Bald Section 11, db= 99.811M moth of the oouthesu coma thereof, run Omewaterly at in plgte of.64 dagrpgs 36:my4tw O amb from said au wagon line (messmd ftm north m w'a0 Ibr 209.8 fart; Ounce ddea, ro'me left it to angle of 10 degrees 30 talmtta 00 seconds lbr 2090.03 Ron Ounce ddleri to the tett tt in asps of 90 degrees 00 mlmtu 00 wwnds Ibt 84 be to do palet of btyMq of Ung 2 to be daalbod; thence dcflcc to the right at an angle of 83 deg = 34 mints IS seconds for SK67hxa; dseoce dellax to the ISA on a d dugs 00 admin 00 secoad am (delta utgte l7 dcVm 28 m1nutta i? seeonm) tbt 7913 fhet; theaeo on taogmt to stdd save for 3031.71 bot; 000 68e9 to ms right on a 4 degree 00 MIB= 00 second mare (dent angle 1,2 degroa 54 minutes 38 secunda) for 322.11 QtG Chance on two ent to pfd curve @r 700 fm and there • Ihaminattfhg{. etigethsr cubit sty dptk tractors and euemena of mord.. MMIHIT law P -M Council Agenda - 7/25/94 7. Consideration of adopting an ordinance Heensimg and regulating the sale of tobacco within the city of Monticello.. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND In early 1990, the City Council discussed the need of establishing an ordinance regulating or eliminating cigarette vending machines within the city. A few months after the initial discussion had occurred, a new state law took effect that outlined where cigarette vending machines could be located. In light of the new state law, the City Council did not feel that there was a need for establishing our own cigarette vending machine ordinance to further regulate the sale of tobacco products or to completely outlaw vending machines entirely. As you may recall, Patrice Bogart appeared before the Council a few months ago requesting again that the City Council consider establishing an ordinance that would not only license cigarette vendors but also restrict where sales could occur and to, hopefully, outlaw vending machines entirely. The Council had asked the staff to investigate what was being done in other communities and to get sample ordinances from various sources. As a result of this request and also in light of the renewed public interest against smoking in general, I have put together two possible ordinance amendments that the Council may want to consider concerning regulating tobacco sales and licensing of vendors. Although Monticello has never licensed cigarette sales, most communities do so. Although licensing by itself would not appear to have much affect on eliminating tobacco products from minors, the ordinance could be structured to reinforce current state laws regarding selling of tobacco products to underage individuals by noting that the license could be suspended if someone was convicted of selling to minors. In addition to the basic licensing requirement so that the city knows who is selling cigarettes, the city could take it further and also restrict where vending machines can be located or actually outlaw vending machines entirely. The ordinance amendment titled "Option #2" specifically addresses vending machine sales and limits the locations to private businesses and liquor establishments. In addition, other locations can have vending machines hM they must be operated an electronic device or by special tokens. This language should help control the accessibility of vending machines to underage minors by requiring an employee of the establishment to be aware of anyone trying to use the machine. Council Agenda - 7/25/94 Another change noted in Option #2 relates to the requirement that all tobacco products should not be accessible to the customer by a self-service method and must be obtained from a clerk or employee behind the counter. This requirement is intended to eliminate underage individuals from shoplifting cigarettes that are easily accessible to the customer from display areas. Cigarette displays that are easily accessible to minors are a prime target for shoplifting cigarettes by underage individuals. Although it would appear that current state statutes regarding vending machines sales of tobacco should be adequate to limit accessibility for purchasing by minors, I do not believe that there is much effort by anyone, including our police department, in enforcing the current vending machine statutes. From my understanding of the statutes, if a vending machine is located anywhere other than a liquor establishment, it has to be electronically operated or operated by tokens. I'm not aware of any machines outside of liquor establishments in Monticello that are electronically operated or operated by tokens. Therefore, currently most of the machines in Monticello probably violate state statute although no one ie specifically out to enforce this statute. If the City Council would like to see this state statute followed more closely, it makes sense for the city to adopt its own ordinance that is similar to state statutes and instruct the Sheriff e Department to enforce our new ordinance regulations. In addition to the general licensing requirements, there are certainly number of optional amendments that could be added to a licensing ordinance. The Council could set up a licensing ordinance only, and anyone convicted of selling to minors could be subject to losing their license to sell cigarettes. In addition to the licensing requirement, the Council could also restrict, in some fashion, tobacco sales through vending machines. One possible option would he to follow the state statute format by prohibiting vending machines except in liquor establishments, private businesses, or in other establishments when controlled by electronic devices or special tokens. Council could, in addition to licensing and regulating vending machine locations, place additional restrictions requiring all sales to take place through an employee of the vendor and make it unlawful to have self-service of cigarettes available to the public. Council Agenda - 7/26/94 4. In addition to licensing, Council could prohibit vending machines entirely and require all sales to be assisted by the employer with self- service prohibited. Council could have any combination of the above in an ordinance if it desired. In addition to the restrictions noted above, other possible restrictions come to mind including the restricting of sales of cigarettes near school buildings, etc. If one of the prime reasons the city enacts any type of tobacco -related ordinance is to prohibit or eliminate accessibility to minors, it may make sense to add as a restriction that no license will be issued to a place closer than feet from a school building. As you can see, the options are probably endless, but I have tried to cover the major areas used by other communities. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the ordinance proposed under Option 111. This option generally outlines the licensing requirements for cigarette sales and indicates that the penalty for violation of any part of the ordinance could be suspension of their license. 2. The Council could adopt the ordinance regulating cigarettes as proposed in Option 02. This option not only indicates the requirements for obtaining a license but also futher clarifies where vending machines will be allowed and also indicates that self-service sales are not allowed and must be made through an employee of the business. 3. The Council could propose a licensing requirement and completely outlaw vending machines along with requiring all sales to be assisted by an employee. 4. Do not adopt any ordinance regulating cigarettes. Under this option, the Council would not see any merit to licensing merchants who sell cigarettes and could indicate that current state statutes aro sufficient for covering vending machine sales and locations. /0 Council Agenda - 7/25/94 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION From a pratical standpoint, just adopting an ordinance licensing cigarette Wes may not do a lot of good if the real reason is to hopefully stop sales to minors. With recent public sentiment being expressed against smoking, it would appear more beneficial to adopt an ordinance that not only licenses cigarette sales but also requires sales to be assisted by an employee of the establishment. By also reinforcing the locations where vending machines can be located, similar to state statutes, accessibility by minors should be minimal. As a result, it is recommended that, if the Council would like to implement some type of regulations on tobacco sales, alternative 42 would provide the beat method of restricting availability to minors. City Attorney, Paul Weingarden, has reviewed the ordinance for general context and wanted the Council to be aware that with the adoption of an ordinance as suggested under Option r2, this could put city personnel and/or the city police department in the position of being tobacco cops with the public requesting that the city get out there and enforce its own ordinances against violators. It is Mr. Weingarden's opinion that if the City Council is looking for some type of restriction on where vending machines can be located, it may not be necessary to go as far as requiring some of the machines to be operated electronically or with tokens. I do agree with Mr. Weingarden's words of caution in that if we do adopt a very stringent ordinance, someone from the public will certainly expect us to be out there enforcing this ordinance. The Council should be aware of that before any restrictions are adopted. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of two proposed ordinances; Copy of current state statutes regarding vending machine locations. TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE 1: ADMINISTRATIVE Official Code Savings Clause Definitions Penalty Council Personnel TITLE 2: BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND DEPARTMENTS Planning Commission Civil Defense Economic Development Authority Department of Public Safety Library Board Parks Commission Police Advisory Commission TITLE 3: BUSINESS REGULATIONS Beer 1 Liquor 2 Municipal Liquor Stores 3 Liquor by the Drink 4 Scavengers 6 Moving Buildings 6 Mobile Home Parks 7 Bingo Games 8 Traveling Shows 9 Transient Merchants 10 On•salo Wine License I I Regulation, Licensing, 8c Use of Gambling Devices 12 Licensing of Adult Use Businesses 13 Sale of Tobacco 14 G AM IMM O TITLE 3 BUSINESS REGULATIONS Beer 1 Liquor 2 Municipal Liquor Stores 3 Liquor By The Drink 4 Scavengers 5 Moving Buildings 6 Mobile Home Parke 7 Bingo Games 8 Traveling Shows 9 Transient Merchants 10 On -Sale Wine License 11 Regulation, Licensing & Use of Gambling Devices 12 Licensing of Adult Use Businesses 13 Sale of Tobacco 14 G ADD THIS 70 THIS IS OPTION #1 (1) CHAPTER 14 SALE OF TOBACCO SECTION 3-14-1: Definition 3-14-2: License Required 3-14-3: Application and Issuance of License 3-14-4: License Fee 3-14-5: Displaying of License 3-14-6: Restrictions 3-14-7: Revocation of License 3-14-8: Appeal 3-14-9: Responsibility for Agents and Employees 3-14-1: DEFINITION: As used in this chapter, the term "tobacco" means and includes tobacco in any form, including, but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, or bagged, canned, or packaged product. 3-14-2: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall directly or indirectly or by means of any device or machine keep for retail sale, sell at retail, exchange, barter, dispose of, or giveaway any tobacco at any place in the city of Monticello without first obtaining a license from the city. The sale of tobacco by vending machine shall require a license under this chapter. 3-14-3: APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF LICENSE: Application for a license shall he made to the City Administrator on a form supplied by the city. Such application shall state the full name and address of the applicant, the location of the building and the part thereof intended to be used by the applicant under the license, the kind of business conducted at the location, and any other relevant informaiton as shall be required by the application form. Upon the filing of such application with the Administrator, it shall be presented to the City Council for its consideration, and, if granted by the Council, a license shall be issued by the City Administrator upon payment of the required fee. 3.14-4: LICENSE FEE: The annual license fee shall be an amount established by the City Council. All licenses shall expire on December 31. For any license issued after January 1 in any year, the fee shall be computed by prorating the annual fee over the remaining months or fraction thereof until December 31. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 14/Page 1 A penalty of fifty percent of the license fee shall be imposed if license is not applied for within the same calendar month that first sale of tobacco is made, or within the firt month after the license expires. 3-14.5: DISPLAYING OF LICENSE: Every license shall be kept conspicuously posted at the location for which the license is issued and shall be exhibited to any person upon request. 3-14-6: RESTRICTIONS: (A) Separate licenses shall be issued for the sale of tobacco at each fixed place of business, and no license shall be issued for a movable place of business. (B) It is unlawful for any person to sell, furnish, or give away any tobacco in any fora to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. (C) It is unlawful for any person to keep for sale, sell, or dispose of any tobacco in any form containing opium, morphine, near jimson weed, bells donna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine. 3-14.7: REVOCATION OF LICENSE: Every license granted under this chapter may be revoked, suspended, or not renewed by the City Council, for any of the following reasons: (A) Viol stion of section 3-14-5 (B) or any other provision of this chapter. (B) Violation of Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.685 relating to sale of tobacco to persons under eighteen (18) year of age. (C) Failure of the license holder to monitor, supervise, and control the purchase of tobacco from a vending machine so as to prevent the purchase of tobacco from a vending machine by persons under eighteen (18) years of age. The City Council shall suspend a license issued under this chapter for a minimum of three (3) days on a first violation of any section of this ordinance or the license holder may opt to pay a $250 fine in lieu of license suspension. The City Council shall suspend a license for a minimum period of thirty (30) days for a second violation within a three (3) year period. TheCity Council shall revoke a license, for a third violation occurring within thirty-six (36 ) months of the second violation, for a period of one (1) year. The licensee shall be sent written notice at least ten (10) days in advance informing the licensee of the specific ordinance or statutory violation upon which any suspension or revocation would be based, and the licensee has the right to be represented by counsel and present evidence on its behalf. MONTICEI,LO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE IIVChpt 141Page 2 C� 3-14-8: APPEAL: (A) Notice. If the City Council suspends or revokes a license, the City Administrator shall send to the licensee, by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice of the action, and the right to an appeal. The aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the City Council within ten (10) days of receiving notice of the city's action. The filing of an appeal stays the action of the City Council in suspending or revoking a license until the City Council makes a final decision. (B) Procedure. The City Council shall hear the matter and make a report of the findings. Hearings on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee or applicant shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence on its behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall make a final decision. 3-14.9: RESPONSIBILITY FOR AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES: Every act or omission constituting a violation of any of the provisions of this section by an officer, director, manager, or other agent or employee of any licensee shall be deemed and held punishable in the same manner as if the licensee personally committed the act or omission. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 14/P 3 THIS IS OPTION #2 0 CHAPTER 14 SALE OF TOBACCO SECTION 3-14-1: Definition 3-14-2: License Required 3-14-3: Application and Issuance of License 3-14-4: License Fee 3-14-5: Displaying of License 3-14-6: Restrictions 3-14-7: Revocation of License 3-14-8: Tobacco Vending Machines 3-14-9: Appeal 3-14-10: Responsibility for Agents and Employees 3-14-1: DEFINITIONS: TOBACCO: As used in this chapter, the term "tobacco" means and includes tobacco in any form, including, but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, or bagged, canned, or packaged product. SELF-SERVICE MERCHANDISING: The term "self-service merchandising" means a method of displaying tobacco products other than through a vending machine so that they are accessible to the public without the intervention of an employee. 