Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 10-24-1994MIIVUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCII. Monday, October 10, 1994 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None ADnreval of minutes of the reeular meetine held September 26. 1994. Councilmember Blonigen stated that at the September 26 Council meeting, he was unable to hear a portion of the discussion on item #6 relating to amending the zoning map from a combination of R'1 and Agricultural zoning to a combination of R^1, R-2, B-3, and PZM zoning districts for the proposed River Mill subdivision: consequently; he unintentionally voted for approval of the rezoning request, when, in fact, he was opposed to the density of the proposed R-2 zoning. City Attorney Paul Weingarden explained to Council that it would not be proper to discuss a change of vote without the applicant present. He noted he would like to research the subject of amending a vote from a previous meeting and report back to Council at their next meeting. It was Weingarden's suggestion that Council approve the minutes of September 26 excluding items 6-9 relating to the River Mill subdivision until after Weingarden informs Council on the proper procedure to handle this situation. Weingarden also noted that public hearing notices should be reissued if this subject is again opened for discussion. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 26, 1994, excluding items 6-9 relating to the River NEU subdivision until Council receives a report from the City Attorney on whether or not the subject may again be opened for discussion. Voting in favor of the motion: Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. It was the view of Councihnembers Anderson and Smith that the minutes should be accepted in their entirety, as it is an accurate account of the meeting. Motion passed. After further discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Dan Blonigen to direct the City Attorney to research the procedure for reopening discussion relating to a vote on an amendment to the rezoning map. Voting in favor of the motion: Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Councilmembers Anderson and Smith were opposed to the idea of reopening discussion of this matter two Page 1 0 Council Minutes - 10/10/94 weeks after the original vote, as it was their view that it would be unfair to the applicant to reopen the vote and set a precedent for allowing votes to be reopened. Motion passed. Consideration of addine items to the aeenda. No items were added. Citizens cwmments/oetitions. reouests. and comoWnts. Duane Gates, Community Education Director for the Monticello School District, presented the participation summary for the summer recreation program as requested by Council and noted that the Parks Commission is also reviewing the summary. No action was taken by Council at this time. B. Glen Posusta requested that Dundas Road be put on a maintenance schedule, as the road needs to be graded on a regular basis to avoid a washboard effect. He noted that this is the only access to his mini - storage business located on Dundas Road. Street Superintendent Roger Mack noted that Dundas Road has been graded at least once a month in the past. Public Works Director John Simola stated that they will make an attempt to handle the situation with Dundas Road and that Posusta can notify the public works department anytime he feels the road needs additional maintenance. Considerption of amendmen4 to the zonine ordinance establighine zoning district designation entitled "Public agd Semi -Public Lfses (PS)". APolicant, Monticello Planning Commission. AND Considefption of amendments tp the Monticello Comprehensive PlA v iGl ,Epuld allow uublic and semi-npblic uses at the western Portion of the Gladys Hoelund Property. AND Consideration of amgndmer)ta to the offigial ggnir)g man of the qjty of Mopticello. j? ocosed is a change from -1 (light industrial) to PS (Public and semi-nuhlic uwa). Applicant. St. Henry's Church/Glad_vs Hoelund. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that the zoning ordinance amendment request calls for establishing a new zoning district entitled "Public and Semi -Public Uses," which is specifically designed to regulate public and semi-public uses (church uses, etc.). This request is made in conjunction with the rezoning application made by St. Henry's Church and Gladys Hoglund. O'Neill noted that the reason for establishment of this district is to allow property to be zoned specifically for a church use without Page 2 6) Council Minutes - 10/10/94 the risk of the property being used for residential uses if the church use fails to develop. The present ordinance allows development of a church as a conditional use in the residential zoning districts. He also noted that at their meeting on October 4, 1994, the Planning Commission found the amendment to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval. O'Neill went on to explain that in conjunction with the establishment of the PS zoning district and the rezoning application made by St. Henry's Church, it is proposed that the comprehensive plan be amended to designate public and semi-public uses rather than the present I-1 designation at the western 30 acres of the Gladys Hoglund property. He noted that if it is the view of the City Council that the church use at this location meets the criteria for amending the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, then the land use guide plan should be amended accordingly. O'Neill stated that Council is also asked to rezone the western 30 acres of the Gladys Hoglund property from I.1 to the new PS zone to allow St. Henry's Church to develop the property. He noted that originally the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 6 to discuss a request to rezone 35 acres of the industrial land to an R-1 designation. The Planning Commission was uncomfortable with rezoning to R-1 without complete assurance that the site would be developed for church uses. In an effort to block the possibility of residential uses at this location if the church didn't develop, Planning Commission discussed the prospect of establishing a "public and semi-public" use district at a subsequent meeting held on October 4. Following the September Planning Commission meeting, St. Henry's Church was contacted by the Malone family regarding the potential sale of the property directly northwest of the Hoglund property. This property consists of approximately 7.5 acres under the R-2 zoning designation. ONeill explained that purchase of the Malone property would result in a reduction of land proposed to be converted from industrial uses to PS uses from 35 acres to 30 acres. The reduction in industrial land inventory would result in approximately 205 acres of industrial land for future development. O'Neill informed Council that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request based on consistency with the comprehensive plan and consistency with other rezoning criteria. It was their view that the PS uses were highly compatible with the nearby Little Mountain Settlement and Rand Mansion. In addition, the Planning Commission noted that this request is much different than other church requests made in the past, and approval of this request would not set a precedent. For example, O'Neill reported that the Covenant Church rezoning request was denied because it would have taken away a &2 land Page 3 0 Council Minutes - 10/10/94 use that could not be provided for at another location; and A Glorious Church's request to allow churches in an industrial district was denied because it would have opened up too much industrial land for such a use. Jim Ridgeway, member of the St. Henry's Church congregation, reported that the church has set up a 4 -year plan for development of this property, including development of an assisted living facility, which the church feels is appropriate for the area since it is within walking distance of the hospital, clinic, and school. Ridgeway noted that plenty of industrial land would still be available to Dahlheimer's and Bondhus for future expansion. He also noted that St. Henry's would sell the vacant land it currently owns to return it to the tax rolls, and the present St. Henry's Church building would be sold to a smaller congregation. Councilmember Anderson noted that the hospital has been working toward establishing an assisted living facility in Monticello and was concerned that efforts would be duplicated if St. Henry's Church is also planning for assisted living housing in Monticello. Ridgeway replied that he has discussed the project with 011ie Krahl, Monticello Nursing Home Director, and has left a message for Barb Schwientek, Hospital Administrator, and he reassured Anderson that the church will work in conjunction with the hospital on this matter. Mayor Fyle noted that his main objection to the rezoning request is the close proximity of this land to the freeway and railroad, which is ideal for industrial uses. Jim Ridgeway noted that the Melons and Merrill Busch, owner of the Rand Mansion, have indicated that they prefer the church use, not industrial uses, adjacent to their property. ITEM Ab: After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren Smith to adopt an ordinance amendment establishing the PS (publidsemi-public) zoning district. At this point in the motion, City Attorney Paul Weingarden noted that the ordinance amendment as written would repeal the present section allowing institutional uses in the R-1 zone as a conditional use, which would result in all institutional uses presently located in an R-1 zone to become non- conforming uses. Weingarden advised Council to delete that portion of the proposed ordinance amendment. The motion to adopt the ordinance amendment was then amended by Clint Herbst to adopt the ordinance amendment establishing the PS (publidsemi- public) zoning district, with the portion repealing institutional uses in the R-1 zone as a conditional use being deleted from the proposed amendment. Page 4 Council Minutes - 10/10/94 The amended motion was seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion is based on the finding that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 259. ITEM #6: After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve amending the land use guide plan identified in the comprehensive plan by allowing public and semi-public uses at the western 30 acres of the Gladys Hoglund property. Motion is based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the geography and character of the area, there is a demonstrated need for the use proposed, and sufficient industrial land remains in the city subsequent to the amendment (205 acres). Councilmember Smith noted that he feels the PS zone is an appropriate use but does not favor losing any additional industrial land. Voting in favor of the motion: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. Opposed: Btad Fyle. It was Fyle's view that the land should remain as industrial due to the close proximity of the freeway. Motion passed. ITEM #7: After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt an ordinance amendment rezoning the western 30 acres of the Glady Hoglund property from I-1 (light industrial) to PS (public(semi-public uses). Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. Motion is based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Opposed: Brad Fyle. It was Fyle's view that the land should remain zoned as industrial due to its location near the freeway. Motion passed. At this point in the meeting, City Attorney Weingarden reported his findings regarding Councilmember Blonigen's desire to change his vote on item #6 of the meeting held September 26, 1994, relating to the request to rezone land from a combination of R-1 and Agricultural to a combination of R-1, R-2, B-3, and PZM by developer's of the proposed River Mill subdivision. In reviewing the state statutes, Weingarden noted that a member of the Council may make a motion to reconsider an item. A majority vote of 3:2 is needed for the motion to pass; however, if the motion is defeated, the vote is final and another motion to reconsider the subject may not be made. He noted that if a motion to reconsider the item is made and passes by a majority, in this case he suggested that all parties concerned be renotified that the subject will again be discussed. After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Clint Herbst to reconsider item #6 of the meeting held September 26, 1994, relating to the request to rezone land from a combination of R-1 and Agricultural to a combination of R-1, R-2, B-3, and PZM by developers of the Page 5 9 Council Minutes - 10/10/94 proposed River Mill subdivision. Voting in favor: Dan Blonigen, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Brad Fyle. Motion failed. Original rezoning vote of September 26 prevails. A motion was then made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to approve items 6-9 of the minutes of the regular meeting held September 26, 1994, as written. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of amendments to the official zoning man and consideration of establishment of zoning district designations and boundaries in conjunction with annexation reauest. Proposal is a change in zoning district designations from AO (aericultyral) to R-1. R-2. and R-3 zoning district desienations, Anplicant. E & K Development. C1opsidtration of snnroval of "Klein Farms" nrehminary plat.IADD icant. E & K Develooment. Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that in conjunction with development of the Klein Farms preliminary plat and associated annexation request, E & K Development is requesting amendments to the zoning map from agricultural to a combination of R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning. He noted the zoning amendments requested match land use designations approved in May 1994 during the review and update of the comprehensive plan completed in conjunction with the associated rezoning of the land to the west previously owned by Kent Kjellberg. O'Neill also noted that the City has received a letter from Monticello Township noting their approval of annexation of the 160 acres owned by Dave Klein. O'Neill went on to report that the Planning Commission has reviewed an associated ordinance amendment requiring establishment of a buffer yard between industrial and residential zoning districts but tabled action on the amendment pending further review. He stated it is hoped that the Planning Commission will complete their review of the ordinance amendment at the November meeting and forward it to Council accordingly. Assistant Administrator O'Neill then reviewed the proposed preliminary plat encompassing 80 acres located north of the future School Boulevard and between Fallon Avenue and County Road 117. The developer is proposing 107 single family dwellings in tho R-1 area; 48 unite in the R-2 area designated as Oudot A; 80 units in the R-2 area designated as Outlot B; and 44 units in the R-3 area designed as Outlot C. O'Neill went on to explain that according to the proposed buffer yard ordinance, Emmerich will be required to build a buffer yard along the northern boundary of Outlots A and B to mitigate conflicts between Page 6 Council Minutes - 10/10/94 residential and industrial uses. To the east of the site is Little Mountain Elementary School, and it is likely that a crosswalk will be located at the point where the IOein Farms' access drive meets Fallon Avenue. To the south of the property is School Boulevard, which will be constructed simultaneous to the first phase of the proposed development. And to the west is County Road 117 and a business campus zone. The Assistant Administrator reported that approval of the plat would be contingent on utility plan approval by the City Engineer, and it has also been determined that an environmental assessment worksheet will need tc be prepared and submitted to the Environmental Quality Board for review and comment. This requirement will delay approval of the final plat at least 45 daya. It was also noted that redevelopment of Fallon Avenue should be considered to coincide with development of phase I, and it is anticipated that the cost to upgrade this roadway will be shared by the adjoining property owners. O'Neill continued by saying that the developer has indicated that he is open to financing the project using either private funds, as was done with the Oak Ridge development, or as a City project. Park development for the proposed plat was also reviewed, and Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the Parks Commission has requested the park dedication be made as one 16 -acre parcel located outside of power line easements. The developer has also indicated a willingness to install a pathway from the residential area to Little Mountain Elementary School but requested that this land area be deducted from the park dedication amount. ONeill informed Council that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their meeting on October 4 and subsequently recommended approval of the plat contingent on 1) approval of the utility plans by the City Engineer, 2) the developer making modifications to the plat as required, 3) the developer entering a development agreement guaranteeing development of the park area south of School Boulevard, 4) negative declaration of environmental impact resulting from the EAW process, bl approval of final plat from the County and affected oil and power companies, and 6) finalization of description of project phasing and associated financing. It has also been suggested that all engineering plans be subject to the City Engineer's approval. Councilmember Herbst noted that he is not in favor of taking more industrial land for residential uses. It was his view that the property should remain agricultural until the industrial park needs to expand. He also noted that the ratio of R-2 and R-3 versus R-1 and industrial property should be studied. Councilmember Blonigen noted that he does not agree Page 7 