3-14-2: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall directly or indirectly or by means of any device or machine keep for retail sale, sell at retail, exchange, barter, dispose of, or giveaway any tobacco at any place in the city of Monticello without first obtaining a license from the city. The sale of tobacco by vending machine shall require a license under this chapter. 3-14-3: APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF LICENSE: Application for a license shall be made to the City Administrator on a form supplied by the city. Such application shall state the full name and address of the applicant, the location of the building and the part thereof intended to be used by the applicant under the license, the kind of business conducted at the location, and any other relevant informaiton as shall be required by the application form. Upon the filing of such application with the Administrator, it shall be presented to the City Council for its consideration, and, if granted by the Council, a license shall be issued by the City Administrator upon payment of the required fee. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE I11/Chpt 14/Page 1 3.14-4: LICENSE FEE: The annual license fee shall be an amount established by the City Council. All licenses shall expire on December 31. For any license issued after January 1 in any year, the fee shall be computed by prorating the annual fee over the remaining months or fraction thereof until December 31. A penalty of fifty percent of the license fee shall be imposed if license is not applied for within the same calendar month that first sale of tobacco is made, or within the firt month after the license expires. 3-14-5: DISPLAYING OF LICENSE: Every license shall be kept conspicuously posted at the location for which the license is issued and shall be exhibited to any person upon request. 3-14-6: RESTRICTIONS: (A) Separate licenses shall be issued for the sale of tobacco at each fixed place of business, and no license shall be issued for a movable place of business. (B) It is unlawful for any person to sell, furnish, or give away any tobacco in any form to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. (C) It is unlawful for any person to keep for sale, sell, or dispose of any tobacco in any form containing opium, morphine, near jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine. (D) It is unlawful for any person to offer for We any tobacco product by means of self- service merchandising other than through a licensed tobacco vending machine according to Section 3-14-8. 3-14-7: REVOCATION OF LICENSE: Every license granted under this chapter may be revoked, suspended, or not renewed by the City Council, for any of the following reasons: (A) Violation of section 3.14-5 (B) or any other provision of this chapter. (B) Violation of Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.685 relating to sale of tobacco to persons under eighteen (18) year of age. (C) Failure of the license holder to monitor, supervise, and control the purchase of tobacco from a vending machine so as to prevent the purchase of tobacco from a vending machine by persons under eighteen (18) years of age. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE I11/Chpt 14/Page 2 The City Council shall suspend a license issued under this chapter for a minimum of three (3) days on a first violation of any section of this ordinance or the license holder may opt to pay a $250 fine in lieu of license suspension. The City Council shall suspend a license for a minimum period of thirty (30) days for a second violation within a three (3) year period. The City Council shall revoke a license, for a third violation occurring within thirty-six (36) months of the second violation, for. a period of one (1) year. The licensee shall be sent written notice at least ten (10) days in advance informing the licensee of the specific ordinance or statutory violation upon which any suspension or revocation would be based, and the licensee has the right to be represented by counsel and present evidence on its behalf. 3-14-8: TOBACCO VENDING MACHINES: No license shall be issued for a tobacco vending machine located in a public accommodation as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 363.01, Subdivision 18, with the following exceptions: (A) A tobacco vending machine may be located in an area within a factory, business, office, or similar place not open to the general public, to which persons under eighteen (18) year of age are not generally permitted access. (B) A tobacco vending machine may be located in an on -sale alcoholic beverage establishment, or an off -sale liquor store, upon the following conditions: The tobacco vending machine shall be located within the immediate vicinity and plain view of a responsible employee, so that all tobacco purchases will be readily observable by that employee; the tobacco vending machine shall not be located in a coatroom, restroom, unmonitored hallway, outer waiting area, or similar unmonitored area; the tobacco vending machine shall be inaccessible to the public when the establishment is closed. (C) A tobacco vending machine may be located in other establishments, under the following conditions: When operated by the activation of an electronic switch operated by an employee of the establishment before each sale or by the insertion of tokens or a key sold or given by an employee of the establishment. 2. The tobacco vending machine shall be located within the immediate vicinity and plain view of a responsible employee, so that all tobacco purchases will be readily observable by that employee; the tobacco vending machine shall not be located in a coatroom, restroom, unmonitored hallway, outer waiting area, or similar unmonitored area; the tobacco vending machine shall be inaccessible to the public when the establishment is closed. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 14/Pa 3 1 3.14-9: APPEAL (A) Notice. If the City Council suspends or revokes a license, the City Administrator shall send to the licensee, by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice of the action, and the right to an appeal. The aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the City Council within ten (10) days of receiving notice of the city's action. The filing of an appeal stays the action of the City Council in suspending or revoking a license until the City Council makes a final decision. (B) Procedure. The City Council small hear the matter and make a report of the findings. Hearings on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee or applicant shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence on its behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Coundl shall make a final decision. 3.14-10: RESPONSIBILITY FOR AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES: Every act or omission constituting a violation of any of the provisions of this section by an officer, director, manager, or other agent or employee of any licensee shall be deemed and held punishable in the same manner as if the licensee personally committed the act or omission. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE IIUChpt 1 a» atcutdrTON old TRADE PRACTICES 3159.015 379-0684 REKEDIE& V an equipment manufacturer violates sections 323E-068 to 325E.0684, an equip- ment dealer may bring an action against the manufacturer in a court of oompetent juris- diction for damages sustained by the dealer as a conseouenre of the rnanubmser's violation, togaber with the actual caw of the action, including reasonable attorney's fees The dealer also may be granted injunctivetchef against unlawful termination, can- ceWtiou, nonrenewal, or substantial change of competitive circumstances. The reme- dies in this section art in addition to any other remedies permitted by law. Histmr; 1989 c 267 s S CIGAEEM VENDING MACHINES 32Slr 7 CIGAB.EPIE VENDING MACIIINM NOTICE RELATING TO SALES. Subdivision 1. In a conupicuous place on each cigarette vending machine in use within the state, them &ball be posted, and kept in easily legible form and repair, by the owner, Lessee, or person having control thereof, a warning to persons under 18 years of age which shall be printed in bold type linen each of which shall be at hast one-half inch high and which shall read as follows: "Any Person Under 18 Year of Age Is Forbidden By Law To Purchase Cigarettes From This Machin.' Subd 2. Any owner, any lestee, and any person having control of any cigarette vending machme which does not bear the warning required by this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Histcge 1963 c 545 s 1 32MMS SALE OF TOBACCO BY VENDING MACHINE. Subdivision 1. De9dtloa. For purposes of this seetion,'tobacco" has the meaning given the term in section 604.683. Solid. 2. Prohi Ad&L Tobacco may be o6tted for sale or sold in this suit by or from a vending machine or appliance or any other medium, device, or object desi8- eated or used for vending purposes only at the following locations: (t) in an area within a factory, business, office, or other place not open to the gen- oil public or to which persons under 18 yean of age are not generally permitted access; (2) in an on- ale alcoholic beverage esubtiahment or an of4ale Liquor store, iE (i) the tobacco vending machine to located within the immediate vicinity, plain view, and control of • responsible employee, so that all tobacco purchases will he read- Ity observable by that tmpfoyce; (ii) the tobacco vending ntaobine is cot located in a coatroom, restroom, unmoni. tored hallway, outer waiting arta, at similar unmonitored arca; and ((Li) the tobacco vending machine is inaccessible to the public when the establish. extent is closed; and (3) in other establishments, upon the following condhloor. (i) it must be located within the immediate vicinity, plain view and control of a responsible employee, so that all tobacco purchases will be readily observable by that employee; it meat not be Coated in a coatroom, restroom, unmonitored hallway, outer waiting area, or similar unmaaitomd arra; and it must be inaccessible to the public when the establishment is closW; and (il) it must be operable only by activation of an electronic switch operated by an empiayce, of the esmblishmeat before each sale, or by inscrion of tokaas provided by an employee of the agabli:hment before ucbb sale. Subd. 3. Last regulation, no governing body of a Local unit of government may adopt rules or ordinances relating to vending machine sales of tobacco that are more restrictive than the restrictions imposed by this section. History: 1990 c 421 s 1 Council Agenda - 7/26/94 8. Review otLiauor Store six month financial statement. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Joe Hartman will be in attendance at the Council meeting Monday night to review with the Council the six month financial report ending June 30th. To briefly summarize, sales for the fust six months of 1994 compared to 1993 were up $26,800 or approximately 4%. The resulting gross profit was up only $2,750 because our cost of merchandise sold also increased $24,000 over last year. The overall gross profit percentage of 23.8% is generally acceptable and is within the area we were targeting. Expenses for 1994 were also up $1,639 over the same period last year which resulted in a operating income of $67,071 which is $1,115 higher than last year's first six months. Overall, the financial report is very comparable to last year's results. As sales continue to increase at our facility, I have had a couple of conversations with Joe regarding the feasibility of enlarging the walk-in cooler area in the near future. Joe will be able to expand on this topic, but there does appear to be a need for investigating the cost effectiveness of enlarging the walk-in cooler area to accomodate more beer storage. In order to do this, the building would likely have to be expanded in a westerly direction. In order to provide more information for the Council to consider in the future, Joe and I will be attempting to get some cost estimates on the feasibility of expanding the building. No other action is needed by the Council other than acceptance of the report at this time. B. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Liquor Store financial reports. Current Assets: Cash Change Fund Investments Accounts Receivable A/R - NSF Checks Inventory Prepaid Insurance TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 30Jun94 114,467.61 1,600.00 351,205.84 66.58 201,367.47 7,215.12 ------------ 675,922.62 Fixed Assets Land & Parking Lot Buildings Furniture & Equipment less. Accumulated Depreciation ,i-TAL FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS Liabilities Accounts Payable Due to EDA Fund Sales Tax Payable Salaries Payable Accrued Vacation/Sick Leave Other Accrued Expenses TOTAL LIABILITIES RETAINED EARNINGS TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 46,591.03 199,285.65 75,993.73 (205,040.75) ------------ 116,829.66 ------------ 792,752.28 aaaaaa�aaaaa 63,612.50 40,000.00 12,847.86 1,865.82 14,246.06 321.41 ------------ 132,893.65 659,858.63 ------------ 792,752.28 aaaaaaaaoasa v, MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUN 30, 1993 AND 1994 1993 1994 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT SALES Liquor 187,219 186,715 Beer 395,210 425,387 wine 66,946 69,312 Other Merchandise 25,183 19,783 Misc Non -Taxable Sales 917 1,178 Discounts TOTAL SALES 675,536 702,375 COST OF GOODS SOLD (511,373) (535,458) GROSS PROFIT 164,163 24.3% �=aaaasa== 166,917 aseaaaa= a:a GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE arsonal Services salaries 51,758 54,495 PERA 1,911 2,261 FICA 3,916 4,161 Insurance 5,504 4,862 Unemployment Benefits TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 63,089 9.3% 65,836 Supplies Office Supplies 379 150 General Operating Supplie 3,059 3,187 Other Supplies 40 60 TOTAL SUPPLIES 3,478 .5% 3,397 23.85 9.41 .5% 0 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUN 30, 1993 AND 1994 1993 1994 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT Other Services & Charges Professional Services 2,500 Maintenance Agreements Communication 567 565 Travel -Conference -Schools 98 Advertising 2,705 2,815 Insurance 10,554 7,567 Utilities, Electric 5,293 5,162 Utilities, Heating 813 987 Utilities, Sewer & water 6 319 Utilities, Refuse; Maintenance, Equipment 857 635 Maintenance, Building 937 11258 Maintenance, Other 74 74 Depreciation --Acquired As 9,286 8,013 Other Misc Expenses 465 ---------- 542 ---------- TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH 31,640 4.7Z 30,613 4.42 TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS 98,207 ---------- 14.52 99,846 ---------- 14.3% TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 65,956 a aaaaaaena 9.8% 67,071 oaanaaaaaa 9.52 Other Income (Expense) Interest Income 6,756 5,205 Cash Long/Short 69 91 Sale of Property ---------- ---------- TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE) 6,826 1.0% 5,297 .82 NET INCOME (EXPENSE) 72,871 aDaaaaaaaa 10.8% 72,368 Daaaaaaaaa 10.3% Transfers In/Out ADJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE 72,971 oaaaaaaaaa 10.82 72,368 aaaaaaaaaa 10.32 1994 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR YEAR-TO-DATE GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUN 30, 1993 AND 1994 47,276 1993 425,387 YEAR-TO-DATE 91,219 AMOUNT 69,311 Liquor Sales 181,219 DiSCOUntS 36.5% 19,783 Cost of Sales 136,112 GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR 51,108 27.3% Beer Sales 395,210 Cost of Sales 317,494 702,375 GROSS PROFIT - BEER 77,716 19.7% Wine Sales 66,946 166,917 moamamaaaa Cost of sales 43,627 GROSS PROFIT - WINE 23,319 34.8% sc Sales 25,183 t -oat of sales 10,898 GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE 14,286 56.7% Mise Non-taxable Sales 977 Cost of Sales 528 GROSS PROFIT - MISC NON -TAXA 449 46.0% TOTAL SALES 675,536 TOTAL COST OF SALES 508,658 TOTAL FREIGHT COST 2,714 TOTAL GROSS PROFIT 164,163 mmommammam 24.3% 1994 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT 186,715 139,439 47,276 25.3% 425,387 334,168 91,219 21.4% 69,311 44,017 ---------- 25,294 36.5% 19,783 13,810 5,973 30.2% 1,178 506 672 57.0% 702,375 531,941 3,517 166,917 moamamaaaa 23.81 f'L Council Agenda - 7/25/94 Consideration of installation of electrical pump lockouts for protection of the secogd stage digester at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: One of the contributing factors to the shortened life of the second stage digester cover at the WWTP was that the controls at the WWTP allowed the operators to pump sludge after the digester cover was in its down position. Without a careful eye by the operators during this procedure, air could be drawn into the second stage digester causing a more corrosive atmosphere to occur inside the tank and the possibility of a more volatile gas mixture. We, therefore, have asked the City Engineer to design an electaial lockout system that would have to be physically overridden to pump sludge from the digester once the cover is in its lowered position. Based upon the drawings provided from OSM, Kelsie McGuire has solicited proposals to install the lockouts from 4 electrical contractors. We only received 1 proposal from Olson & Sons Electric. The dollars for the construction would come from the sewer access fund. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. To authorize Olson & Sons Electric to install the electrical pump lockouts for $3,223.60. 2. To try to obtain additional quotes and install the lockouts at a later date. This does not appear to be practical as we wish to install the lockouts prior to startup, and we are ready to stagy � up the aticend stage digester at this time. 3. To do nothing, but continue to operate and have the operators pay as close attention as possible to see that pumping is not carried out when the cover is down. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Professional Services Croup that the City Council authorize installation of the electrical pump lockouts as outlined in alternative 81. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of plan sheet from OSM; copy of quotes from electrical contractors. a, \ .00 t I U q �:%I STING / I J 1 •� C. Mtn DQ STIMG 1 I'C. on4 t 7-12 I 1 I 1 I alsrlNCJ I ' 'n C. 4W4 & W2 E%I STIRG UNDER GRDlR10� I I I ❑ I I I 1 I I I I / I 1 DIGESTER BLDG. BASEMENT PLAN n um r� wuo Krto n/vwnn�m i � �C t`ut'Ttw sty In mo— I1 I I i � 1 i iq �» nOtO RM1Tgq b .tQ DIGESTER BLDG. FIRST FLOOR PLAN '}-- CONTRONRL;o G Di GRAM STARTER BUCKET CONTROL WIRING DIAGRAM a NERAL NOTES: CONDUIT TO BE RIGID STEEL WITH APPROPRIATE FITTINGS. A. NUMBERED NOTES: EXISTING PULL BOX AND CONDUITS RACEWAYS TO MCC AF-OVE. CONTRACTOR TO PULL 1 ( 4 ) 414 EXISTING LIMIT SWITCH CONDUCTORS BACK FROM BOILER CONTROL PANEL AND ROUTE UP TO PUMP INTERLOCK CABINET BEING INSTALLED IN MCC ROOM. EXISTING BOILER CONTROL PANEL. CONTRACTOR TO DISCONNECT ( 4)EXISTING LIMIT SWITCH OCONDUCTORS (2 -BLUE d 2 -YELLOW) FOR REROUTING TO FUMP INTERLOCK CABINET BEING INSTALLED. CONTRACTOR TO PROv10E JUMPER CONDUCTOR BETWEEN TERMINAL 65 ON TERMINAL STRIP AND TERMINAL B ON DAYTON 45X841F RELAY BASE. FURNISH d INSTALL PUMP INTERLOCK CABINET WITH COMPONENTS AS SPECIFIED IN CONTROL OWIRING DIAGRAM. CABINET TO NEMA 12 ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTED OF 16 GAUGE STEEL WITH POWDERCOAT FINNISH. CABINET TO HAVE KEYED SWITCH MOUNTED TO DEAD FRONT PANEL WITH ENGRAVED LABEL "DIGESTER TRANSFER PUMPS". MOUNT o 54'. OEXISTING JUNCTION BOX MOUNTED 0 TOP OF TANK. DISCONNECT AND REMOVE EXISTING JUNCTION BOX, FLEXIBLE WHIPS AND LIMIT SWITCHES THAT ARE HANGING LOOSE. OFURNISH d INSTALL HIGH/LOW LIMIT SWITCHES AND FLEXIBLE CO NDUIT/WIRE CONNECTION TO JUNCTION BOX AND EXISTING CONDUIT/VIIRE. INSTALL (1) LIMIT SWITCH ON GUIDE RAIL AT LEVEL 2'0" (FOR PUMP OFF) AND ( 1 ) AT 2'6" ( FOR PUMP ON) ABOVE CONCRETE TANK. FURNISH d INSTALL ACTUATOR ATTACHED TO FLOATING DIGESTER COVER. ACTUATOR SHOULD BE 6'6" ABOVE EDGE OF DIGESTER COVER. VERIFY ELEVATIONS WITH ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. JUNCTION BOX. FLEXIBLE CONNECTORS AND LIMIT SWITCHES TO BE RATED FOR USE IN CLASSI. DIV. 1 LOCATION. OEXISTING 120/208V PANELBOARD. PROVIDE 120V CONNECTION OF INTERLOCK PANEL POWER CONDUCTORS TO EXISTING 20A SINGLE POLE CIRCUIT BREAKER. OROUTE 6x+14 FROM PULL BOX BELOW TO MCC BUCKETS FOR TRANSFER PUMPS. TRANS -N. TRANS -S d TRANS -M. REFER TO BUCKET WIRING DIAGRAM. EXISTING MCC. CONTRACTOR TO WIRE PUMP INTERLOCK RELAY CONTACT INTO CONTROL CIRCUIT OB AS INDICATED IN STARTER BUCKET CONTROL WIRING DIAGRAM. TYPICAL OF (3) PUMP STARTERS TRANS -S. TRANS -N d TRANS -M. OFURNISH d INSTALL CONDUIT SEALING FITTING IN EXISTING""" CONDUIT. FITTING TO BE O -Z GEDNEY VEYA-50 OR EQUAL. Olson & Sons Electric Inc. 240 West Oakwood Drive Monticello. MN. 55362 (612)295-2690 FAX (612)295-2691 Date: 7/22194 TO: Prot: Servtces Group, Inc. Attn.: KeLde McGuire 1401 Had Bvld. Monticello, MN. 55362 Dear Kclsic, We would 11c to submit & following estimate regardh* your Digester Tank Pump Interlocks. The equipment supplied by us will be suitable for Class I Div. 1 HaMdorm Locations, and installed according to rhe 1794 NEC requirements for this arca. The estimate includes the necessary welding S. construction of an actuator arm attached to the moveable top of the Digester tank. This actuator arm will acumw the limit switches provided, and be ccnatructed so as to allow adjustment of the limits as per your specificatioro. TOTAL ....... $ 3.233.50 • Includes Eleca"- Inspection & Ci rMf "W If you Isw any questions, please foal tree to call. Wc:21 y�, Olson w\ Olson & Sons Electric Inc. Council Agenda - 7/26/94 10. Cgnsideration of aooroval of annual MPCA Wastewater Treatment Plant survey. O.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Last year, Kelsie McGuire and myself participated in the first pilot program for the MPCA annual wastewater treatment plant survey. The survey is intended to open lines of communication between city councils, staff, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in regard to needs of the individual plants and communities. This year's annual survey is completed for your review. The format for the survey has been changed to a 611 in the dots type of form. Please review the document and fill free to contact me or Kelsie to the meeting or raise individual questions during the meeting itself. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIC)NS: 1. Approve the annual suurvey report as drafted 2. Approve the annual survey report with some minor changes. 3. Not to approve the annual survey report. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council approve the annual survey report as outlined in alternative #1. The report Jhas not changed much since last year. We are still under a study period looking for major expansion within the next 3 to 6 years. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the 1994 report; Copy of resolution for adoption. MHNNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY WATER QUALITY DIVISION ANNUAL EVALUATION AND PLANNING SYSTEM Nunicipalih .Name �I e 7p e Z p � s s e e t •� a -!•� p r e c NiAR.M\G INSTRUCTIONS • L ;e No. 1 pencil or blue or black ink pen only. Inco, -rest .Narks • Do not a -e red ink'!r felt tip pen,. / R • • MAP ;olid mark, that 611 the rehnnnw completely. —_ • hake nn stra, marks on Ihi> form. Correct .Nark • Do ru tear or mutilate this form. ��'vriV'Cr:�`_''� �C�ih+/.1ir,�rr?'rj" t 1 td;!i�•,:ull.af.-l..lea;a'��altt�,!iaw�t��•a�,+F•'.4�1�N � Sod treatment Systems (Spray lrri>:aiion. Rapid Inl7ltration, Drainfieldsl .............. I —_ If n.•• .vii aide. ,,r to yne,tion 11. _ I. Tae nduent design Ilan int ,our .oil:r,j uent —tern i,: .. the rulu,•nt design hiu, hon,ical o„—n demand JUDI for sour treatment —tem Is: 1. In the past year. how mam month, did the iullnNin, e,ceed 40 percent of the design ,alurs listed ab-, Li_ a G _! 4! e__r__ - J. In 'he lad -,v. hon m•m, month, did the iollo„ing ewved dmiCn -lues: 4.1 __ o ----- -- - - - - - �'- :. Ne•e the dr,Icn h,oraoli, .lpoli,tuou rales est ceded un an, sitv%i ............... .......... ....... • M — tt� t.• 11 ,•rr'h-•re .ut, dist hmg,s Io .uua, r Nater, in the pa,t ,ra,f , •I — r Doe, the „stem h-- enough .u, a, mage to accept all of the water recei,edf .......................... - - It. U„ Ie•t.w•s e,. rem,e Io.—ept N.uer per thou leas, agret'mentsf .... .... ' o N• 9. Dud an, noo-ooring Nell wmple results e, erdo...................................................... — 'I :vo mttrL I bloc ulrsf ........... r' — IllmQL nitrala•-n imgenf ... ......................................................... III. sudif nal t u..... ,if nrl rs, 1,,: - _ _ -__--_ ■• ■ ■ -- -- `•`a!IfIrtDO NOT rualt IN rNl9 APB _ 2131 0 1 0- ENr. SYSTEM PHYSICAL CONDITION SECTION 1W TREAMM _ All Systems It. Age of the I o a + s e - f v (Thi, i,detined a, the numberoi sean+ince the la+t construction iacilih: z, is a s e - t a 1 to increase the organic or h%draulic capaeil% of the fatilit),I It. Are there-, yaks e., piping, pump,, etc. that will require major repair nr replacement ssithin the next five scant ........... . ...................................................................... x 1 i. Identify 'tem, nee line repair or rrplacrment: �!{A'f�_ge.edrj_F_�/ /{1Cztl� &-_ Ali ILt1 ire i oJee-, Mechanical Unit �rocesses i If not applicable, gn to question Li, 14, Fur the proce,n listed het—, indicate sshether equipment, ,tructurn, etc., still require major repair or replacement ,it in the nest mevean: 1,4.1 Artiratrd Sludge ................. .. ............. ....... ... ................ r lea 14.2 Chemical Feed Equipment Ifncludingpho+phorus removal. pH adjustment. etc.! ................. 9"A 14.3 Claritirn (includingprimary, secondary. Imhoff tanks, etc.) .................................. "A x 14.4 Di,imet'tion ( including dechlurinauum.................................................. r "A r. 14.> Effluent Fill er...................................................................... . •1 I4.6 Invinvntion................................................... .............. . 4._ I termi(tent Sand Filler. ................................................ . ..I.......... r " 14.3 Preliminary Treatment ( including grit +rmosal, c(imminuior,. screening etc.( ...... .............. r • ++ 14.9 Rotating Riolugical Contatlors............... I.I ... I ............... ..... .............. r n rr.. I4.1) )rquen(ing Batch Realtun............................................................ r x 11. I Sx 1 I lr. 4. 2 dg, Drys atenng ........................ ........ . .................. .............. r r+ 14.11 )fudge Diges ten...... • n xa t 14.74 Study Thickening .................................................. .............. � 44 va I4.1 i Tru klin a Fill ord0iotiltcr+ • • • . . ■ '' "' V ................. ........ ............................. • Pond Unit Processes (such as Stabilization, Aerated, Polishing, Sludge Storage, etc.) ...... • If not applicable• qu to que,tion .n. r• 11. 1, there am' dwp rooted segetation e.g., cattails• etc.( in p(md+or dikesf .............. r v Ib. Are (herr am burro-ing rodent, lismq in the pends or d4nl ........................ .............. r x a� 17. \1 ill ans of the follusn inµ need major repair or replacement within the next five }rant � I7.1 lion nr seal ........................... ..... ....... ................. .... ........ .. r n ILift .tatiu is ............................. ............................. r n I"..l kipoap................................................ .... .......... .... .......... r n 17.4 1),ke, ......... ........ ......... .......................... .... ...... r x r. IT.: Gml rel slructur. ..... ......... ....... ..... .......... .... ..... ..... r x r. 17,h ,U4weather roa.... ................................................... . x IR. 1v ill am other rqurpnvnt requne major repair or replacement within the nest tine seanl + x 19. 1deniiis in•ms mrd i ng it, pair or rep Iat etttenl: Soil Treatment Systems (such as Spray Irrigation, Rapid Infiltration, Drainftelds, etc.) .... • If nod applit ahle' go) to lunlion th. � tR. Davinµ do weather conditions, aro (here ant .pods, dra•page ar pdsdlnµ of walrr rm the prwand wnacer .... r x I I. I, there an, unusual growth of n,getalinn inns near the +iul treatment .n .dons area Ie.µ., can ail., plu.h green arrJ,, rll.it...... ........................................................................ r M � !:. I, their (•,labinhrd ayrHlisr unrr in the auk Uralmrnlnxtrmr .............. ..... ..... ... ....... r v f. : 1. If present. are the gn+and wafer numltorint wells up to AGnnesuta Department of Health ended!.......... r " lh,ILal.114aN 1'.. I-1, I A, - 1. 1'• 1111a1. 114 a. I IA. 111 A a1 •. �. 2J. Will am ether equipment require major repair or replacement -thin the n-1 live wean! ................ _ • 25. Identiiv items needing repair Air replacement: a � 26. Additional comments an treatment +v+lem physical condition if necessarv: a •a �• .ata .7. Hose mam loss in the last year did hvpasses Air overflows occur( (M%VCC is nut required to answer 27.1.1 _7.1 In part of the +ev%er collection systemf /am, D_• �: o f f• r a o _ At the treatment +vstemf O•�: 7 a e• e v i _ C 0 0 � s•• o .7.:I Of the number listed in 27.1 and '27.2, how manv were due I): 27.4 Rain or Sm- Melt (lntiltratiunilnfl—) o � a f• e f ^ o s I• r e f Equipment Failure _ of s f o r 1 1", !_ 7 o t o •• 7• e 211. Uues a pl.tn rvist In remove ant imihratiun m in0uw f ............................................ 0-4 29. How mar,, rainialls in the last sear caused basement Iwr Lupsf t.NWCC is not required to are,wer this que+tion.) __O � t o f f e • •� _ .11). Are lift wiu., adequately maintained and operated( ............................................ _ it. Dor+ a .c hrrlul -d presenli.e maintenance pnrgram e%isf fur the collection -stem( ...................... _ v _ .12. Dttc•s a roulinr Inspecliou program rsisl fur the collection —Is mf .................................. _ 0. _ .M. Dra rihe am major repair or egwpment replaaemrnt that wrre made in the last year. Dn mfl include if the systrm is _ less than one sear uld las indicated In gwabon 1 t ). aJ, Addiiirmal wmnx•nh. if ntvevwr: 2131• • • •� PLEASE DO NOT IaAHK IN ts•IS aRE.. ra'AIU1s'1'i111'si:PllULif __—llri't•;�!t..:..�;.� ,s.R r1 1titer ba-..'c��„�': _5 If not applirahle, go to question 4h. S►v., 1.5. Does the ss.trm generate a sludge Ihat is land applied? ......... ..... ........... ......... I ...... 1 '+ 11.1 If ses• dne> the .,st em emplos ar amlratt wilh a ... lifted Apr I\ -w, s.trm rnludgr, operator! lb. If sludge is landspresd, dues the stem hase at leas) si, Inmthv ui suoagr! ......................... .. 0 : " 17. Are an adequate numht•r of AIPCA apprused atres asailahle w apph the stem ..Iuke prrnlut lion fur Ihr nest �rar!..... ...... .......... • • �• �� tri. Will am mss landvpreading site, he applied for in the n,�t,l I .19. Hase am site tumplainl, iwen recessed regarding, sludge!........ .... � •: 40. Dots the sludge mert Class 6 sludge reduction requirement, (old I^NP clan-ui, .unnu! .................. '+ 41. Dues :he dudCv mer: vr.:ur altrattiun reduoiun requirwnrn M! ..... ... ..... '' 42. If the sludge is not land applied. is it transferred to another facilily! ...... .. + +• • 42.1 If —, list the name of Ihr reteising i.16HIs:-- 4:3. Will am uthrr rgbaymeru require major ..peri. ur rrpla,en' •�:1 ]ulhin '1 • n+�• ' �. .. .... . • ' 44. Identiis items needing repair nr ..plat rn� u• - _ _ /�/�,(/ t f "I+'� t�� '! rr r 4. 41. Additional tumment, if nec—ars:--- • w If not applicable, go tel question L. ' 4h. Ho. mans individual us. age Irealment.Prmms rsist in the wrvi,e arra! (J •0 = t ; ^ + ^ r y • s i ".I Huss mem buildings do then senrf p ,: ' t n + s r r t ♦ yy 0 I r a _fD tilt^ r C. Hase the indkidual sNrms' wptie tanks ht•en l,uml>.•d in the Lw Ilirceer srarsf.,.J. n. ............ ... + 411. DnrI the muni, ipalils hair a se•plage di'W—i plan( ..,.... Ited-4.... le'�...... .....I v ru 411.1 Is the srpjair dkjbb)ul plan in ae, urdanee %ith the- permit! ......... . v 411.: Dors the wpiage disposal plan add,.,, huildings cud ..nme, ted In the .aIle, tion —1—f .......... 49. Is wplageaueptedin the I rraunrrsl...temf.................................................... + SII. Will .un other equipment rrvpuire major repair or replitemenl ssilhin Ilse ne%] inr se.sr.f ............... r S 1. Ideutils ilems needing repair or repla. ement: _ - _ -.., \dditinnal nrmm,•nls, a m,rssn: +�+ �LBASE OO;IOT MARK In THIS SAE. ■ ■ MAI — System Operation 1. Huts mans dates Per , •ek is the t,adrw acre ne.vmem .t.lent staiied! —7 . , ) s + s s jp- 54. Hum main hours per das is the ttatt—mer t-alment —Ie. .laved! L9._, - e 1 w LUT TH15 AS A TOTAL PER DAY IgE., HOURS), NOT 1 TOTAL PER PERSON l o r x 0+ s 4, e/ PER DAY. ee� i. Total daih flow measurement: 55.1 Has the influent I- effluent) flow meter that measures total daih )low been calibrated within the last tear! .... .......... ..................... .... .................................. . r If local daih dots is determined bt running time mo,— on lilt ,tatiun pumps. were the pumps calibrated w1hin the last tear! .............................................. ......... + .) 0 153 If flow is not measured using a flow meter or running ;ime meters, hum are total daih flows measured! ecce. ,h. Have am significant meLhaniral or Pott—related operational problems been experienced within the last year! + 0 IIA s7. Please describe: r_ OIL If item he is fes, mere ans of the problems attributable to a nmmrrvial ur industrial discharges! ............ • u 'o � i -I. Is %our liboratun wnth LonduLted at a )eriniL•d laboratun �—Juding disuhed o,-4vn, pH and chlorine _ re,iduallf.................................................................... ..... i Please list the following: 510.1 facillt, Lalm,ato- 510.2 Certifacalion Number 510.d ContratI Lahuralnn 510.4 Cerlifilaliun Number System Maintenance h0. Dues a se heduled preventise maintenaru a program exist for the treatment system! ...................... 0 u e� hl. Is the pmsencise maintenance ,e hnlule being adhered to and are at curate returdv heing maintained? ...... 0, H• h2, \Vere ..it, major, repairs or equipment replan emem made in the fast tea,! Drs nul im lude if the sx stem is 1— than one t ear old las indit aged In question II) ................................................... 0" 62.1 Plraw dtse ri e: �7 --dle 00'Operator Certification and Training /`� io �2C�IA" �en 61. %%h.tt is the I—itment —tem' Llasvifie ,Ilion ImarL unci ...... .. .. .. ... .. ..... . 64, v 1 the fieoperator In resp)mihle t harge of the ss,tem a artiftod at a e las. equal In or greater than the svoem s tl.assiaxionl........................................................................... d " r. i. Has the alone operalor attended .uw training -1hln the last veer! ................................. hh. Hum man, uln•raosrs dues the —t rn Id—f l l�Ilq ltel. alR;tail6.Ir.Itl'r aw7li.. ltl)42:� cIt 1/l.-liscl,. a l l�f r7 t;lt,latlall4all M. l l a llama ntttv�tr�.�1 h'. How man. of them arc certified at risme lesel? '40 t I 3 1 ra t I r 1 r ��!s 11 a IRA, _. r a t :' hit. Does an ongoing wieh uai.iroz pro4ram etisl f ........................... ........................ a h9. Additional almments, ii ort r+tan: __ _ _ SECTIONORDINANCF STATUS ?U. Please i omplete the following it.r the /� entire wastewater system using information from the last fiscal sear- REVENUES User Chagas 5 y13� EXPENDITURES Operation dstailltertance S 'y(�/,'17 Tate, -5 Depreciafiii. -S 339.3- Other -S 7 -Q"� Capital Reptuement -S Total =S J��- Debt Sere ice •S '- 1- _ Other S Total =Sper--, 1. Did expenditures iur operation and maintenance etceed user charges by ten perr.-enif. .................... r 72. Did user charges etceed expenditures for operation and maintenance by len percent!. ............ ...... ' • � 'S. Dors the municip4lit, hose an equipment replan emenl at room?.................................... 01- 74. s,a. Are resenues and rtpenditures iti r the wastewater treatment Ssstems kept in atcounts wparate irnm rum—ser account, (e.g., water utilities, ptlblit works. etc.!? ........................ ...I, ...................r + JS. What was the sear of the last sewer sersit a chargr astern resiew by the municipal ,mncit? t e l r l t, �--�t_ of _ s_• 3 r s S : • s : S.l Year of the last rale adiu%tmeni: 13 a .• 1 =/ i Th. Manthh Residential Uwr Rate � ib.t Base Rate 4 7b.2 li you uu a per unit thlrre: Per 1,0I0 galhwh S ttt� Or Per l 00cubirfeet 5 ,�•,�� ___ t h,hR a S__'�'�l ( f%f �'4e/ �� �(i ,�•LL T+•� e_ Th..l Total Rmidentul Uwr Rale chased un an average ttt� '.0141 gaR,ms pis household per mtmthltinr►...Rl+it o S 7. t r� i ii "a- t- r r i 76.4 Dehl Srnitr l:harge per rmmth _ _ 7ba lural Residential Rat, t'ts..l . 7h.4l � 5 TO 0 0• o ;w 0 1 t r+ 1 4P r i 0 4 IS (herr a fer iur a new umnettinn to the sewer tWem? .............. ..... ....................... . 77.1 t li s M, piss• Iia the n•r: S' " ,� a 1 a r • r t i ` '0 NitiI, i t • • i r sEcnON.RDINANCE STATUS (CONTINUED)I a 'It. Are all u.•n char,ed proportionate, to th••ir-ef................................................ 4@ n 74. Does an Industrial user rate schedule or .urcharge rave e,iW...................................... • '+ _ a 80. Has the municipality adopted a sewer u,e ordinanu•f ............... .......... ................. 01 If yrs, doe, the ordinam r: 811.1 Control new connections ............................................................ I v = . Prohibit dear water connection,..................................................... r • 2.! .3 Prohibit loxics...................................................................... 40" 80.4 Allow the municipalih to require pretreatment ............................................ • o r. 80.3 Require annual nofitrcation of cast to all usen............................................ + • 80.6 Pro, ide for enforcement of the ordinance ................................................ • r, — . 81. Dries the municipality have pretreatment agreemen i./permits with sitniticani industrial went ............ � a ■ n .• 8I.1 If vs•s. do the agreements have limitsf.................................................... r. . 0, 111.1 Have there been any violations of limits in the last sear? .................................... 4W '• — . 82. For oil treatment sv,tems:....................................................................... 82.1 It a sewer use ordinance exists, due, it address routine maintenance for individual sewage treatment ..stem, and prolwr disp—I of the seplagef . r a n• 82.! I)— the municapalit% require individual vv stems be insppercted and brought up to code at the time of r. building permit application, point of sale or complaints! .................................... r n n• 82.3 Doar the municipality restrict the discharge of non-domestic waste to individual sewage treatment .......................................................................... w,trmsfe s n• 112.4 Does the municipality allow newt% constructed homes to Lr served by individual sewage treatment .v+u•ms!................................................. .... ...... r N n• If ,e,, does the munir ipalih have ordinances and an inspection program to ensure that the new —tem is proper, Located. deigned and huiW.................................................. - n 83. Additional comments, if nec—m: � r. H4. What i, the expected increase in the average wet weather tmaviimum mrmlthlvi flow uvrr the neat fpive )eanf r ZS Million gallons per day t (Zp 00 1 TiO�C . %j A, /E I1 :. What is the rxpec ted in• rease in the maximum rnonthly loadings for the following live vranf lli.l Hinrhrmical Uxv gen DemandjDlitf _ Ipgmnd,/monthi dear% _._ Hi.! Total Susprndrvl Solids`IS_7�7 gt,mml,/monlhf E oAJ -16 115.,1 %nuramia /�//�_ _ tp•mnd,/muntht 7• / bJ 85.4 Phosphorus NV -n tpuunds/muntht ' Hb. will the five-year proje, td average wet weather flow rate excred the —tem cepat iW ........ I ......... V '+ ' HC. Will the 8v r•v ear projra rid .wmage maximum mumhly Loadings exceed the % tern d sign capa(it, f ........ v 811. Are airs major treatment baa ility or r ollet tion worm impnwemenl, or rvpamionv planned in the next hive ' )rarsf.................... ... ...... ..................................................... � 811.1 If yrs, plea.- complete the follow int: ' De. ription of Work \ran of C onstrur bum Fxtirnated Cusl -- - - f11� �N `C!1./'t: /i•i_h!. '!f•(e _"fOC �'! _ _ ---- - - _ � r. rs rs NEEDS. 88.2 Name, author and date of document that listed the cost estimate on presious page legg., facilities plan, engineering report. engineer ouds, etc.) "'rite None' if estimate was not documenlyd. 8Y. Do amAlam exist to connect an% of the unsesfered homes in the sen ice area to the municipal treatment system sfith in r m•xt fife scan!.................................................................. 0-1 na 89.1 If yes, hnff many! 0 1 1+ s e; e s 89.2 Anticipated feansi ni contraction: _u 1, 1+ s e r{ a N/f� 0 1 1 1+ 1 4 1 1 89.3 Total estimated cnst 911. If future const ruction project nl %v ere identified in 8:.1. are yuu interested in receif ing information regarding financial assistance through the State Revolving Loan Programi ....... s 11PAtQeaxD y ' NAv� !T 91. Additional comments, if ne,,x,san: 92. • Completed Its: —F• /��G%Nt Dale: xtDNIH —U e r t 1+ 1{ 1 0 V 1iHoc f► Dal — ° • { 1. 1 a s e r{ a YEAR { 1 1 1+ 1 1 r a• l e 1 2 e{ 1 If sou hafr question concerning this document• please cunlact Deb Lindllef 43 rationw1raining Unit Water Qwlily Division I Iww•hi7•186A 16I D 2%.8ih6 Caprnpnx — MUMtµ Carnpnw n.— i- e1 �pn� irMry�e 7■ ■ • as 0 •eAGE 00 NOT MARK IM TMt9 AAAA ..1. in ua• {YarMMA Oy MCO UYIM{1111 2131 d RESOLUTION 94. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL EVALUATION AND PLANNING SURVEY FOR THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has recently passed a law that will require municipalities to annually complete an evaluation and planning survey of their wastewater treatment facilities for MPCA review, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello was requested to participate in an annual evaluation and planning survey pilot project by completing a copy of the survey report, and WHEREAS, the annual evaluation and planning survey report has been completed, presented, and reviewed by the City Council of Monticello; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA that the annual evaluation and planning report as prepared is accurate to the best of our knowledge and is authorized to be submitted to the MPCA as part of the pilot project. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of July, 1994. Mayor City Administrator Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator 0 BENNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ANNUAL EVALUATION AND PLANNING SURVEY City of Monticello State of Monticello We certify per the attached resolution that the information provided in the Annual Evaluation and Planning Survey is wrrect to the best of our knowledge. Mayor Date Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Date City Administrator Date Council Agenda - 7/25/94 11. Consideration of adopting a resolution of residential antidieplacement, relocation assistance. and displacement minimization plan for Monticello. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On September 27, 1993, the City Council adopted a resolution as applicant of a Small Cities Economic Development Grant (SCERG) to fund the H -Window Company expansion and authorized Public Resource Group, Inc. (PRG) to prepare the application. The grant was for $400,000 with escalated interest rates of 0% for years 1-2, 2% for year 3, 3% for year 4, 4% for year 5, and 5% for years 6 to 10. The city would retain the state's first $100,000 principal and interest payback. Later, the state reduced the loan amount for consideration to $250,000. In addition, a $100,000 loan application to the Central Minnesota Initative Fund (CMIF) was prepared and submitted. The loan was denied because the Norwegian ownership did not satisfy the CMIF residency requirement. Thereafter, the EDA and Council approved a $50,000 Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) loan to assist with the financial gap created by the CMIF denial. The State now recommends the $250,000 be funded by Federal (Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)) dollars rather than SCERG dollars. Listed below are some differences between the Federal and State programs as it relates to the City of Monticello and the H -Window Company: 1. 51% of all jobs created must either be taken or considered to be available for low/moderate income persons. (Accountable by the H - Window Company) 2. Loan payback dollars must again be used to benefit low/moderate income (L.III) persons until such time as released by the State. (Separate accountability by City) 3. Compliance of Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Standards such as the Davis -Bacon Act and Residential Displacement Plan, etc. 4. City retains total $250,000 principal and interest payback for the GMEF. 5. GMEF guidelines must be amended to accommodate LMI persons. 1.<" Council Agenda - 7/25/94 ItMOLUMON FOR AnomoN The adoption of this resolution of residential antidisplacement, relocation assistance, and displacement minimization plan is a HUD formality procedure of the CDBG application. The resolution applies to projects funding redevelopment, housing, or construction and does not apply to projects funding equipment. However, to satisfy HUD formality procedures, Council is asked to consider adoption of the enclosed resolution. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution of residential antidisplacement, relocation assistance, and displacement minimization plan. 2. Deny adoption of the resolution of residential antidisplacement, relocation assistance, and displacement minimization plan. 3. Table any action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City Administrator, Assistant Administrator, and Economic Development Director recommend alternative 01. Although reporting and accountability for CDBG funds is greater than for the SCERG funds, staff views the $250,000 principal and interest payback is worth the time of reporting and documentation. Mr. Steve Lemme at the H•Window Company agrees to comply with reporting and accountability. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption. J(0 RESOLUTION f 94 - CITY OF MONTICELLO Residential Anti -displacement, Relocation Assistance and Displacement Minimization (FP -18) (page 1) Applicant Name: City of Monticello, Minnesota Residential Antidisplacement. Relocation Assistance and Displacement Minimization Plan requires the following information: A. The City/Coumy will replace all occupied and vacant livable low/moderate income dwelling units demolished or convened to a use other than as low/moderate income housing in connection with an activity assisted with funds provided under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. as amended. All replacement housing will be provided within thea years after the commencement of the demolition or conversion. Before entering into a contract committing the Ciry/Courry to provide funds for an activity that will directly result in such demolton or conversion. the City/County will make public and submit to the Minnesota Deportment of Trade and Economic Development. Business and Community Development Division the following information in writing: 1. A description of the proposed assisted activity: 2. The location on a map and number of dwelling units by size (number of bedrooms) that will be demolished or convened to a use other than as low/moderate income dwelling units as a direct result of the assisted activities: J. A time schedule for the commencement and completion of the demolition or conversions: 4. The location on a map and the number of dweUing units by size (number of bedrooms) that will be provided as replacement dwelling units. If such data are Trot available at the time of the genual submission, the CitytCounty will identify the general location on an arca map and the approximate number of dwelling units by size and provide information identifying the specific location and number of dwelling units by size as soon as it is available: 7. The sauce of funding and a time schedule for the provision of replacement dwelling units: 6. The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit will remain a low/moderate income dwelling unit for at [cast 10 years from the date of initial occupancy. 7. Information demonstrating that any progosM replacement ofdwelling units with smaller dwelling urtin (eg.. a 2bedroo n unit with two I•bed co n units) u com;Lvma with the hatscmg ands of low- and mhoderate•6aarrhe handholds in the JmisBttion. The City/Cou ry n%3y request the Minnesota Department of Trude and Economic Development to recommend Ilea the US. Departmentof Hommng ansd UrbanDe elapmen v;Vmw m exception to re used mpLxww t horsing tf dwm is m mkotate local supply of vacant bwhnode= income dwelling mann in standard condition. Excepdorn will he reviewed on a c sebyctse harts. B. The City/Counry will provide relocation assistance to any lower income person displaced by derrntition of any dwelling unit or the conversion of a low/moderate income dwelling unit to another use in connection with an assisted activity. C. Consistent with the goals and objectives of activities assisted under the Act. the (jurisdiction) wiU take the following step to minimize the displacement of persons from thew homes. I. Continua to utilize the existing comprehensive plan to encourage and foster development of compatible land uses. 2. Continue to comply with existing zoning ordinnnco of the City of Monticello with all developments. J. �d RESOLUTION 094 - CITY OF MONTICELLO Page 2 Residential Anti -displacement, Relocation Assistance and Displacement Minimization (FP -18) (page 2) Applicant Name: City of Monticello, Minnesota D. Definitions for the purposes of this plan are as follows: "Low/moderate income dwelling unit is a unit with a market rem. including utility cost, that does not exceed the applicable fair market rens for existing lousing and moderate tehabiliradm. as established undo the Secion 9 existing housing program. -Vacant livable dwelling unit" is a vacant unit that is in standard condition: or in subavdard condition, suitable for rehabilitation: or in dilapidated conditim and occupied len dun a year ftcm the date of ft grants agreement "Livable dwelling unit' is a unit shat is in standard condition or has been raised to a standard condition from a substandard condition, suitable for rehabilitation. "Standard livable dwelling unit" is a well built wit with adequtte space for persons living there. These are no major defects in the scrucnae and only minor maintenance its required. Such dwelling wiU have the following chamtteristia: reliable roofs: sound wells and foundations: adequate and stable floors. walls and adingr, surfs= and woodwork that ne nes seriously damaged nor have pains deterioration: sound windows and doom: adequate heating. plumbing, and electrical systems which do nes present safety hazards: adequate insulation for local climatic conditions. and is in compliance with local building and housing coda. -Substandard condition dwelling unit. suitable for rehabi6udow will show a lot of deferred maintenance with permanent damage to structural items. Conditions contributing to substandard dwelling, include but ire not limited to sagging. cracked. roving or leaking roofs, walls, foundations. ceilings, floor. doon. tad windows•, deteriorated surfaces and woodwork: unreliable heating. plumbing. or electrical tyrterns which present safety hatasds or inadequate insulation. The toss of rehabilitation of the unit should be determined as ecomystically feasible. RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION OF RESIDENTIAL AtMDISPIACEMENT. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND DISPLACEMENT MINIMIZATION PLAN, BE IT RESOLVED THAT (JURISDICTION) HEREBY ADOPTS THE RESIDENTIAL ANTIDISPLACEMEM. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND DISPLACEMENT M IMMIZATiON PLAN FOR (JURISDICTION) I certify that the above resolution wits adopted by the City Council dr The City of Monticello tLny lamcl( �wm' nowt acl ISpmma U"d 0—r—M) on IUWI SIGNED: WITNESSED: I INH lel IWMI IUY11/ r ,1 Council Agenda - 7/26/94 12. Consideration of adond" a resolution of compliance with Federal Housina and Urban Develonment (HUD) requirements. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Council is asked to consider adoption of the resolution of compliances with Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. The enclosed checkmark compliances are standard requirements followed by most local governments. Again, the adoption of the resolution is part of the CDBG application for $250,000 to assist the H -Window expansion. The CDBG is funded by the Federal HUD. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution of compliances with Federal HUD requirements. 2. Deny adoption of the resolution of compliances with Federal HUD requirements. 3. Table any action. C STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City Administrator and Economic Development Director recommend alternative #1 because the HUD checkmark compliances are local governmental standards of the city of Monticello. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of list of compliances; Copy of resolution for adoption. �7 Forms Package r Compliances (FP•20) (page 1) .Applicant Mame: City of 11onticello, Minnesota 1. 0%4B Circular A-123 —Issued pursuant to the Single Audit Act of 1984 (P.L. 98.502), which establishes audit requirements for sate and local governments receiving federal funds. 2. ONM Circular A-87 — Establishes "Principles for Determining Costs Applicable m Grants and Contr its with State. Local and Federa8y Recognized Indian lnbal Governments.- Pl 3. Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). MN Statutes 1990. Chapter 363 Minnesota Human Rights Act — Require that all public facilities and programs be designed and constructed to be accessible to the physically handicapped. E1 4. The Undorn Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to Scale and Locat Governments (Federal Register March It. 1988, Volume 53. Number 48) — Establishes requirements for procurement and frrancial management $1 5. Title V1 of the Civil Rights Act of 19154 (Pl_ 8&352) and subsequent regulations — Ensures access to facilities or programs regardless of race, color, national origin or sex. Z 6. Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Orden 11375 and 12086 and subsequent regulations —Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 7. Title 0 of the Undomt Reloestien Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended and subsequent regulauons — Identifies procedures for the acquisition of property and the relocation of persons and businesses. 8. Section 104td) of the Housin 8 and Community Developmem Act — Requires recipients to adopt make public. and cendy a restdental antidisplacement and relocation plan. 9. Executive Orden 11988 and 12148. Floodplain Management — Requires action to minimize the impact of floods on assisted projects. 10. Executive Orden 11625 and 12138 — Encourage recipients to award construction. supply and professional sera conaracts to mmority and women's business enterprises. H. . The Mood Insurance Purchase Requirements of Section 1021 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. (P.L. 93.234) — Requires the purchase of flood insurance in communities where such insurance is available for construction or acquisition projects in any area having special flood barards. 12. The National Envuonmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC. Section 4321 et. seq.) and other related acts relating to the environment — Requires an analysis of a project's environmental impact and a description of efforts to mitigate she impact Other related acts refer to environmental quality. 0 13. Section 401 f of the Lead. Based Poisoning Prevention Aa. as amended (42 USC. Section 4831b)— Requires the removal and prohibits the use of lead-based paint for housthg rehabditauon projects. 0 Forms Package Compliances (Fp-20) (page 2) Applicant Name: City of Monticello, Minnesota B 14. Federal Far Labor Standards Act (29 USC. Section 201 et. seq.) — Requites that employes be paid at least minunum wage and that they be paid one and one-half times their basic wage for all hours worked in excess of the prescribed work week. ® 15. State Laws. the Davis Bacon Act (40 USC. Section 276a -276a5). Copeland Act (Anti -kickback ACL 40usc 276c) and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act of 1962 (40 USC. Section 327-333) — Requires the payment of wages. at hourly rates. as established by the Deparanem of Labor. ® 16. Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. as amended — Encourages the employment and training of lower-income people and ;warding of contracts to businesses located within the community receiving assistance. ® 17. Title V U1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended. and Executive Order 12259 — Require equal opportunity in housing and non-discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. and actions to affumuively further fair housing. Q 18. Requirements specified in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended — Establishes the Small Cities Development Grant Program. 19. Age Discrimination Act of 1975 — Prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. 20. Minnesota statutes section 176.181.176.182 — Requires recipients and subcontractors to have workers' eompensasion insurance coverage. O 21. Requirements Specified in the Water Quality Act of 1987 — Authorizes funding for the State's Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Fund Program. 0 22. Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11298—Requires protection of surface and ground water resources. 1 23. Minnesoa Statute. Section 471.87 and 471.88 — Forbids public officials from engaging in activities which ora or have the appearance of being. in conflict of ineeress. ® 24. The Minnesota Government Practices Act — Protects the privacy of individuals who participate in Community Development -assisted programs by prohibiting the public disclosure of participant's income and ether personal information. 25. Antitrust or unfair trade prrcuces laws — Regulates and controls sale of goods and services and prohibits deceptive and unfair competition between businesses. 26. The prevailing wage rate law (MN Laws 1990, Chapter 604. Article 10. Section 7) — Requires that businesses certify to the Department of Labor and Industry that laborers and mechanics will be paid prevailing wage rates established by the Deparmient of Labor and Industry. 27. 43 USC. Section 18.100. entitled "Limitation on use of appropntated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions" — Requires a certification Mar no Federal funds have be utilized to lobby or gam undue influence in connection with Federal grant or loan funds. 9 Forms Package Compliances (FP -20) (page 3) Applicant `lame: City of Monticello, Minnesota ® 28. Executive Order 12549. Debarment and Suspension (43 CFR. Pan 12. Section 12.510) — Requires a certification regarding Federal debarment suspension and other responsibility manes. ® 29. Executive Order9l-3. Wetlands — Requires grant and loan recipients to apply the principlesof no -net -loss of wetlands during the condua of their project 30. The Drug Free Workplace Act(P.L. 100490. Title V, Subtitle D). - Requites that grantees certify that they will provide a drug free workplace. D 31. Section 519 of Public Law 101.144 (1990 HUD Appropriations Act) and Selman 1040) of HCD Act - Requires that each local unit of government adopt. enforce a policy prohibiting the use of etces ve face by taw enforcement agencies within iisjurisdictim against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights dearnnstra[im (M 32. Section 1352. Tide 3l. U.S. Code - Requints that Language of certification regarding lobbying for contracts, loans and agreements be included in award documents for all subawards at a0 ties. Section 319 of Dnepartment of Interior and Relaed Agencies Appropriations Act, also known as the "Byrd Arnendrnem", prohibits the me of federally appropriated funds for influencing any Executive or LegWative Branch personnel in the awarding of Federal / contracts. grants. or loans. It also requite, when appropriate. the completion of Disclosure fonts SF -LLL. { ` ® 33. Subpart C of 24 CFR Pan 12 - Provides fa DisclosuNUpdate from applica uyrxipicrus of HUD assistance relating to amount of assistance received. sources and uses of funds. and interested parties, and requires the completion of HUD Form 2880. ® 34. M.S. 290.9705 - Requires that 8 percent of each paymem paid to outof-stare Contractors for work dons in Minnesota must be withheld on any contract shall taceeds or could reasonably be expected to exceed S 100.000, unless the requiremem is waived. O 35. Secuon 129 of Public law 104590 Smog Businm Administration Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 1988 The City of Monticella. Minnenoto cenjj}esemplianctwith the compliance arm indkatedasapplimble IApp.0 ) by cheekmark, and as so stated in the accompanying "Local Government Resolution.' RESOLUTION 194 - CITY OF MONTICELLO RESOLUTION OF COMPLIANCES WITH FEDERAL HUD REQUMEMMM WHEMM. the City of Monticello has applied to the Minnesom Depwonew of TMs turd Economic Development requesting financial assistance from the Boaoomle Recovery Ptogtam to aid the expansion of the H -Window Company, and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Trade and Hconomie Development hu deemed that the H -Window Company Expansion Project is an appropriate use of Community Development Block Grant ftmds originated from Federal HUD sources, and WHEREAS, these HUD Funds require compliance with federal standards, outlined on the aCached Form FP -20. RE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Monticello hereby aft to amply with the requirements referenced on attached Form FP -20 as applicable and flrther agrees to perlbrm any and all necessary reporting and documentation. as required. I certify that the attached resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Mond"llo on this 25th day of My 1994. Mayor •�Tf�Tf'',T"!i 0 Council Agenda - 7/25/94 18. Consideration of aoproying an apollcation for a gambling license at J. P.'s Annex—Monticello Lions Club. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Monticello Lions Club is seeking City Council approval of an application for a gambling license to conduct a pulltab operation at J. P.'s Annex Restaumnt/Sporta Bar. Before the State Gambling Control Board will consider granting the pulltab license, the City Council must submit a resolution indicating it is not opposed to the state issuing a license. Currently, the Monticello lions Club operates pulltab gambling facilities at the Monte Club and Hawk's Bar, both in Monticello Township. The Lions Club does not currently operate at a location within the city of Monticello. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution approving the Lions Club's application for a gambling license at J. P.'s Annex. 2. Do not support the application request. It has been the Council's past policy not to oppose any gambling license application or renewal. The city staff does not have any reason to recommend that this application be denied. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution. j RESOLUTION 94- RESOLUTION 4 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A GAMBLING LICENSE WHEREAS, the Monticello Lions Club has submitted an application to the City Council of Monticello for issuance of a charitable gambling license to conduct gambling at J. P.'s Annex located in Monticello, Minnesota, and WHEREAS, upon review of the organization's activities, the Council is not opposed to the gambling license being issued by the State Gambling Control Board, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the Monticello Lions Club application for license issuance listed above is hereby approved, and the State Gambling Control Board is authorized to process the application. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of July, 1994. Mayor City Administrator 9 Council Agenda - 7/25/94 14. Citv Council uodate•-old Fire Ball renovation for Motor Vehicle Department. This information will be presented Monday night. i9 Council Agenda - 7/26/94 15. Consideration of appointing a replacement for UtWty BUlin4L Clerk/ Receptionist. (J.O.) This information will be presented Monday night. ,2D Council Agenda - 7/25/94 16. Consideration of advertising in Fall Parade of Homes booklet— Suburban Northwest Builders Assn. (R.W.) /;� 7 �1 �l �.��1 �[�a1:`►11]JTN �Zt7 i�1ii��+LP, The city has again been contacted by the Elk River Star News, which produces the Suburban Northwest Builders Association Parade of Homes magazines, inquiring whether the city of Monticello would consider placing an ad in their Fall Parade of Homes. While this Parade of Homes magazine primarily services the Elk River area and Elk River builders, I believe Tony Emmerich has advertised the Oak Ridge subdivision in the Spring Home Preview and will likely do so in the Fall Parade also. Sales Representative Peg Zoccoli has requested to be on the agenda to ask for City Council support. While it appears that the magazine is starting to target a larger area, I do not see any other ads placed by municipalities such as Albertville, Rogers, Big Lake, etc. Generally speaking, advertisements are placed by builders, suppliers, and other vendors associated with home building and not necessarily by a municipality. As you can see from the advertisement rate sheet, rates range from $199 for a Wpage ad to $1,107 for a full-page advertisement. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize the placement of an ad, size to be determined by the Council. 2. Do not place an ad at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: At this time, I am not convinced that the city of Monticello would benefit from placing a municipal ad in the parade magazine. The primary targeted area for this parade magazine is the Elk River vicinity, and I have not been informed whether any local builders will even have a home on this parade. Even if Mr. Emmerich has a home on the parade, I'm not sure if Cho city would benefit from any type of advertisement since most other communities do not advertise in the magazines. 