0 Council Minutes - 10/10/94 with the R-2 zoning, as he is opposed to the density and the fact that each side of the unit can be sold separately. He was also concerned about maintenance of common areas in an R-2 development. City Attorney Paul Weingarden explained to Councilmembers Herbst and Blonigen that because the City Council amended the comprehensive plan in May of 1994 to show R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts in this area, legally supportable reasons must be given to vote against a rezoning request that is consistent with the approved plan. He also noted that developers are allowed to build according to the regulations as listed in the ordinance for R-2 zoning until such time that those regulations are amended. ITEM A8: After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Dan Blonigen to deny the rezoning request based on the finding that it is premature for development to take place in this area and the industrial park is too close to a residential area. Mayor Fyle stated that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the approved plan, which was designed to fit the general residential nature of the area, which includes the Cardinal Hills development and Little Mountain Elementary School. Developer Tony Emmerich stated that the prior Evergreens property was rezoned from R-1 to a combination of industrial and business zones in order to meet the City's needs. He noted that perhaps a reasonable compromise could be negotiated; or if the Council feels more time is necessary to discuss this issue, he would prefer the matter be tabled rather than litigate it. At his point, the City Attorney asked Emmerich if it was his intention to pursue litigation if the rezoning request is denied. Emmerich answered that he would have no choice but to litigate the issue if his request is denied. Weingarden then stated that due to the possibility of litigation on this matter, he is requesting that Council either close the meeting to discuss the potential litigation or continue the matter so that he and City staff can further research the rezoning request and uses proposed for the area. Emmerich noted that he would have no objection to the Council continuing the matter to the next Council meeting. Weingarden continued by noting that a motion and second havo been made, and Council should either vote on the issue or the motion and second should be withdrawn. Page 8 9 Council Minutes - 10/10/94 After discussion, a vote was taken on the motion to deny the rezoning request as follows: Voting in favor. Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. Opposed: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Motion failed. A motion was then made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to continue the rezoning request to the neat regular meeting of the City Council scheduled for Monday, October 24, 1994, at 7 p.m. Voting in favor of the motion: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Opposed: Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. Motion passed. The City Attorney suggested that if the Council would like the ordinance reviewed in regard to the R-2 zoning regulations, a motion could be made directing the. Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to review those regulations. After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Clint Herbst to direct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the current R-2 district regulations. Voting in favor of the motion: Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Warren Smith. Motion failed. A motion was then made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to continue all matters pertaining to the rezoning request by E & K Development, which would include item N9, consideration of the preliminary plat of the Klein Farms property, to the Council meeting scheduled for Monday, October 24, 1994, at 7 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. It was the consensus of Council to set a special closed meeting of the City Council for Thursday, October 20, 1994, 4:30 p.m., for the purpose of discussing potential litigation regarding the rezoning request by E & K Development. 10. Consjde;atioq of e?Ltending_transportation service contract with Hoelund Coach Lines for 1996. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the fees proposed for the 1996 transportation service contract with Hoglund Coach Lines for the Heartland Express Bus and noted that Gordy Hoglund of Hoglund Coach Lines has agreed to the mileage fee remaining at $.18 per mile and a 3% increase in the current $22/hour fee for service to an amount of $22.66 for 1996. Page 9 9 Council Minutes - 10/10/94 After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the proposed 1995 transportation service contract with Hoglund Coach Linea at a mileage cost of $.18 per mile and an increase of 3% to the current $22/hour fee for service, which would amount to $22.66. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty C+foe Manager Pago 10 /� Council Agenda - 10/24/94 Publlc hearing on adoption of orouose# assessment roll for delinauent charges and certification of assessment roll to Countv Auditor. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council is again asked to adopt an assessment roll for those accounts which are delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the assessment roll to the County Auditor for collection on neat year's real estate taxes. As you may recall, the City has previously certified delinquent accounts annually in the fall of each year, but the Council recently approved an ordinance amendment allowing the City to prepare a list of all delinquent utility billing accounts on a quarterly basis and certify them four times a year. The delinquent utility accounts and charges that are included with the agenda are accounts that are at least 60 days past due and include all new delinquents from the last time we certified them. In addition to the delinquent charge, the Council also previously approved the establishment of an administrative fee of $25 per account that is added to each delinquent assessment. The amounts shown on the enclosed delinquent utilities list include the additional $25 administration fee for the preparation of the assessment roll. Delinquent miscellaneous accounts receivable which are more than 60 days past due were also notified of a public hearing for certification. These accounts aro shown on the delinquent accounts receivable list. It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment roll for certification in 1995 at an interest rate of 8% as allowed by state statute. As in the past., if any accounts aro paid within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll, they will be removed from the certification list given to the County Auditor. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the assessment roll for the delinquent charges as presented. 2. Based on public hearing input, adjust the assessment roll as required. Council Agenda - 10/24/94 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the Council adopt the assessment rolls as presented. All of the accounts are at least 60 days past due and have been given proper notice of this assessment hearing and ample opportunity to pay the accounts in full. All utility accounts were notified that there would be an additional $25 administration fee attached to each outstanding balance if the account was not paid by the time the certification list was prepared. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll; Complete listings of delinquent accounts being certified. 10/21/94 1994 DILINWINT ACCWrf6 51ZCR1VABLR P.g. I SPECIAL A666661EIPT CEMPICATIORS (10/2./9.) F110PRIR7 TO MS AMOUIF1 NAME kUDiTIM 1/M/BIG BLOCK ------------------------------ 155-014-001100 151.27 --------------------------------------- State of No (tort.lt) ............... BWI..d ------- 10 ----- 1 155-015-016050 26.11 Paul 6 Dick 501.C1a1r (Mark Oaahart) Lahr Mont 5 16 155-015-016010 27.96 Fran 6 Run Rslkking Laver Hunt 1,6 16 155-026-001060 26.21 Stamm vandi-t (Mark A Lm M -land) AOOara .11hal. 6 1 155-011-001020 16.61 Rlchord Hamann Ralhml Rat 2 1 155-041-002010 67.47 Rickard Bolk.r Balker Hilleld. 1 2 155-041-002030 67.47 Richard Holk.r Bolkar Hlllald. 2 2 155-041-002010 67.41 Richard eolk.r Bolkar Hillside 1 2 155-046-001010 177.01 Ultra Hoax Radar Oak got 1 1 155-046-002010 211.55 Ultrl Hose Moan- Oak lot 1 2 155-044-002040 311.54 Ultra Haar. j M.ador Oak a.t 4 3 155-044-001010 399.72 Ultra BOm. Meadow Oak Rat 1 1 155-046-001040 299.71 Ultra H- Meador Oak Rat 4 3 155.044-001060 311.15 Ultra Hoeti Meadow Oak Not 6 1 155-044-004010 54.06 Ultra Uammoo M.ador Oak let 1 4 155-044-004020 54.06 Ultra Bacoe Hoodw Oak Hot 2 4 155-044-004030 54.05 Ultra Boar Hood- Oak Rat 1 4 155.044-004050 57.44 Ultra Bono Meador Oak Not 5 4 155-044-004060 57.64 Ultra Hasa 1 Moen- Oak got 6 4 155-044-004070 57.44 Ultra Ht>aa MY/w Oak Rat 1 4 155-044-004060 57.44 Ultra Hasa M-4ar Oak Rat 1 4 155-057-001040 79.66 Ultra 8- Meador Oak lead 4 1 155-057-002050 11.43 Micheal ►slur Meador Oak. 3rd 1 7 155-059.001050 71.61 Ultra Boar. Maadw Oak 4th 1 1 155-059-002100 94.71 Ultra Hma. Maadw Oak 4th 10 2 155-059-001010 210.55 Ultra Hma. Meador Oak 4th ) 3 155.059-004010 40.07 Ultra Homes 4badw Oak 4th 1 4 155.061-001060 711.11 1an7ea Meueann Cmatructlm O.eaear9 "at 1 3 155-064-001050 61.65 HCH C-tructlm Meadwa 2nd 5 155-064-001060 61.65 OCH Cmotructlm Msadora 2nd 6 l 155-064-001070 66.64 UCH cmatructlm Meadwo 2nd 1 1 156.064-001060 42.92 HCH Cmatrantlm Maadw. 2n6 1 1 155.069-001070 67.10 Mark 6 Lour. Vaedarraal c.r41oa1 Hill. 7 1 155-070-002050 754.65 Pr"Uga Suile.ro/C • 0 Rrl.r Oaks Rat 1 2 155-500-011400 1.151.64 Ot.t. 0t No (torfait) U.Pl.tta0 1 GRAND TOTAL, 1 5.054.64 0 10/71/94 QTR : 4 7, 1994 MMIPQURf VTILITIaI page 1 ap6CIAL AbbtsmoorT clotTIricatolb 110/74/94) FMOpIN" ID ail ---------------------------------- AMOURY aA1Q ---------------------------------------- ADDITIOs -------------------- Lor/39C ------------ ILOCR ML ACCOM 1 ----- -------------- 155-015-006010 16.09 +•y Ihl.rt. Lover Mont 1 a 001-0011.00-00 155-010-061040 96.05 Pic6.rd RIE. Original 4 61 001-0045-00-00 155 -CIO -056010 77.74 Wamy Iellesen Original 1 56 001-0057-00-00 155-010-067140 67.75 Chantelle Mitchell Original 14 a 001-0117-00-00 155-015-005150 175.75 Ronald begin Laver 15 5 001-0176-00-00 155-015-075011 65.61 Lovell l.ndrlckmon L -r Mont 1 75 001-0145-00.00 155-500-174100 55.97 City or Monticello (Matcla 6undin) Unplatted 17 007-0007.00.00 155-015-016110 50.16 Daniel 0oem.n (Mark Anderem) Lover Mont 11 16 007-0016-00-07 155.015-005010 1,570.99 Wayne lachler/1-Clean Laundry Loesr 1,7 5 007-0017-00-00 155-010-067060 91.66 Dellel•a Inc. (K -in relr) Original 6,7,1,9 a 001-0044.00.00 ISS -010-067060 71.05 belief's InC/r4ir'e (R -in ►air) original 617,619 s 007-0044-00.01 155.010-067010 41.69 Fair'. Carden center/belle l• 11 ►.1r) Original 11711,4,5 0 007-0046-00-01 155-010-057071 61.06 Miry Fluth (Hidden Treasures) Original 7 57 007-0050.00-00 155 -CIO -047070 111.11 Berl Deearale Original 1,7,1,4 47 007-0010-00-00 155-070-005111 720.77 6ohd.n Dirytry..yn 111- Terrace 11 5 007.0091.00.00 155-010-040110 175.40 Wayne 9echler Original 11,17,11 40 007-0109-00-00 155-010-015150 16.47 Fred Riune/Dlncle Dell Original is 15 007-0117-00-00 155-010-015100 67.96 Marna Flicker (What [not-Dldden T-ur) Original 10 15 007.0119-00.00 155-010-015070 705.14 Clarence MaC.rty Original 7 15 007-0141-00.01 155-010-014150 71.14 Alld"r.ndt Inventor. Original 15 14 007-0145-00-00 155-010-014060 651,11 Gary lamer original 6,7 14 007-0150-00.00 155-060-001010 776.70 Ton sitter Mplat of A,I,C,D 1 1 001-0016.00.00 155-060-001010 779.10 James Agwto papist of A.s,C,D 1 1 001-0017.00.00 155.010-016010 96.50 Irian "lead Original 117 16 001-0017.00.01 155-010-017010 741.55 Cl.- MOC.rty Orlglnal 7 17 001-0016-00-00 445-010-010050 176.44 D.vid a Debra Meri.een O.191 nal 5 11 001-0037-00-00 155-010-010090 177.16 Robert a Tvonna Cox Original 9 10 003-0091-00.00 155-010-010000 161.96 Rwsall Olson It-. Octalta) original 4 70 001-0081.00.00 155-010-070100 166.15 Gera 10 0onetsby Original to a 003.000.00.00 155-019-008070 157.61 Wayne Goa A.C. Rippe 7.9 a 0040010.00.00 ON 10/31/94 OTB 1 A 7. 1994 DE.IPOU6NT UTILITI6D pap. 2 6PCCIAL ASSESSMENT CQr1PICATIONS (10/24/94) PROPOrr7 IS NR AMOUNT NAME ADDITION IAT/OLC OI.00K VTIL ACCOUNT 1 ---------------------------------- 155-015-011011 161.29 ---------------------------------------- Robert P.d-cn -------------------- LaSwr Mont ------------ 1 ----- 16 -------------- 004 -0091 -00 -DO 155-010-011040 65.16 N1111u Allen Original 4 11 005-0025-00-00 155-010-009050 70.04 Anna 71...11 Original 5 9 005-0049-00-00 155-010-010070 141.69 Arlan Pocklington (Katy 61=0) Original 1 O 005-0066-00-01 155-500-111203 41.49 Kant -6k1 Ltd Part.ar.nlp/D.vid Hornig Unplatt.d ll 005-0065-00-00 155-500-111203 43.40 Kant -Oki Ltd Partnarlhip/David Hornig Unpl.tt.d 11 005-0069.00-00 155-500-11)201 44.60 Nont-Oki Ltd P.rt,orahip/David Hornig Unplatted 11 005-0070.00-00 155-500-111201 10.12 Moat -Oki Ltd PortO.r.hlp/David Hornig Unplattod II 005-0071-00-00 155-500-111201 16.12 Mont -Oki Ltd Partmt.hlp/David Hornig Unplatted 11 005-0074-00-00 155-010-005060 456.24 Nlnaing." Ina/D.Iry Queen Original 6.7.6 5 005-0060-00-00 155-016.001010 711.36 Monticello Nall/Bury Pluth Monticello Nall I 1 005-0090-00.00 435-500-034305 119.20 Jane 6 Ly -t Ils-it Unplatted 3 006-0007-00-00 155-020-007061 46.15 TTaoa. Parker (Audrey Warns] RI..r Terrace 6 2 006-0060.00.01 435-500-034200 53.62 Don Hall.. (lit Eater) Unplatted 3 006-0119-00-00 ISS -SM -014700 160.15 Don H.lkw (Noreen Olean) Unpl.tted 1 006-0120.00-01 155-500-011200 115.66 Do. U.ik..(C Bonneville) Unplett.d 1 006-0172.00.00 155-50D-014200 01.35 Don Hike. (D 0evertaon 6 T Lar. -I Unpl.tt.d 1 006-0124-00-01 155.500-011200 169.71 Don Polk.. (Orion McIntosh) Unpl.tted 1 006.0126.00-01 155-500-011100 45.10 Gary Ach.rber (Plchard Allen.) Unplattad 1 006.0117.00.00 155-500-011100 45.00 Gary Oeherbsi (Dorothy Kirocht) Unplatted l 006-0149-00-01 155-500-011300 67.40 Gary Ocherber IJaal• Hoglund) Unplatted 1 006-0149-00-00 155.500-011100 04.00 Clary Ocnarb.r (Ea Stencil) Unpl.tt.d 1 006.0166-00-00 155.500-011100 16.70 Gery ClGiarber (Kirk Gdoel Unpl.ttad 3 006.0179-00-00 155-500-011100 15.52 Gary Ocherber (Loan Clark) Unplatt.d 3 006.0111.00.00 155-500-031300 15.60 (1.hy acherb.r (P Pacers 1 C vo11) Unplatted 1 006-0112-00.01 155-500.011100 66.60 Gary Och-cal (JGM McClanahan) Unpl.tt.d 1 006-0207-00.00 155-500-011100 15.40 Gary Oeh.rber (Darryl Drya.111 UnplatC.d 1 006-0106-00-00 155-021-001210 161.69 Paul D.Mara pit.. Mahar 21 2 006-0274-00.00 155.011-002050 190.12 Gerald Plat. sit.. Muer 5 2 006-0261-00-00 155-021-002030 $7.90 Mark ►.rgu.on Nit.. Muer i 7 006.0265-00.00 155.021.001040 67.95 Gerald Poly (Earl Munn) ■5t.. N.nor 4 1 006-0291-00-01 O 10/21/96 Qrll 1 6 2, 1996 DI0.261QVtrr VIILITI96 Page J aP1CIAL A"98SKINr C114IrICATI088 (10/26/91) P00P0fyT ID <! MDVR MAKS ADDITION LOT/91C 914DCt VrIL 11CCOUIrr 6 ---------------------------------- 155-026-001060 266.92 ---------------------------------------- John Dunning -------------------- 8111c1"t 2nd ------------ e ----- ---"--------- 1 006-0160-00-00 155-500-162601 66.65 L 6 V "-Let- Unplatt" 16 007.0109-01-00 155-066-001110 111.56 JI=y Nelaerlle Par V"t 13 1 006-0016-00-00 155-066-001160 229.62 Richard L Grant. Par V"t 16 1 006-0021-00-00 155-026-002010 Ile.$$ Ivan Walter Amor. Wilhelm 1 2 006-0049-00.00 155.026.001070 55.79 Layton slLs•rea. And.- Vlln.l. 7 1 006-0102.00.02 155-026.001100 115.61 Thos. O1rou. Ander. Wiltal. 10 1 OOe-0105-00-00 155-026.001110 69.15 stat. atrmt Bene IJ.ff Ocelot) Amar. Vllb.l. I1 1 008-0106-00-02 155-011-001060 165.76 Jae" Mcl. . Ylboul sat 6 1 009-0109-00-00 155.015-006060 71.76 Jo..ph say Th. Neadw. a 6 001-0155-00-00 155.035-006060 157.46 Tloa Mohlln T6. Ma"w. a 6 008.0150-00-00 155-015-006050 177.66 1. Gordan 6 C. Dao.on Th. Ma"ow 5 6 006-075a-o0-oo 155.015.006010 151.06 DL... Lundgulet The 16"dw. 1 6 008-0160-00-00 155-015.001060 116.96 Lim. 6 Barer blum Tho MaaG..O a 1 000-0189-00-00 155-075-001050 16.86 Ryan peter. (Lour 1. Allen) Th. I6.adw. 5 1 000-0196.00.01 155-015.001070 71.78 Jas. O.e6troo (Lloyd Wrlght) 5L. M.ada,. 7 1 O0a-0349-o0-02 155-015.001100 121.76 Lloyd l rands (04noy Ba") rh* K644MO 10 1 008-0606-00.01 155-015-001100 152.02 Lloyd Noranda (Donald Wood) Th. Me.daV. 10 1 000-0605-00-00 155.015.001110 116.99 Cindy "lum Th. ".ad-. I1 1 008.0611-00-00 155.015.001161 99.75 Patrice 6 June Wand (Larry Metcalf) The M"d-. 16 1 009-0611-00-00 155-011.001070 256.09 Jacea Collett. 9.Iboul N.tat" 7 1 000.0616.00-00 155-011-006010 101.11 t.nneth Nce.b.r0 Balbaul Natal" 1 6 008-0626-00-00 155-011.006060 119.58 Tlmthy rine Balboul N.tat" 6 6 008-0629-00-00 155-015.006010 191.51 Daniel Crocear Th. M..Ow. I 6 008-0661-00-00 155-010.001100 170.22 tent Mitchell tamp. sat 10 1 009-0007-00-00 155-011.001110 252.19 Bill a Bev Grigsby Country Clue Mawr 11 1 009-0162.00.00 155-011-001100 71.10 ot.pn.n 01.0 Country Club Mamr 10 1 009-0161-00-00 155.011-001070 109.71 Mlebaal Wllllas Country Club Manor 7 1 009 -GIN -00.00 155-011.001030 217.71 T" Daniels Country Club Manor 1 1 009.0196.00-00 155-031-002160 220.99 Oasvlw. A."— (Bou Moa.) Country Club Mawr 16 2 009.0196-00.00 155-016-001190 218.76 Darryl Call" B.glum 19 1 010-0066-00-00 Q 10/21/94 QM I f 2, 1994 DO,IPVM UTILITIES Pap. 1 SPECIAL ASSBD&®rr C6/rrIPICATIORe (10/26/96 PIIOPEAr7 70 OR MOVIT ■AIR ADDITION ----'-------..------ IAT/6LC ------------ BIACR ----- ML ACCWIT 1 -------------- ---------------------------------- 155.016.000050 157.17 ---------------------------------------- Lionel Calll.s IYnhatt.G Lot. 5 010-0066-00-00 155-017-0070]0 69.67 Jame . 0oodrun John... raallhatten Lot. let 3 2 010-0146-00-00 155-065.002010 131.66 Michael name, Meadw OakS 2nd 1 2 011-0106.00-00 155-065-002060 93.55 Ryle J.- (MY k I..nQ) M6adw Oak. 200 6 - 011.0311.00-01 155-065.00{060 16.66 Jack t Rare Barren 616aow Oak. 7no 6 l 011-0551.00-00 155-059-002060 297.16 Dentan ylllandar ]Wow Oaks 6th 6 2 011-0666-00-00 155-500-154401 66.60 R1.I11her91e InC (On...