1). SUPPORTING DATA; Copy of advertising rates and letter from Peg Zoecoli zI tSUBUR13AN SSTECMPRINTINGBUILDEROCACN July 8, 1994 Dear Advertiser, The 1994 Fall Home Preview is fast approaching us. This year's preview dates are September 10 through 25 ECM Publishing, Inc., Printing Division is proud to be publishing this magazine for the Suburban Northwest Builders Association and will again he assisting in members' and others' marketing needs. This annual promotion excites the market and mak--s it aware of the many builders' model homes and subcontractors. The association is expecting over 25 models to be featured in this publication. The deadline for advertising is August 1st. I am contacting you now so you may arrange your 1994 budget and not miss your opportunity to advertise. I have enclosed an advertising contract for your perusal plus a copy of the Spring Home Preview. If you need any assistance with your ad please feel free to contact me. ,Cordially, eg Advertising Consultant Elk River Star News/Shopper ECM Publishers, Inc. (6 12) 441-3500 Fax(612)441-6401 ox EGM Publishing, IncJElk River Star News Printing Division 649 Main Street, Elk River, MN 55330 441-3500 • Fax:441.6401 1994 Suburban Northwest Builders Association Fall Home Preview September 10 through 25 AD1VERTISING AGREEMENT ADVERTISING RATES Members Non ,Members 1/8 page $173 $199 114 page $317 $366 112 page $577 $664 Full page $963 $1107 COVER $1750 $1850 DEADLINES Space reservation deadline July 25,1994 Ad copy deadline August 1, 1994 ECM Publications Inc. is not responsible for any errors if copy is not received by deadline. Proofs will be provided. Buyer must sign approved copy of advertising. PLACEMENT All advertising in the magazine is on a first-come basis. TERMS Payment is due by September 30, 1994. Make checks payable to ECM Publishing, Inc. DISTRIBUTION 46,000 total distribution, 43,200 to the following areas: Elk River, Rogers, Zimmerman, Big Lake, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, Osseo, Monticello, Dayton, Otsego, Ramsey, St Michael, Albertville. 2,000* to be distributed by the individual advertisers and Preview of Homes registrants. ADVERTISING AGREEMENT ECM Publishers, Inc. agrees to produce the 1994 Suburban Northwest Fall Home Preview magazine as described above. Advertiser agrees to buy page advertising space at $ Advertiser agrees to make payment by September 30, 1994, Advertiser Address Phone/Fax Advertiser Signature DatA ECM Publishing, Incl Elk River Star News Signature Dat- Additional Items - 7/26/94 18. Citv Council update—Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet. Please see attached items: Copy of letter from Rinke-Noonan, attorneys; Copy of letter from Wright County Attorney; Copy of memo from Bret Weiss, OSM; Copy of letter from Minnesota Department of Transportation.. .2,L si1�'��l ■ RXXA MooNOW GROTE, SAIwLPY, DETER, CCLOMaO, WANT. VON KORFF. DEGM)VANN7. AND ROfiLn Lto. 'Jmatrs AT LAW poster* brand tatvwsmitW memo 7" 16COO�SO.�. a 1 �—_6`idfld °"�"• -.7 I,4 '-S7o �Var , wr l SWM M mamma claret r a" 1497 St C,;—Y. vM SO = (612) 257.67W Far (672, 257.5174 July 5, 1994 Wright County Board of Commisaionsre ! d vn(w c/o Wright County Auditor vJ,� Wright County Courthouse Buffalo, i4; 55313 o. 41FdiW Noxa+ Re: Wright County Ditch 33 oKsuanG Our Yile Ho. 10496.001 M7utaTA fir' Dear Commissioners: Kw7 w Dann Pursuant to your appointment of no as the attorney for &ionLCokwreo the ditch committee for Wright County Ditch 33, 1 have had an opportunity to meet with members of the ditch umsuLMvn7 committee to discuss possible resolutions of the _d w• ,m,K� overloaded outlet of Wright County Ditch 33. JAM-6AVOW,,w On June 21, 1994, I had the opportunity to mast with several persons concerned about this current condition of swan r)6 4000 Wright County Ditch 33. As a result of that meatinq and my review of notes of past meetings on Wright County Ditch 33, it: is my opinion that the project to improve the outlet of Wright County Ditch 3 3 should be pursued. lona -A VOLW4 nar"MF pays Kinnesota Stsatutes 103E.221 states that a County Board has the autturity to petition its own motion for the AVOW r AIS ^ improvement of an outlet. jam J. axbcocA In my opinion we have a unique situation on Wright County Ditch 33 that leaves a shcr' amount of time in which the JOA ,,. County, the City of Montic4llo and the Minnesota tA7. s. tarnr' Department of Transportatic i might work together to resolve a pro�lsm that conc.+rns all three entities. It is my understanding that thu County Board has asked the City of Montricello to take alternate, bids for a storm mn vnrnc. "war project that could be used to improve the outlet o! Wright Country Ditch 33. Assuming that has boon done, it is my auggesst:on on behalf of the ditch co=ittes that .7.�.r....r..r the County Sward petition On its own motion that the outlet to wriciht County Ditch 33 needs to be improved. ;w.....�w�+. Curr w By simply ai.gning a petition to exp2wre the improvement JLL ;­ 'Sa CS:01 05M MR -S. MM Wright County Board of Commissioners July 5, 1994 Page 2 of the outlet of Wright County Ditch 33, the County Board does not in any way obligate itself to actually do the improvement. It simply starts the process which is needed immediately so that an opportunity with the City of Monticello and possibly the Minnesota Department of Transportation is not missed. I know the County Board will have ocnaerns that the benefits exceed the cast before proceeding with the actual project. The only way to get to that point is for the petition to be, signed and then immediately a meeting be set up with representatives of the County, the ditch committee, the City of Monticello and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Technical assistants may also be provided by the Soil and Water Conservation District. I would ask that the County Board immediately sign a petition for the improvement of the outlet of Wright County Ditch 33 and than imeesdiataly arrange for a meeting between the above entities. It was my andarstanding from the Jun* 21st meeting that representatives of the soil and Water Conservation District are compiling the necessary technical and cost analysis of a proposed project. It was the ditch committee's hope that the City of Monticello will foal it is, in their beat interest to share same of the costs, that the Minnesota Department of Transportation may feel it is in their best interest to share part of the cost to avoid potential litigation and that any costs remaining would be assessed against the benefited landowners on Wright County Ditch 33. •I an not sure when your County Board meets next to act an this request, but I an sending a copy of ttis letter to Wyman Belson to keep him appraised of the ditch committee's request. I don't kno%4 exactly who would arrange this meeting between the entities, but it is imperative that this meeting be set up as soon as possible so that this potential opportunity for shared funding is not missed. If'you have any questions or would like a apocific presentation from me when you are going to consider this, request, plea" contact me. Very truly ,ours, tIECEiVED OrrSi�816a�Ytayeran6A3S�c. � nlxxs: ZeW Comm It By A. Deter JUL 21 994 K=/= cc: wym" Nelson Bill Carlson 10496.001hl0703A.KAD .*M wow "aim" Cm 7J JUL-22-94 FRI 14: 38 pJNTw Oe g6�� yr ?Y60 Wyman A. Nelmon f .nlr Al—y Thomas N. Kelly Brian J. Antrann rhu.l rh,a WRIGHT COUNTY FAX N0. 61268261 78 P 01 Mr. Rick Wolfateller City Adminietrator City of Monticello Monticello, MN 55362 WRIGHT COUNTY Office of County Attormey Wright ('ounty Government Center 10 N.W. 2nd Street Ruffato. Minnesota 553131193 Phone: (612) 682-7340 Metra: (612)339-6 U1 Toff Free: 1-800.362.3667 Fax: 16121682-6178 MdAanb A.- /- Mnh..y M.. C. fj. July 22, 1996 Kvh4rnA Mwd Peon Y aa,d6,rp R6: Meadow Oak Storm Sever Outlet City Project No. 93-12C OSM Project No. 5489.00 Dear Mr. Wolfsteller: Wright County is interested in finding a possible solution to the outlet for County Ditch 133. I do not believe that it would be possible to obtain any type of a contribution from the Department of Transportation and at the same time satisfy the procedural requirements of tho ditch laws. We are hopeful that some accommodation could be made to allow for the time requirements for ditch procedures. This letter is merely to let you know that the county is interested in working with you in any way posoible, but I cannot make any commitments at this early date. Thank you. Yours truly, �j� Wyman A. Nelson Wright county Attornoy WAN: lyd CC: Pat Savatake, Wright County Board of Commissioners PoW.0- brand tai tranarnitw mans -Am s ul pmow r J' w-jn7rw jLL 22 '94 14:38 USM "LS. My COUMM UPDATE July 22, 1994 Adeadow Omit Storm Sewer project City Project No. 93-120 From: Bret A. Weiss, PX. City Engineer Pb"" brand fax ward mw memo 7879 {"s 0.4- . y� I 154 "�17N".'1 r'.!M,,.ib C - Imo" �-255-yyoy ►... Mu project known as Meadow Oaks Storm Sewn Outlet was advertised in the appropriate, ;spent on July 21 and July 22, 1994 for the purposes of accepting bids from contractors on August 12, 1494. It is anticipated that if acceptable bids are received, the contract will be awarded on August 22,1994 for construction during the months of September and October of this year. The project, as designed, includes a base alternative for controlling the szormwater for the City of Monticello only and an alternative bid that prwsdea for ,additional rapacity to accommodate storwwwa from Wright County Ditch No, 33. Following the July 11th Council Meeting, I sent a letter to Mn/DOT, Wright County and Monticello Township, informing them of the C.auaeii's decision to authorize the project for bid and requesting them to contact us with stave of the project from their respcc&n organizations The following is an update based upon conversations; with each organir—d— As is apparent ttom the attached letter from Jerry Kreutzer, Ma/DOT District 3. Mn/DOT has catered into a contract with OSM to Complete a drainage an0fi s of a portion of the Ditch 33 watershed that pertains to property controlled by Mn/DCIT, This study is proposed to be completed by July 25th at whish time it will be delivered to Mn/DOT and discussed with the appropriate personnel. The OSM Water Resources Department has been completing the activities and has provided see with spedfic unions for tho altemte bid design for a pipe size and depth that would be able to be utilized for both Mn/DOT and county stormwater rumor It is my undcnaand#tg that Mn/DOT has several options -at this time to deal with their water independent of the County or try to work out an agreement between all of the governing bodies. In ounvwwdan wads W. Kreutzer, it is my feeling that Mn/DOT would be willing to cater into some type of agreement with the City of MoaaicaYo to accept their water but is more imaesW in a king -term solution for this problem and would rather have the other goveming bodies involved in any 690Aan that it made. That being raid, Mr. Kreuter is not cowmed that agreemaaa with all affected governmental traits could be completed in a manner adequate to meet with the schedule for maastruction this year. County Upon receiving my letter, W. Pat Sawatd w and I had discussions regarding the County, position, While Mr. Sawautica was not wmfontabk speaking for the entire County Board, be did relay his opiadoat that the Cmc would not be tehle to complete public hearliW and assesmnem bearings for the potential Caumya abase y�OYaVeRY�1MNM.17cMIC JLL 22 '94 1a:39 OSM MPLS• MN P.2 of tie bid alternate pro*c: until after the bid opening, lie also related that be telt tbu as portions of the CSty developed along County Ditch 33, the City would bre 1 rewired to complete small slam spun pmjeeta, somewhat piece-mealigg a storm 1 sewer system together to deal 946 Ditch 33. Thaetora, be felt that the City of Monticello may be more interested in participating thaw has been currently discussed In addition, the County Board has appointed Kurt Deter of the Rinire-Noonan Isw Tire to wive as the ancrsey dadkg with this Issue- In his letter to the County Board that is attached, be now that the County Board does have the authority to pedtiotn Its aura mutton for the improvement of an outlet This is in &ea conflict with what we have heard from the County previously as to why they were not willing to order a study of the improvement of the ditch. Mr. Deter has recommended that the Wright County Board all a meeting of do entities involved in this pmom to discuss the potential City of Monticello project. He it very adamant that he does not want to miss this opportunity and bob that the County Board dxwId Whim the li process as soon as pes -Ne Mr. Sswsmdra did mention to me that be would be acting on this letter at tbdr board meeting on Tuesday, July 26tb. It does seem, bow mew, that the Courcy will not be able to enter into a contract with the City of 1+lCntioello for the bid alternate iteral sometime after when the project is peoposed to be awarded unless they are further encouraged, Mmtlallo TawndLip PrankUn Dern and I disauwd the possibilitiesof Monmiodlo Township catering into an agreement with the (Sty out Monticello for payment of some of the charges associated with the bid alternate. Franklin basically stated that he felt the project was a county -initiated project and that the Township .would not be committing any I dollars toward the projret at this time. He feels that there is ttuading or gtransa available for thew types of projects from the state, bomwever, that would take sottt►e time to arrange the fhadieg. He dw thinks that it would be two to get a commitment from the gcwerning bodies with the short amount of time that the Monticello project is dealing with. He feels that the situation needs some addiriona+l time to work out the details. VA* regard to patying for additional street costs. be stated that the Towaship Board thought that situetioa had been resolved in the meeting previously with the City Staff and at this dme they are am willing to pay fax additioml Costs. If we are intent on pasting the situatlos>, we should mnmet Darlene Sawattke to arrange a time to attend one of the Township Board meetings In s msoory, it appears that there b some interest in participating in the City of Monticello project. however, no direct etammitttaents bava been made to date nor is them nay that i< ilio project is held oft: a eammitment wfII be made u a later duo. To prwMe some idea of what type of was we aro disco-"— the bid alternate is for a 604och pipe which is an increase of S32 ZDD0 over the base project as proposed. A 344ad pipe its app =mmssely 3252.000 and a 48inch pipe Is appreaimately f 197,000 more agenda than the base bid aheraare. I have stated to the entities that the City of Monticello may be Interested In baying those other organizations pay for a pordm of the but project alonS with the amount over and above tint base bid alternate. If the project is not under cotmoru tion on or around September L 1994. h is very uoOLO that the project could be, completed ibis year. We 6) not at ft time have an agreement with Gene Bauer to udlime his property, however, we feel that we have an ogre emem to corm that he is behind the' project We have recently determined the wetland area according to the Soil Comervadom P i1011aUMe00O\YN01�J11C �{ JLL 22 '94 14:40 OSM MPLS, MN W.J Viola for the Towmbip wbwb has iaeremod the ia= of the wetland area on the Gm M= poperty and It is very passible that we may request the City to acquire the lead by be title to ooatml the attire drainage atm Doe to aU of the uncu u : io*mng the poman ky that the project costa mq be boa thea ai;laally anddp wd duo to the c imai bidditog dim ac are sO feel that the project should be We this rima m the manner that it is developed, In ad&don aro fol that a litre; should be seat from the City Council to the appropeim parniog bodice regoatiag that Nt y provide a sponse to the Citi' prior to Augmt ?2, 1994 as to whatber they wdil eout&ote to the addltimal paoJoet camfor the Edd alternate If the Cm, --O would Uloe to Nd mc&a thanative alba tbaa the Win* we feel that that ootid be added to the paeJea whbout delaft the proposed bid data Pal Sawatrha did ante that it may be potttdhle io spm the Maodow Oat pond bWkbead if no pomm waald be addm*uW]y Hooded dog DiUt U It do toe Use is closed ftmthe Batter ptropaw ad the Batter's are acceptable to boidiag the water oa their property Lor a tM this would tohro our sbosatmta c ntoorm. TW Bum% world aced to be iodemoM ' at s0 tisbalky with this apioa 'Ibis optica seeds btrtbta `, bdore we decide to delay the projat Aid I feel that d w Coomy AMM commk m deaUag with the god= either by uAq w paopmW Wttem or nae developed elsewbae bdate we o mw" Waytog the FOjOM tog JLL 22 '94 14:46 OSM "'LS, Mi r JLL.22 '94 12:47PM MN DOT C0r6-rFJCTIOW 218 82B 6105 P.1 .4 Wrw4sft DeparWmt of.lF�ortegon op T DrsM s' 1991 WuWW AL Rd Baxter. Hinnesata 69r0t (218) 928,2460 .. SerYiCA.7hrougH b►dirrpuia Coi+a'x�7asrrt ., . July 20, 1994 Brat Weiss Ors, Sehelen, Mayeron a Assoc., Sno. 300 parx place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MS1 95416-1328 In reply refer to: - » Monticello Meadow oaks storm sewer outlet Dear Bret, Thank you for your letter or JUly 14, :994 out3L3aing the status of the Monticello storm sever projeat. AA 4isewsed on June 9 in Monticello at our taetLnf with Wright County ottioiels, MnDOT has retained the services of Orr, sohelen, Kaysron a Aseeo., Inc. (Can) to-do a drainage analysis an the segment Of I-94 that is in the Wright county bitch 73 watershed. We expesct to receive a draft analysis from OSK by July is, 1994. 2 do sat•ftxpect that we will be able to provide information to the city council tar their July 2s meeting, but I do want to assure you that MnDOT is very committed to vorklm6 with the appropriate agencies to find a long-term solution. It doesnOt appear, at this time, that Mn= V&21 be able to analyze the various alternetiveo and impacts to seat the present project timeline for the City of Monticello. Z will call you as soon as we have had a dance to anslyse the aL terZativos. Thanks, to you and the city or Monticello for your assistance on this issue. tiinoersly, Gerald 1Cteuttar Asst. Dist. Engineer — construction Cal Dan Raisanan - Baxter hick .7►rnabeck - at. Claud Dave Halvorson/John Boynton - U.S. ato Gary Diriam/Lori van"rbidar - santar Pat schwartske • bright County COmsllesionOr • ,w err oar+arfb 81"ANO v BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 06/30/94 12:51:04 .ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 36944 06/29/94 U.S. POSTMASTER 36945 06/29/94 SAFELITE AUTO GLASS 36946 06/29/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 36947 06/29/94 I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT 36948 06/29/94 YAGER/ELDON 36949 06/29/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 36950 06/29/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement •Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL/ 210 CITY HALL POSTAGE 1,500.00 .90352 NEW WINDSHIELD/NATER 218.48 221 C.D./INVESTMENTS 850,000.00 Be PAYROLL DEDUCTION/RIC 103.31 .90353 TREE REPLACEMENT PROGRM 9.00 116 WATERCRAFT TITLE 236.00 118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 870.00 TOTAL 852,936.79 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/0 2/94 12:59:52 WARRANT GATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 36951 07/05/94 ADAM' S PEST CONTROL 369 52 07/05/94 AFFORDABLE SANITATIO 369 53 07/05/94 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 36954 07/05/94 ANDERSON/OONNA 369 55 07/05/94 CELLULAR 200C OF ST 369 55 07/05/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 369 55 07/05/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF $T 36956 07/05/94 OYNA SYSTEMS 36951 07/05/94 ELECTRO -MECHANICAL I 36958 0)/05/94 FAIR'S GARDEN CENTER 36959 07/05/94 FIRST TRUST CENTER 36960 0)/05/94 HATCH -PETERSON SALES 36960 07/05/94 HATCH -PETERSON SALES 36961 07/05/94 HERMES/JERRY 36962 07/05/94 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC 36963 07/05/94 LIGHTING PLUS 36964 07/05/94 LITTLE MOUNTAIN FLOW 36965 07/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN 36965 07/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN 36965 07/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN 36965 07/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN 36966 07/05/94 MAPLE LAKE LUMBER CO 36967 07/05/94 MARCO BUSINESS PROOU 36968 07/05/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 36969 07/05/94 MONTICELLO COMMUNITY 36970 0)/05/94 MONTICELLO SENIOR CI Di2bur,em>nt Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT , 3 PEST CONTROL/LIBRAR Y 46.80 802 LATRINE RENTAL/PARK S 58.58 10 PA1NT/STREET DEPT 126.72 90356 REIMB/PAINT FOR REN TAL 7 2. 13 794 CAR PHONE CHGS/C OE FE 106.49 794 CAR PHONE CHGS/WATER 10.47 794 CAR PHONE CHGS/PW I NS 126.57 243.53 50 SHOP & GARAGE SUPPL_ IE 467.42 817 400 AMP SWITCH/WATE 3, 18 1 .16 55 TREE REPLACEMENT/ST 1,710.00 58 1984 GO BOND FEES 646.25 94 STREET SUPPLIES/CONES 345.90 94 HARD HATS & VESTS/STR 142.12 488.02 ' 81 LIBRARY CONTRACT PVMT 227.50 85 GAS/FIRE DEPT 61.49 782 LIGHTS/SENIOR CIT BLD 137.00 566 KEN MAUS PARTY SUPPLIE 1 1.72 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 72.93 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 24.31 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 24.31 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 24.30 145.85 904 SENIOR CITIZENS REMOD 140.30 106 TYPEWRITER MTC 175.00 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 320 COMM EO REC PROGRA 11.500.00 139 JULY MONTHLY CONTRA 2,833.33 BRC FINANCIAL SY, TEM 07/03/94 12:59:52 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATE'S P --WE 36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36972 07/05/94 NORWEST BANK MINNESO 36972 07/05/94 NORWEST BANK MINNESO 36973 07/05/94 PASSEL/HOWARD S 36974 01/05/94 PETTY CASH 36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH 36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH 36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH 36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH 36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH 36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH 36975 07/05/94 RELIABLE CORPORATION 36975 07/05/94 RELIABLE CORPORATION 36975 07/05/94 RELIABLE CORPORATION 36976 07/05/94 RIGDEWAY/JENNIFER 36976 07/05/94 RIGDEWAY/JENNIFER 36977 07/05/94 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 36911 01/05/94 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 36978 07/05/94 SCHARSER 8 SONS, INC 36979 07/05/94 SHELTON COMPANY 0 i;o urs5rn?nt Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 148 UTILITIES 3,655.74 148 UTILITIES 293.58 148 UTILITIES 4,546.77 148 UTILITIES 80.82 148 UTILITIES 645.91 148 UTILITIES 14.14 148 UTILITIES 4?7.15 148 UTILITIES 235.13 148 UTILITIES 585.41 148 UTILITIES 916.29 11,400.94 154 GO BOND INTEREST/11 8,492.50 154 PAYING FEES/11-1-77 8 200.00 8,692.50 90355 VEH DAMAGE REIMB/STRE 188.74 166 POSTAGE REIMS 14.90 166 POSTAGE REIMB/WATER DEP 8.42 166 POSTAGE REIMS/SEWER 3.75 166 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 44.88 166 TRAVEL REIMB/J SIMOLA 6.70 166 JUNK AMNESTY DAY SUP 7.50 166 TRAVEL REIMS/GARY A 5.00 91.15 179 MISC COMPUTER SUP/C HA 11.42 179 BOOK CART/FINANCE 110.33 119 MISC OFFICE SUP/C HALL 23.46 145.21 158 INFO CENTER SALARY 183.65 759 INFO CENTER SALARY 53.75CR 129.90 22) MTC OF VEHICLES/STREETS 4.20 227 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARKS 24.96 29.16 229 MTC OF EQUIPMENT/STREE 94.40 269 RECYCLING SCANNER TIPS 49.10 36980 07/05/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 193 PARK FURNITURE 323.49 36980 07/05/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 193 MISC SUPPLIES/SEWER 0.02 36980 07/05/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 193 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 73.41 36980 07/05/94 S I M 0 N S 0 N LUMBER COMP 193 MISC SUPPLIES/STREET 6.33 ` 36980 07/05/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 193 SMALL TOOLS/STREETS 28.55 36930 07/05/94 S I M 0 N S 0 N L U M 8 E R COMP 193 KRAMER RENTAL REPAIRS 9.34 8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/02/94 12:59:52 WAR kANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 36 980 07/05/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 36981 07/05/94 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO. 36 981 07/05/94 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO. 36 981 07/05/94 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO. 36 982 07/05/94 TRUEMAN-WELTERS. INC 36983 07/05/94 UNITED LABORATORIES 36 984 07/05/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 36984 07/05/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 36 984 07/05/94 UNI TOG RENTAL SERVIC 36984 07/05/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 36 984 07/05/94 UNI TOG RENTAL SERVIC 36 984 07/05/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 36985 07/05/94 WRIGHT COUNTY MAYOR` 36986 07/05/94 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ' 193 SENIOR CITIZEN REMODE 206.43 647.57 498 STREET SUPPLIES 66.57 498 SAFETY GLASSES/STREETS 43.98 496 PARK SUPPLIES 205.16 315.71 207 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/STR 29.33 634 CLEANING SUP/PARKS 114.26 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 13.64 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 27.28 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 12.80 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 12.80 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 59.39 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 59.39 185.30 220 MAYORS DUES 150.00 $12 UTILITIES 9.00 TOTAL 51,694.57 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/13/94 14:13:26 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 36939 07/12/94 RENNER & SONS INC./E 36939 07/12/94 RENNER & SONS INC./E A.- ... VI: .917 36945 07/12/94 SAFE LITE AUTO .90 36945 07/12/94 SAFE LITE AUTO .90 36987 07/12/94 D & K REFUSE RECYCLI 36988 07/12/94 MONTICELLO DEPUTY RE 36989 07/12/94 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD 36990 07/12/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 36991 07/12/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Cl 181 CHECK VOIDED 290.0OCR 101 CHECK VOIDED 40.000R 320.00:!, ;•;) .•)kFi;[,I' ,:;iifNG 218.48CR 352 CORRECT CODING 109.24 352 CORRECT CODING 109.24 0.00 *CF 611 RECYCLING CONTRACT 2,571.53 134 REG & TAX/NEW SNOW 2,397.54 254 RECORDING FEES 20.00 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 333.00 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 1,103.00 TOTAL 6,195.07 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/13/94 14:11:27 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 36992 07/13/94 A T d T INFO SYSTEMS 36993 07/13/91 AME GROUP 36994 07/13/94 AROPLAX CORPORATION 36995 07/13/94 BIG LAKE LUMBER 36995 07/13/94 BIG LAKE LUMBER 3699S 07/13/94 BIG LAKE LUMBER 36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWAT ER TELEPHON 36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWAT ER TELEPHON 36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWAT ER TELEPHON 36996 07/13/94 BRIOGEWATER TELEPHON 36997 07/13/94 COPY DUPLCATING PROD 36998 07/13/94 CULLIGAN 36999 07/13/94 DOUBLE D ELECTRIC 36999 07/13/94 DOUBLE 0 ELECTRIC 31000 07/13/94 ECM PUBLISHERS, INC. 37001 07/13/94 GOPHER STATE ONE CAL 31002 07/13/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 37003 07/13/94 MINNEGASC O 37003 07/13/94 MINNEGASC O 37003 07/13/94 MINNEGASC O 37007 07/13/94 MINNEGASC O 37003 07/13/94 MINNEGASC O Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C! 15 FIRE PHONE CHARGES 27.60 8 IMPROVEMENTS/PARKS 1,179.35 701 SCERG REPAYMENT 4,936.86 316 CREDIT/MERCHANOIS£ RET 81.58CR 316 PICNIC TABLES/DARKS 460.52 316 KRAMER RENTAL REPAIRS 76.18 455.12 24 PHONE CHARGES 63.67 24 PHONE CHARGES 60.54 24 PHONE CHARGES 115.20 24 PHONE CHARGES 32.13 24 PHONE CHARGES 246.78 24 PHONE CHARGES 45.00 24 PHONE CHARGES 20.75 24 PHONE CHARGES 114.99 24 PHONE CHARGES 3S.97 24 PHONE CHARGES 685.85 1,421.76 41 LIBRARY COPY MCH MTC 50.40 153 WATER SOFTNER RENTAL C 23.11 805 BALLFIELO S/ELECTRIC S 255.00 SOS SENIOR CITIZENS REMODE 42.70 297.70 619 AO/DEP REG HELP 40.00 69 PROF SERVICES/WATER 0 260.00 101 LAWN MIX/PARKS 183.32 772 UTILITIES 15.59 172 UTILITIES 7.31 772 UTILITIES 21.54 772 UTILITIES 20.03 772 UTILITIES 35.08 99.54 370 n4 0;,'t #%'!A rar • .I > 37005 07/13/9# MN PLANNING ASSOCIAT 360 MEMBERSHIP DUES/GARY S2.SO scr •C. &C, sC BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/13/94 14:11:27 dARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37006 07/13/94 MONTICELLO ATHLETIC 37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK 37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK 37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK 37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK 31007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK 37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK 37001 01/13/94 PAGE LINK 37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK 37006 07/13/94 QUALITY LAWN MAINTEN 37009 07/13/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 37009 07/13/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 37010 07/13/94 WRIGHT COUNTY JOURNA GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 90356 TREE REPLACMENT/STR 1,000.00 103 PAGER CHARGES 67.60 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 24.50 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 103 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 219.90 *C 319 MOWING CHARGES 1,142.50 S24 GARBAGE CONTRACT PY 9,437.52 524 SALES TAX 607.56 10,065.08 *C 233 DEP REG AD/HELP WANTED 55.60 TOTAL 23,541.76 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/15/94 08:06 :20 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37011 07/1S/94 R. P. UTILITIES 37012 07/15/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37013 07/15/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37014 01/15/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE 37014 07/15/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE 37014 07/15/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE 37014 07/15/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE 37015 07/15/94 A.E. MICHAELS 37015 07/15/94 A.E. MICHAELS 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA 3 70 17 07/15/94 ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMEN 37018 07/15/94 ARA CORY REFRESHMENT 3 70 19 07/15/94 ASSOCIATED VETERINAR 37020 07/15/ 94 BECKER FURNITURE WOR 37020 07/15/94 BECKER FURNITURE WOR 37021 07/15/94 BOYER 37022 07/15/94 BRAUN INTERTEC ENVIO 37022 07/15/94 BRAUN INTERTEC ENVIO Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 821 CONST COSTS/C HIL 201,066.32 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 100.00 118 WATER & SNOW REG 820.00 119 SALES TAX ADJ 0.45CR 119 SALES TAX/2ND QTR 59.17 119 SALES TAX/MATER/2ND Q 685.84 119 SALES TAX/TREE/2ND QTR 37.44 702.00 338 PAINT/KRAMER RENTAL HS 79.90 338 MTC OF PARK BLOS 323.47 403.37 7 INTRST/92 FIRE HALL 7,325.00 7 INTRST/TIF 90A KMA 14,247.50 7 INTRST/89-1.2-3- 80 5.192.50 7 INTRST/90B GO 8 15,287.50 7 INTRST/TIF NAWCO 00 3,117.50 7 INTRST/TIF CONSTR 5 7,365.00 7 INTRST/TIF VEIT BO 11.697.SO 7 INTRST/86-1 BOND 9,510.00 7 INTRST/INTERCEPTOR 24,072.50 7 INTRST/88 WATER SY 29,356.25 7 INTRST/98-I,1B,2 G 43.986.25 7 INTRST/TIF ELDERLY 10,697.50 7 INTRST/90C (SANDBER 6,920.00 7 INTRST/TIF 900 REM 10,032.50 7 INTRST/91A-1-2-3 G 10,191.25 7 INTRST/92A C HILLS 16,202.50 227,001.25 722 ANIMAL SUPPLIES 210.28 400 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 42.00 683 ANIMAL SUPPLIES 73.90 C [h1• 692 CARPET CLEAN/KRAMER H 196.75 692 CARPET CLEAN/FIRE HAL 213.75 410.50 406 NEW SNOWPLOW TRUCK 38,439.00 638 ENG FEES/CHILLS 4T 4,183.04 638 ENG FEES/EASTWOOD K 1,859.70 1 6.022.74 a. BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/15/94 08:06:20 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37023 07/15/94 CAMPBELL ABSTRACT CO 37024 07/15/94 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT 37025 07/15/94 COMMUNICATION AUDITO 37026 07/15/94 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I 37027 07/15194 GARTNER'S OFFICE PRO 37028 07/15/94 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE 37029 07/15/94 GOLDEN VALLEY FURNIT 37030 07/15/94 GRUYS BORDEN CARLS 3 703 1 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37031 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37031 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37031 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 3 703 1 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37031 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37032 07/!5/94 HERMES/JERRY 37033 07/15/94 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN 37034 07/15/94 KRAMB£R & ASSOCIATES 37035 07/15/94 M & P TRANSPORT, INC 37036 07/15/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 37036 07/15/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 37037 07/15/94 MAUS FOODS 37037 07/15/94 MAUS FOODS 37037 07/15/94 MAUS FOODS 37037 07/15/94 MAUS FOODS 37038 07/15/94 MCDOWALL COMPANY 37039 07/15/94 METRO SALES INCORPOR 37039 07/15/94 METRO SALES INCORPOR Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C' 28 EASTWOOD KNOLL PROF S 259.00 822 CMIF GRANT PAYMENT 1,100.21 38 PAGER REPAIR/FIRE DEPT 76.44 56 MISC PROF SERVICES 60.00 377 KEN MAUS PARTY SUPPLIE 14.93 64 DOLLY USE/LIBRARY 9.00 720 CARPET/KRAMER RENTAL 503.75 74 AUDIT SERVICES 12.450.00 78 MISC SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT 8.24 78 SMALL TOOLS/STREET DEPT 8.29 78 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 14.99 78 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 25.23 78 MISC SUPPLIES/SHOP & G 16.77 78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARKS 4.91 78.43 81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50 697 PROF SERV/ANIMAL CONTR 95.86 688 JULY ASSESSING PYMT 1,245.83 265 SAND/PARKS 257.34 221 C C/CHEMICAL BANK 176,000.00 221 C 0 WIRE CHARGES 15.00 176,015.00 108 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 116.71 108 ANIMAL CONTROL SUPPLIE 31.95 108 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 71.32 108 PW INSPECTION SUPPLIES 10.75 230.73 111 ICE MCN REPAIR/SHOP 432.94 819 NEW FAX MACHINE/C H 2,974.55 619 TONER/CITY HALL FAX 208.18 