- Sayre) Unplatted 15 017-0003-00-00 155.500-156601 35.10 R1.11Wrp'. Inc IT Lane . 6 Berlin) UAplatt.d 15 012-0001-00-01 155.500.154401 16.70 RJe11Wrp'. Inc (Lae Lar.on) Unpl.tt.d 15 017.0007.00-00 155-500-154403 15.60 9Je11Wr9'a Inc (Pao AacOrina) Unplatted 15 017-0009-00-00 159-500-15.601 57.00 R].11 Wrp'. Inc (John Christ) Unplatted IS 017-0013-00-00 155-500.156401 96.60 R]e11Wr9'. Inc (Arthur Doren) Unplatted 15 017-0016.00-00 155-500-256601 15.60 RJe11Wr9'6 ane (Rathy Awan) Unplatted 15 017-0017.00-00 155-500-156601 66.60 R]ell W rp's I- (Brian 6CMrWr) Unplatted I5 017-0020-00-00 155-500-156601 77.90 9Je11Wrp'e Inc (A Den l uapherp.rl Unpl.ited )5 017.0051.00-00 155-500.156603 66.60 NJ.11nar9'6 Inc (at- Vl l l ia.$) Unplatted is 017-0066-00-00 155-500-156601 J5.60 R].11 Wrps' I- ]MIR. Boon) Unplatted is 017-0077-00-00 155.500-156601 66.60 RJ.11Wrp'e 1. (Call Nahl.11 Unplatted I5 012-0079.00-00 155-500.156601 77.60 RJ.lIWtp'. lm (Alan Trepani.rl Unplatted IS 017-0099-00-00 155-500-156603 66.60 RJe11Wrp'. (levan Cor.e111.1) Unplotted 15 012-0100-00-00 155.500-156601 35.00 AJell Wrp'. (R. Olson 6 P. RlcWrdal Unpl.tte0 is 017-0106.00-01 155.500-156601 15.60 RJe11Wrp'o Inc (Che rru ofann.) Unplatted 15 017.0111 -n0 -DO 155.500.156603 76.20 R].Ilh.r9'o Inn JOE- Jackman) Unplatted 15 017-0170.00.00 155-069.003060 166.76 Christopher Jona. Cardinal Bill. 1 6 3 013-0006-00-01 155-069.001060 46.70 Terri 6]er0o IJ6mnlfor B=klnOhael Cardinal Bills 1 • 1 013-0006-00-01 155-069.001070 69.75 Mark and Lori Ve n0ervaal Cardinal Bill. 1 7 1 011-0007.00-00 155.069.007050 106.93 Leander echrintok, Jr Cardinal pall. I 5 2 011.0116.00.00 155.069.007010 77.97 Pasals Docks Cer411W1 Bill. 1 1 2 011-0116.00-00 255.069.007020 140.55 Laura. Roep Cardinal Bill• 1 7 2 013.0119-00-00 155.069.001050 111.59 all.. 1 Lor W Bw.s Cardlnal Biu. 1 5 1 013-0156-00-00 151.011-001060 $6.70 rrawls N:cksy (Dori. Wiling) Volker• 811181d. 6 1 905.0365-01-00 10/31/94 QTR 1 4 3, 1994 DQ.IROUAT UTILITIIR ►4q. S WKLAL ASSNAM RT COITI►ICATIWI (10/24/94) PRWOITT ID n -------------- -------------------- MOOR[ 155-041.001060 55.00 SSS -041-001040 35.40 ------------------------ ORARD TOME, 1 16,637.43 RA1O ADDITIW L0T/RIC RIO= UTIL ACWUIrr 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- F—I. 810kR► (R4xT P9r j eolkmr•4 e1I1.1dR 6 1 905-0165-04-01 Ja ph R10.040k1nk (RI" Rurl6ur"rl eolk.r'• 8111.1do 4 1 905-0167-04-00 Council Agenda - 10/24/94 8.gnsideration of Wright County l3herlH's Report. (R.W.) Since it has been a while since County Sheriff Don Hozempa has appeared before the Council, Mr. Hozempa has agreed to update the Council on law enforcement issues that aright be of interest to the Council. It is expected that Mr. Hozempa will provide information on traffic control issues along Broadway, along with summarizing the overall police activities in Monticello as compared to previous years. Although there is no specific action requested by the Council, Pm sure Mr. Hozempa would welcome any comments or questions you have regarding the law enforcement contract or areas of concern the Council has received public comment on. Council Agenda - 10/24/94 7. Consideration of variance request allowing gonstrpctiop of gorage 1p��(sai rage. Anpllcant. Jeff Michaelis/Rivereide Oil. (J.OJ A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the sake of efficiency, I have attached the information submitted to the Planning Commission on this matter. Also included is a memo from John Simola outlining his concerns regarding the construction of the temporary structure proposed. As noted earlier, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance to the setback requirement due to the shape of the lot. It is virtually impossible to build a structure on the site without a variance. In addition, the Planning Commission did not view development of a "temporary" pole shed as an intensification of the use of the property; therefore, they did not feel that it is necessary to require that Michaelis bring all aspects of the site up to code. If Council interprets construction of the storage shed as an intensification of the use, then Michaelis should be required to bring all aspects of the site up to code. B. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of letter and variance request from Riverside Oil; Copy of 10/41% Planning Commission agenda item; Copy of 10/12/94 letter to Jeff Michaelis; Copy of 10/7/94 memo to Jeff ONeill. OCT. -24' 941M0N1 IS 29 OLSOVUSSET P. A. _ TEL 612 925 5879 _ — P. 004 — OMN, USSET, AGAN & WEINGARDEN ArrORMBY[ AT uP suns no PAUL A. •TDIUNIUM1• ddW FRANCE AVM1116 adlr% L80AL ASMANn CHARLES T. ROAM bmem PU , NX Slei ►BOOT 1. ALAN DAVID J. U39" Sh RI OR J. AIAPH THOM" L Cff" TELZn1G Q anlU3-M6+ DURA L. BAKIM DEMOS B. DALm1 FAX (012) Mm" ►ATBT A. YKNIM AMD xW IeaTD1 %OMI ow ".F.7 %.Wk. Role® TROMU ovaramm 7975 October 24, 1994 TR86OBSW m4e10 Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello 250 Last Broadway Monticello, M2i 55162 Re: Riverside oil Variance Request Dear Jeff: I am in receipt of information concerning the request of Riverside Oil for variance in this matter. As I view the situation, Mr. Michaelis is operating a business on this property which includes an industrial warehouse building. He now requests a variance to construct a "temporary" storage structure / garage. It is unclear to me what in "temporary" about this structure. It strikes me that it is nothing more than a permanent addition to the parcel which will remain into the undefined future. in general, variances run with the land, not the person. A purchaser of his property would be entitled to the variance as approved. If this was truly to be a "temporary" use, you should, at the very least, have an and date by which the structure would be removed. i doubt that this is what the applicant intends. My further concern is that you are reading the criteria for a variance improperly. Under Minn. Stat. $462.157, Subd. 6, the standard for variances to specifically defined. Your City ordinances essentially adopt this approach. Under the terms of the statue, variances are permitted where strict enforcament would cause because of circumstances unique to the ind vidual property under consideration. Such variances should only be granted when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" means th__ a gronarty in a1iG!plat to a reasonable use if uee4„ypdpt Con I,?. eliowad bw the oltioial controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and a variance, if grentod, will not OCT. -24' 94 (MON) 15: 29 OLSON/USSET P. A. _ — TEL:612 925 5819_ _ _ P. 005 — - October 24, 1994 Page 2 altar the essential caaractar of the locality. B99n011;p ....++old +.dens alnna Rhftnld not cm�ffiHIt�e an +.+.tea ..ashi�i; for Shp orooe_*ly *isle +na.. tL+e ter ok of h• ardi-nAn -. - Since there is an existing business operating on the property, I cannot envision how the applicant can claim an undue hardship. I fail to see bow this request is any different than that of the homeowner who desires to build a three car garage but requires a variance in order to do so. Be may be inconvenienced, but be is certainly not subject to undue hardship. My final concern in this regard is that there is a veiled hint in the staff report that the applicant presently operates a non -conforming use on the parcel. irrespective of the variance issue, it is my opinion that if this is the case, construction of this •temporary■ structure would constitute an impermissible expansion of a non -conforming use which would require conformance with the coning code. 1f this is indeed the situation, you should darer a decision until all ramifications of the application have been investigated. 7Ve ly s, al A. M a pAMtlld v \ �� JEFF MICHAELIS �40 ASIDE OIL P. o.eo. soe Monticello. MN 55382 95-370 W—rs%�-=jm. September 16, 1994 City of Monticello Jeff O'Neill 250 E. Broadway Monticello, Minn. 55362 Dear Jeff: I am requesting a variance from the City of Monticello to add a cold storage truck stall onto my existing warehouse. This addition would not. be any expansion to my current business. It would only be to remove my fuel truck out of a residential neighborhood and give me a secure place for weather and vandalism. I realize that my stay at this location is temporary, so I am proposing a structure to get me by until a long term solution is determined. My existing warehouse is 30' X 161, and I am proposing to add an addition of 26'X 12' with the only noticeable area being directly in front of the building. I hope you look at my request with understanding and realize this is only a temporary situation. Thank You. Sincerely, / Jet[ Michaelis Rivereido 0i1 V CITY OF MONTICELLLO VARIANCE REQUEST APPLICATION FEES $50 for setback or $125 for others ♦ necessary consulting expenses• • X03182 Receesary Consulting fees Include the coat to have the City Planner analyse variance, rezoning, and conditional use permit requests at the rate of =75/hr. Generally, the level of City Planner involvement corresponds with complexity of request and/or the potential impact of the request on the City. The need for City Planner assistance in determined solely by City staff. /A APPLICANT'S NAHEDDRESS. 