3,192.73 M M BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/15/94 09:0 6:20 Oisbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C GENERAL CHECKING 37040 07/15/94 MIDWAY INDUSTRIAL SU 114 EQUIP REPA ZR PARTS/ST 175.18 37041 07/15/91, MN CITY MANAGEMENT A 230 MEMBERSHIP DUES/RICK W 60.00 37042 07/15/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL C0 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 37043 07/15/94 MONTICELLO PRINTING 137 BLD DEPART PERMITS, E 217.69 37043 07/15/94 MONTICELLO PRINTING 137 INCIDENT REPORTS/FIRE 37.54 255.23 +C 37044 07/15/94 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN 142 EQUIP REPAIR/TREE DEPT 69.48 37044 07/15/94 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN 142 STRING TRI MMER/PARKS 307.79 37044 07/15/94 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN 142 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/PA 137.28 37044 07/15/94 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN 142 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 9.56 524.11 *i 37045 07/15/94 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS 550 MISC PROF SER/PLAN & 703.00 37046 07/15/94 OLSON, USSET,AGAN & 292 PROF SERVI CES/E CON DE 209.25 37046 07/15/94 OLSON, USSET,AGAN & 292 PROF SERV ICES/ECON OE 209.25 37046 07/15/94 OLSON, USSET,AGAN & 292 LEGAL FEES/HRA DEVELO 985.00 1,403.50 37047 07/15/94 PLUMB£RY-PURCELL'S P 251 KRAMER RENTAL REPAIRS 50.01 37047 07/15/ 94 PLUMBERY-PURCELL'S P 251 EQUIP REPAIR. PARTS/STR 22.26 72.27 37048 07/15/ 94 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 173 FIRE HALL CLEANING PYM 50.00 37048 07/15/ 94 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 173 CITY HALL CLEANING PY 400.00 450.00 37049 07/15/ 94 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 175 WWTP CONTRACT PYMT 31,840.50 37050 07/15/94 R.A.K. INDUSTRIES 648 RAINSUIT/ MATER DEPT 61.87 37050 07/15/94 R.A.K. INOUSTRIES 649 RAINSUIT/ SEWER DEPT 61.87 123.74 37051 07/15/94 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 184 SHOP & GAR MTC AGRMT 65.50 37052 07/15/94 SCHWAAB, INC. 684 OEP REG STAMP 22.75 37053 07/15/94 STATE OF MINNESOTA 404 ENERGY CODE BOOK/BLD 111.47 37054 07/15/94 VIKING COCA COLA 778 POP PURCHASE/CONCESSI 104.55 37055 07/15/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 219 SCERG GRANT PYMT 2;760.51 37055 07/15/84 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 219 SHERIFF'S CONTRACT 23,322.33 37055 07/15/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 218 ADO'L LANDFILL CHAR 8,158.50 34,241.34 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/15/94 08:06:20 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37056 07/15/94 Y.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C 224 MONTHLY CONTRACT PYMT 625.00 TOTAL 741,369.09 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 06/29/94 16:05:03 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENOOR OESCRIPTION AMOUNT LIQUOR FUND 17583 06/30/94 BkIDGEWATEk TEL EPHON 800002 TELEPHONE CHARGES 110.95 17584 06/30/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 LIQUOR PURCHASE 414.05 17564 06/30/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 WINE P9RCHASE 473 .99 888.04 ' 17585 06/30/94 U S WEST COMMUNICATI 800093 ADVERTISING 26.10 17586 06/30/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2,334.01 17586 06/30/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 71 1 .79 3,045.80 ' 1)581 06/30/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 1,086.69 17588 06/30/94 C,ROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 800019 BEER PUCHASE 15,915.60 17589 06/30/94 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1800019 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 5 1.00 15,966.60 17589 06/30/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 800053 PURCHASE C.D. 98,304.25 17589 06/30/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 800053 WIRE CHARGES/C 0 7.50 98.31 1 •75 17590 06/30/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHAS 4,16 1.23 17590 06/30/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 WINE PURCHASE 172.16 17590 06/30/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 MIX FOR RESALE 125.57 4,459.56 ' 17591 06/30/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 59 7.89 17591 06/30/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 818.35 1,416.24 ' 1)592 06/30/94 MCDOWALL COMPANY 800065 REPAIR EQUIPMENT 205.50 17593 06/30/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 MIX FOR RESALE 21 6.15 17593 06/30/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,463.29 1,679.44 ' 17594 06/30/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 494.90 11581 06/30/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 41 0.04 904.84 ' 17595 06/30/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 3,382.43 17596 06/30/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MIX FOR RESALE 84.74 17596 06/30/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE ?4.99 159.73 17597 06/30/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 WINE PURCHASE 609.98 17597 06/30/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 800037 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,581.59 2, 191.57 ' BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 06/29/94 16:05:03 WARRANT DATE VENDOR LIQUOR FUND 17598 06/30/94 PAUSTIS & SONS 17598 06/30/94 PAUSTIS & SONS Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT J 800103 WINE PURCHASE 800!03 BEER PURCHASE 17599 06/30/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 17600 06/30/94 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 800019 BEER PURCHASE 17600 06/30/94 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 800019 ICE PACKS LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 100.50 111.50 212.00 3 71. 96 11,045.80 85.00 11,130.80 145,550.00 BkC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/02/94 10:29:41 Oisbtirsement JournAI WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRI PTION AMOUNT LIQUOR FUND 17601 07/05/94 BERNICK', PEPSI COLA 800001 POP PURCHASE/JUNE 251 .60 17602 07/05/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 OVERPAYMENT IN MAY 12.50CR 17602 07/05/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 NON ALCOHOLIC BEEF/JUN 37.70 17602 07/05/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 BEER PURCHASE/JUNE 564 .30 609.50 17603 07/05/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO.. 800011 LIQUOR STORE SUP/JUNE 42.60 17603 07/05/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO.. 800011 BEER PURCHASE/JUNE 3,701.55 17603 07/05/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER/JUN 95.20 3.839.35 17 604 07/05/94 FLESCH'S PAPER SERVI 800116 BAGS. ETC/SUPPLIES/JUN 206.32 17604 07/05/94 FLESCH'S PAPER.. SEkVI 800116 LIQUOR STORE SUP/JUNE 18.06 3 14.36 17605 07/05/94 G & K SERVICE 800129 MTC OF BLD/RUGS/JUNE 62.07 17 606 07/05/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE/JUN 1,064.57 17606 07/05/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 WINE PURCHAS/JUNE 75.64 17606 07/05/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 WINE PURCHAS/JULY 667.01 1,807.22 17607 07/05/94 HOME JUICE 800136 JUICE PURCHASE/JUNE 49. 35 17608 07/05/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE/JUNE 521.93 17608 07/05/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE/JUNE 402.97 1,014.90 17609 07/05/94 •JUOE CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 GIGS/CIGARS/JUNE 71.86 17609 07/05/94 JUDE CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 LIQUOR STORE SUP/JUNE 129.60 201,46 17610 07/05/94 MCDOWALL COMPANY 800065 AIR CONDITIONER REP/J 266.36 17611 07/05/94 MN BAR SUPPLY 800130 COOLE RS FOR RESALE/JU 195.12 17612 07/05/94 NORTHER14 STATES POWE 800035 UTILI TIES/JUNE 1.239.62 17613 07/05/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE/JUN 2,173.60 17614 07/05/94 BON'S ICE COMPANY 800041 ICE P URCHASE/JUNE 1,375.54 17615 07/05/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 ITEMS FOR RESALE/JUNE 190.31 17615 07/05/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 JUICE FOR RESALE/JUNE 20.20 17615 07/05/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 LIQUOR STORE SUP/JUNE 66. 70 27 7.27 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/02/94 10:29:41 WARRANT DATE VENDOR Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUN' LIQ U'0 R' FUND 17616 07/05/94 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER/JU 279.55 17616 07/05/94 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 BEER PURCHASE/JUNE 24,877.30 25,156.85 17617 07/05/94 TWIN CITIES FLAG SOU 800049 FLAG, REPAIR/.JUNE 74.20 17618 07/05/94 VIKING COCA-COLA BOT 800051 POP PURCHASE/JUNE 453.10 17619 07/05/94 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 800054 MEDICAL SUP/JUNE 26.09 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 39,387.60 BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 07/13/94 14: 12:31 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LIQUOR FUND 17620 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 800002 PHONE CHARGES 105.52 11621 07/13/94 CONSOLIDATED COMM DI 800163 ADVERTISING 39.25 17622 07/13/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 JUICE FOR RESALE 12.50 17622 01/13/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 N40NALC OHOLIC BEER 354.75 17622 07/13/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 BEER PURCHASE 19,301.70 19,668.95 17623 0)/ 13/ 94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 J ULY MIX PURCHASE 25 1.56 17624 01/13/94 GRIGGS, COOPER 4 COM 800018 J ULY LIQUOR PURCHAS 1,648.02 17624 07/13/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 JULY MIX FOR RESALE 122.62 17624 07/13/94 GRIGGS, COOPER d COM 900018 JULY VINE PURCHASE 941.95 2,71 2.59 17625 07/13/ 94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 600022 JULY LIQUOR PURCHASE 43.34 17625 07/13/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 MAY WINE PURCHASE 483.94 11625 07/13/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 900022 MAY BEER PURCHASE 113.93 616 1.21 11626 01/13/94 LIEFERT TRUCKING 800025 JUNE FREIGHT CHARGES 578.43 17627 07/13/S4 MINNEGASCO 800160 UTILITIES 13.17 17628 07/13/94 MN BAR SUPPLY 800130 JUNE MISC ITEMS FOR SA 61.20 17629 07/13/ 94 MN MUNICIPAL BEVERAG 800029 MEMBERSHIP DUES 378.00 17630 01/13/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 800032 ADVERTISING 102.80 17631 07/13/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 600037 JULY LIQUOR PURCHAS 2,888.80 17831 01/13/ 94 PHILLIPS 8 SONS CO/E 800031 JUNE LIQUOR PURCHAS 1,783.99 4,672.59 17632 01/13/04 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS 800048 MAY PURCHASE/ SHELVES 153.30 17632 0)/13/94 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS 600046 JULY PURCHASE/SHELVES 20).82 9461.12 17633 07/13/94 U S WEST COMMUNICATI 800093 JUNE ADVERTISING 26.10 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 30,212.49 sr, • fJ •CF a COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 25, 1994 19. Consideration to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing for the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Re.cleveJoument Pro'iect No. 1, mudification (if the TIF Plans for TIF D.istrJuL l4or.. 1 I tc; i lb, and the adoption of the TIF Plan for TIF D.istr.ict Nu. 1-17. O.K. Reference and Background: Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 1-17, an eleven -year Economic District, is being created for Fay -Mar Metal Fabricators, Inc. The Private Redevelopment Contract, prepared by Holmes & Graven, is between the IiRA and Ronald S. Musich, a single person. Minimum improvements include the constru-,tion of a 15,000 sq ft precast office/production facility on approximately 3 acres within the Monticello Commerce Cooter (eaitt of Suburban Manufacturing.) The fruut-• tip TIF assistance of $50,000 will write-down the land cost for the property described as "Three Acres located in the Northwe-st Quarter of the North Ralf of Section 13, Township 121, Range 25, Monticello, Wright County." Immediate job creation of 17 with projection of an additional B-13 jobs Within two years. Minimum estimated market value (EMV) for the land and building Is $400,000. 0n July 1, 1994, copies of the TIF Plan for TIF District No, 1-17 were distributed to the school, county, and hospital districts. On July 6, the RRA adopted the resolution relating to TIF No. 1-17 and requesting the City Council call for a public hearing. The 11RA will hold a public hearing on the acquisitlon and disposition of raw lands on August 3. The nate and building plan review, nod committment for financing through a local lending Institution and the Small Business Admliti:stration (SBA) are in process. At this time, the City Council is asked to adopt the enclosed resolution calling for a public hearing on Monday, August B, 1904 at approximately 7:00 p.m. Alternative Action. 11 A motion to adopt the enclosed resolution calling for a I3,ibiic hearing on August B, 1994 for TIF District No. i- 17, A motion to deny the adoption of the enclosed reoolutlon cnlling for a pnhlic hearing on August B. A motion to table any action. rage 1 COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 25, 1994 Staff Recommendation. As the project development plans are on schedule, staff recommends Alternative Action No. 1. Supporting Data. Copy of the resolution for adoption. Paye 2 Councilmember introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. — RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-16 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-17, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows; Section 1. R,bl--!S— Hearrim, This Council shall meet on August 8. 1994, at approximately 7:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the following matters: (a) the proposed modification, by increased project coats and enlarged geographic area, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (the "Authority") Redevelopment Project No. 1; (b) the proposed modification, by increased project costa, of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-16, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (c) the establlahment of Tax Inurement Financing District No. 1-17, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (d) the proposed adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Pian for Redevelopment Project No. 1; (e) the proposed adoption of the Modified Tax Increment Pinancing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1.16 (f) the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17, all pursuant to and in accordance with Mlnnesom Stamwa, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, Inclusive, as amended. and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, Inclusive, es amended. Section 2. Notiim of HANIng: Filing of Emgmm. The City Administrator is authorized ad directed to cause notice of hearing, substantially in the form attacW hereto as Bxhihit A. to be given as required by law, to glace a oapy of the proposed. Modified RedevelopumW Plan. Modified Tax Increment Financing Pians and Tax Increzuent Financing Plan on file in the Adminstrator's office at City hall and to make rich copy available for inspection by the public no later than July 23. 1994. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing rewha wn was duty seconded by Councilmembet , and upon vo u being intent thereon. the following voted in favor ftmf And the follovAq voted against the same: Whereapan said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted by the Council in and for the City of Monticello. MWaeaottt, on . 1994. May" ATTW: STATE OF hUNNESOTA ) aa. CITY OF MONTICELLO ) I, the undersigned, being the dLdy qwfifwd and acting Administrator of the City Council (the 'Council') in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, DO HEMY CERTIFY that I have camfauy compared the attached and foregoing wttract 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 same is a full, true and correct transcript thereof insofar as said minutes relate to Resohuion No. WITNESS my hand of&Wly and the official seal of the Council this _ day of 1994. City Administrator 7/25/94 Dear Mayor and Council members: Please let this letter serve as my notice of resignation of my council seat effective immediately. This resignation has nothing to do with place of residency or question of it. I owe an explanation to the public who elected me into this office; that letter will be published in the next addition of the newsletter published by the City of Monticello. In respect to me, I would appreciate if any questions by the Monticello Times are either referred to me or a "no comment" is given. In the past I (obviously) have had problems with them. I would appreciate your cooperation in this matter since there are still some issues concerning me which are unresolved. Thank you. Sin Patty Olsen Council member