'TC4C4 /1)M n4e /sS — R�'vrr$s'( e- cO,'I PHONE: HOME s 2 9s' - 3 7 C) S WORKS So -..r LEGAL DESCRIPTIONs LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION OTHER DESCRIBE VARIANCE REQUEST, A/lbw Ce �r�/i..��'e,.. ea/ rle— e --f S&0 - Ia.cL a,f e. / U What are the unique circumstances that create exceptional difficulties when utilizing the property in a manner customary and legally permissible? DATE, 9-/9-qY SIGHEDs •••••••••••••••••••••••u•••••••••••••'/••••• • f/ .......................... [J Fee paids Receipt Numbers 176# T Currently fonedt Planning Case Numbers Date Application Receiveds Date of Planning Commission Public Hearings Times PLANNING COMMISSION ►INDING Has a hardship been demonstrated? [J Yes (J no Will approval of the variance requests A. impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property? (J Yea [J Ito 8. creat:,,unreasonable congestion increase in the public street? () Yes () No C. increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety? () Yee [J No D. unreasonably diminish property values within the neighborhood? (J Yea [J No E. be contrary to the intent of the ordinance? [J Yes [J No Summary of Planning Commission Findings Was there an appeal? () Yea (J No If so, attach a copy of the appeal. Date of Council considerations Times Decision of Councils (J a" attached Com ante s (J sae attached Publication Dates Nailing Dates Video? (J Yon $s (J no VARRbQ.FRNs 7/1/91 0 0_1 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94 Public Hearing-Considergtion of a variance to the vard setback reauirements which would allow construction of a temnorarv, structure in an I.1 zone. Anolicant. Jeff Michaelis. Riverside Oil. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Jeff Michaelis is requesting permission to build a temporary structure which would allow him to enclose his fuel transport truck. In order to obtain a building permit, he needs a variance to the front yard setback requirement. Michaelis has noted that his vehicle has suffered damage when parked outside at this location due to vandalism In addition, being able to park the vehicle on site next to the fuel depot is the appropriate location for this vehicle. In the past, you may remember that Micbaelis has parked his vehicle at his residence, which is not allowed by ordinance. Michaelis also proposes to build a screening fence to screen materials currently stored on site. If the area Michaelis is now screening has always been used for storage even prior to inception of the zoning ordinance, then a screening fence can be installed without further permission by the City Council. If, however, the area proposed for outdoor storage represents a new use or an expansion of the existing use, then a conditional use permit allowing outside storage would be necessary. In order to obtain a conditional use permit allowing outside storage, a principal use must be established. Unfortunately, a fuel depot is not considered to be a principal use; therefore, unless the zoning ordinance is amended, Michaelis will be unable to store material on site. In terms of the temporary structure that Michaelis proposes, it may make sense to allow Michaelis to build the structure if it is agreed that the structure will be used temporarily and that there is no guarantee that the site will be used in the long-term as a fuel depot. Planning Commission may take the view that a variance is acceptable in this situation due to the fact that it is temporary and, perhaps, because reasonable use of the property does include allowing construction of a storage building, which cannot be achieved without a variance due to the dimensions of the property. On the other hand, Planning Commission could take the view that if it is the long-term goal to eliminate the fuel depot use on site, then no actions should be taken to encourage investments in the site, thereby making the site a more desirable place for Michaelis to be located. Even though the storage building proposed will be relatively inexpensive, the funds used to build the temporary structure could be better spent on helping fund relocation efforts. 192 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4194 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to grant a variance to the yard setback requirement which would allow construction of a temporary structure in an I-1 zone. Motion is based on the finding that a garage is necessary in order for Michaelis to have reasonable use of the property. Due to the dimension of the lot, it is impossible to build a storage building at the location without a variance. Furthermore, the structure is temporary in nature and will be removed at such time that the fuel depot operation is relocated. Under this alternative, placement of the storage building on site would pot be considered an expansion or intensification of the use; therefore, there would be no upgrades made to the site such as development of paved areas, curb and gutter, landscaping, etc. If it is determined that it is likely that the ftiel depot will remain on site for years to come, then perhaps the Planning Commission should grant the variance contingent on Michaelis complying with all other aspects of the zoning ordinance, including providing landscaping, a paved service area, curb and gutter, etc. In addition, a separate zoning ordinance amendment should be drafted which would enable outside storage as proposed by Michaelis.(U-14.6% i / i s cle4ow+i.ed lrwt ft arm h�0alwv i bat^ osVd ie4 e,.+s►dr 146f& f- AA. a'#,$ a /6041 ne.ta+i. Motion to dny the variance to the yard setback �quiremeat. u«� Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding that reasonable use of the property can be achieved without the variance. In addition, there are numerous zoning ordinance violations and problems with soils that would need to be corrected before or in conjunction with development of the storage building. Furthermore, this alternative would seem to make sense if it is the goal of the Planning Commission to ultimately relocate the fuel depot to another location. Also, if Planning Commission deems the development of a storage building as an expansion of a current non- conforming use, then at a minimum, even with the variance, all other aspects of the site would need to be brought up to code. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is withheld pending review of associated Sunny Fresh planning study. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of site plan prepared by Jeff Michaelis. 0 e4 J /If r Y sQ t. 4., K I � 0-14 A 250 Eur Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 October 12, 1994 Phone (612) 2952711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 Fax: (612) 2954404 Mr. Jeff Michaelis PO Bo:608 Montle eUo, MN 6658 Dear Jet This is to inform you that I received a memo from John P—ole. dated October 7, 1994, which outlined his concerns regarding the variance granted to you by the Planning Commission hr development of the storage building that you proposed. Due to the fact that the variance request has been aPDaled, it will be necessary for the City Council to formally consider the matter at their regular meeting scheduled for October 24, 1994. For your information, I have attached the memo from John Simola outlining his concerns regarding the variance. If you should have any questions please give me a call. Sincerely, CITY OF MONTICELLO "-*O'%lYIYUd Jeff ONaill Assistant Administrator JO/jb Enclosure cc: Rick Wolfitellar, City Administrator John Simola, Public Worse Director Gary Anderson, Building Official 6 150 Eau Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295.2711 d B O Metro: (612) 333.5739 Fax: (612) 295.4404 T0, Jeff O'Neil PROrl. John Simols DATEe October 7. 1994 BLr Variance/Temporary Building I Bulk Station on BNR Property It is my opinion that the city staff stwuld ask the council to reconsider the variance granted to Jeff Michaelis by the Planning Commission. I believe staff should ask for reconsideration for the following ressons, 1. The granting of this variance could set a precedence that may be difficult to deal with in the future. 2. It seems unlikely that it would be legal to have such a building removed from the BNA property in the future. 3. Variances involving building constructions shouldonly be granted toproperty owners (not renters or lessors). 4. The BNR bulk site soils nay be contesim[ed with petroleum products and. if so. could represent a threat to our main municipal water supply approximately 11 - 1400 feet to the northeast. also, this could endanger the public safety. 5. If the property to contaminated, the placement of the building on this property could unreasonably delay clean-up and result in higher relocation costs for the owner if relocation in deemed necessary. 6. City staff has been working with BNB Sad the bulk plant operstoro fur elmoat two years in an attempt to have a soil investigation performed to determine the extent of contamination (if any). I feel this should be performed prior to any further building un theae lots or the Sunny Presh property immediately to the north. J8/bg 6 Council Agenda - 10/24/94 8. Ponsl¢erat_q!Aof zoning ordinanog amendments nerteinino to the dein Fprme development or000sal Aunlicant. Togy Emmerich/David Klein. AND 9. Consider jition of sloumvpl of oreliminary olgt—Klein Farms subdivision. ADnlicant. Tonv Emmerich/David ®ein. (J.OJ A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUtM. Emmerich Rezoning As you know, this item was continued from the previous meeting and discussed at the recent special meeting due to the potential of litigation. Information on possible amendments to Emmerich's rezoning application is not available at this time. I hope to have an update at the meeting. For your convenience, staff has copied the information from the previous agenda item. (Section #8) Klein Farms 1?reliminary 13A As you recall, this item was continued at the previous meeting pending resolution of the related zoning issue. Following is a copy of the agenda information provided on this topic at the previous meeting. Alternative actions remain the same. (Section #9) .L ,r r� i� Council Agenda - 10/10/94 Consideration of amendments to the official zoniny maD and considerption of establishment of zoning district designations and boundaries in conignction with annexation reguest. Pirouosed is p Shane iq zoning dpi Mct designations fiom AO (agricultasal) to R-1. R.Z. and R3 zoning district designations. ADDllcanL E & K Deveiooment. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In conjunction with development of the Klein Farms preliminary plat and associated annexation request, E & K Development is requesting amendments to the official zoning map as noted on the attached copy of the preliminary plat. The zoning map amendments requested are identical to the land use designations approved during the review and update of the comprehensive plan completed in conjunction with the associated rezoning of the land to the west previously owned by Kent ltjellberg (see attached Council meeting minutes from 6/9/94). As you know, when property is annexed to the city, it is annexed under the agricultural uses unless specific action is taken to bring the property into the city under a different zoning designation. The petition for annexation submitted by the applicant is contingent on the approval of the preliminary plat and associated zoning district boundaries. Please note that in conjunction with the rezoning request, City Council will soon be reviewing a zoning ordinance amendment requiring establishment of a buffer yard between industrial and residential zoning districts. A copy of the first draft of the buffer yard ordinance specifically tailored to buffer industrial and residential uses is provided as a Council update for your review. The Planning Commission tabled action on the buffer yard ordinance pending ticrther review. It is hoped that the Planning Commission review will be completed at the November meeting of the Planning Commission and then forwarded to the City Council accordingly. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the rezoning request in coWunction with the preliminary plat and petition for annexation of the Klein property. Under this alternative, the motion could be based on finding that the rezoning as proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with the geography and character of the area given the 0 Council Agenda - 10/10/94 presence of the Little Mountain School and the impending establishment of a buffer yard requirement. The finding could also refer to the demonstrated need for the land use involved. Motion to deny the rezoning request in conjunction with the preliminary plat and petition for annexation of the Klein property. This alternative should be considered if the City Council believes that the zoning map amendment as presented is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, or denial could be based on a finding relating to geography and character of the area, demonstrated need for the amendment, or the likelihood of depreciation of adjoining land values. Under this alternative, a companion motion to call for a public hearing to amend the comprehensive plan designating other land uses at the Klein property would be appropriate. C. STAF It is the view of City staff that the zoning district alignment was reviewed at great length only a few months ago. It was determined at that time by the City Council that the zoning district designations as requested by the developer were appropriate for the area. Little has occurred in the past few months that'would appear to justify a change in the City's position with regard to proper land use in this area. Therefore, City staff recommends approval of the rezoning request as proposed. See preliminary plat which outlines proposed zoning district designations; Copy of comprehensive plan excerpt; Copy of W/94 Council minutes. OCT -23-94 TUE 02042 RM�- �- TONY EMMERICH H -- , HOMES October 24, 1994 Honorable Mayor City Council It appears that the amended comp. plan and our plan or development can still work under a R -PUD zoning for Klein Perms. If the P.U.D. zoning will satisfy the concerns or the opposition on the Council, we are willing to amend our application 4acrdingly. erely 6mmorichK Development "SO c.... a.&b a+..&. Dube gal. Com Ram. MN 55433 NOTES: on . -k of MaP KLEIN FARMS I (PROPOSED ZONING KAP) OUTLOT A R- CUTT sl� T— 2 OUTLO C, im . I: ��:. - ��--__.�_�_._-_ P A_ yip l r�-. _ � -�.�. �; MIN FARMS PRELIMINARY PLAT RI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL QR2 SINGLE & 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTtf. PLANIMII; GUIUILSSIUil HIiGU;UlEiil!;;I Lull - Laud use decisivus and pLau ul a�Li1... I. Green Area - Emmerich rezoning request (Recommendation - Adopt) 2. Yellow Area - Klein Comprehensive Plan (Recommendation - Adopt) 7. Blue Area - Hoglund/Lundsten rezone (Recommendation - Table for further study) 'LAN OF ACTION: a. Complete comprehensive plan update - Identify future industrial areae. b. Update zoning district regulations - Maintain diversity of industrial land. c. Develop plan for extending utilities to Hoglund site. d. Update district regulations governing development in Regional Commercial District. e. Require intense berming by ordinace to separate industrial from residential uses. f. Transportation system design/subdivision design to separate conflicting uses. g. Improve linkages between commercial areas. I. Improve traffic flow on Hwy 25 via improved signal timing. 2. Re -align Cedar Street to improve land utilization. 7. Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass I._;- Ap 9 1r�;g l�jllM'\ E IST NG• IND 1 STIll Al Iataduseri i ��� SO2 Multiple amily `�Buelneas x"502 Two Family Single family homes " tittle Mnfn Schoo). r School Boulevard A Single family home. Perfortance y. Ione Cr Multi fam a f j Council Minutes - ti *� 10. Consideration of Emmerich/lGein rezonine%omnrehensive plan amendment request. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the steps leading to Council consideration of this matter. He noted that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 3, which was continued to April b and to May 3. This provided a good opportunity for information and issues to be reviewed and addressed. In addition to the three Planning Commission meetings, there was a joint meeting held on March 30, at which time information regarding the request was provided to various commissions and local organizations. In his presentation, O'Neill noted that the plan calls for placing residential uses next to I-2 uses, which appear to create a confect in land uses. O'Neill noted that the Planning Commission researched this issue with other cities and determined that a practical level of isolation can be achieved between these two uses through installation of berms and landscaping and by separating residential and industrial road systems. He also reported that the Planning Commission looked carefully at the need to preserve additional industrial land for future development. The Planning Commission examined the option of developing at least 60 acres of the Klein property for industrial development, with the balance being developed for multi -family and single family uses. As a result of their review, it was their finding that, given the present absorption rate of industrial land, the present supply (236 acres) is adequate to address our short- and medium-term needs, and that time is available that will allow the City to explore industrial development in areas currently located in the township or located on the NSP property in the city. O'Neill went on to review a finance plan associated with installation of utilities to the i(lein site and described costa associated with preserving the northern half of the Klein site for industrial uses. In order to develop the southern half of the Klein property for residential use, utilities will need to be extended through the northern half of the property, and Fallon Avenue and School Boulevard will need to be installed. According to the City Engineer, the cost for improvements associated with extending utilities and roads through the industrial area are over $400,000. O'Neill went on to outline the Planning Commission's recommendation, which was to approve both the Emmerich rezoning and the Klein comprehensive plan amendments. Reasons for support of the proposal are as follows. Industrial Land Inventory. Currently there am 236 acres of industrial land in the city. In addition, the City owns 60 acres of primo industrial land currently located in the township. The rate of absorption of available industrial land provides sufficient time for the City to develop industrial sites at a more isolated location. Page 6 S Council Minutes - 6/9/94 2. Proper transition and a practical level of isolation from I-2 and A-3 uses can be achieved through installation of berming and landscaping and through separation of roadway systems. 3. The City needs to provide land to serve needs of regional commercial enterprises. The plan proposed will provide the land necessary and will encourage development of School Boulevard, which will support development of a regional business district at the location as proposed. 4. Utility/Road System Financing. The plan as proposed will encourage developer -financing of School Boulevard, Fallon Avenue, water main, and trunk sanitary sewer systems. 6. The Emmerich site is currently zoned for single family uses, which is inappropriate given the location on Highway 25 and the presence of pipeline and power line easements. The highest and best use for this land area is for commercial purposes as proposed. 6. The Township generally supports the plan as presented. 7. The developer supports the modifications made to the plan by the Planning Commission. O'Neill went. on to note reasons for possible denial of the request. Industrial land in the city is finite. Despite the fact that a good supply of industrial land is available to handle our short-term needs, we still may want to hold onto this area for long-term considerations. There are no guarantees that the City will be able to work with the Township in development of the industrial area for the fixture. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has expressed an interest in establishing a finance plan to support the preservation of industrial land. This is an option that has not been fully explored. Council may wish to table the matter to provide time for the developer and the HRA to come to terms on a possible method for preserving the industrial land on the lilein site. Finally. O'Neill went on to outline important steps that the Planning Commission recommends in an effort to address the city-wide land use issues that have been raised during the process of reviewing the request. The list of follow-up activities include: Page 7 O Council Minutes - 519/94 a. Complete comprehensive plan update. Identify future industrial areas. Work closely with the Township on this matter. b. Update zoning district regulations. Maintain diversity of industrial land types for various industrial/office uses. C. Develop plans forLpendi ng utilities to existing industrial lands, including the Gladys Hoglund site. d. Update B-4 district regulations governing development in regional commercial district. e. Require intense berming by ordinance to separate industrial from residential uses. f. Complete transportation system designs and subdivision designs in a manner separating conflicting uses. g. Improve linkages between commercial areas: Work with the State Highway Department to improve traffic flow on Hwy 25 via improved signal timing. Realign Cedar Street to improve land utilization. Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass. Clint Herbst mentioned his concern regarding the planning process used. I was his view that too many long-term issues regarding future development of industrial areas remain unanswered and that the City would be wise to table the matter pending completion of an update to the comprehensive plan. Brad Fyle indicated that he supports the work done by the Planning Commission. In his view, R-1 development at the Iijellberg site is a bad idea; development of regional commercial at this location is more practical as proposed in the plan. He also noted that Planning Commission did a thorough job of researching methods of separating industrial from residential uses through buffering systems. Patty Olsen explained that she intends on voting on this matter due to the fact that she has no conflict of interest. She informed Council that her involvement in the property ended when she was paid for her work as real estate agent when the land closed two months ago. If the vote would have come up before the closing, she would not have been able to vote at that time. She also mentioned that she is a salaried employee of a company other than Emmerich's company and in no way directly benefits Brom any decision to approve the request. Page 8 Council Minutes - 6/8/94 Shirley Anderson indicated that the Planning Commission made a strong attempt to satisfy the concerns of all those that provided input, and it was her view that the plan as proposed is the best alternative available. She also noted that the City Attorney has reviewed Olsen's participation in the matter and, given the facts as presented, has determined that Olsen is eligible to vote. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to accept the rezoning request as submitted based on the finding that the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the -character and geography of the area, will not result in depreciation of adjoining land values, and there is a demonstrated need for the types of land uses proposed as opposed to the existing zoning which is currently R^1. Voting in favor: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith. Opposed: Clint Herbst. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 249. At this point in the meeting, a 6 -minute recess was taken. When the meeting reconvened, discussion ensued regarding the Klein property. 011ie Koropchak noted that during the past week she received a number of contacts from various industrial users interested in Monticello. She also reminded the Council that the HRA is interested in working with the City and the developer toward development of a finance plan that would u� support preservation of the Klein property for industrial use. She also , noted that the Chamber of Commerce met on Friday to discuss the matter, j tY and the Chamber recommended that the item be tabled to allow time for development of a plan to allow use of TIF to preserve the Klein property for �•p''� industrial uses. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Patty Olsen to amend the comprehensive plan as recommended by the Planning Commission by specifically identifying land uses as requested by Klein with the exception that the R-3 uses proposed to the north and west sides of the property be reduced to a 60/50 split between R-3 and R-2 uses. Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Council then reviewed the important planning tasks listed by the Planning Commission that need to be completed in the near future to address concerns voiced by various organizations that have provided input on this matter. Alter discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Patty Olsen to authorize City staff to address the items as follows. Page 9 v Council Minutes - 6/9194 a. Complete comprehensive plan update. Identify future industrial areas. Work closely with the Township on this matter. b. Update zoning district regulations. Maintain diversity of industrial land types for various industruNoff'ice uses. C. Develop plans for pending utilities to existing industrial lands, including the Gladys Hoglund site. d. Update B-4 district regulations governing development in regional commercial district. e. Require intense berming by ordinance to separate industrial from residential uses. f. Complete transportation system designs and subdivision designs in a meaner separating conflicting uses. g. Improve linkages between commercial areas: 1) Work with the State Highway Department to improve traffic flow on Hwy 26 via improved signal timing. 2) Realign Cedar Street to improve land utilization. '3) Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass. 4) Pursue upgrading Highwy 25 to a 4 -lane highway. Motion carried unanimously. Council Agenda - 10/10/94 CoMideratign of approval of "Klein Farms" oreliminary plat. Aniolicant. E & K Development. (10.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan at their September meeting and conducted a public hearing on the plat at their meeting on October 4. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the plat per alternative M1. Following is a brief review of the plat along with identification of issues that the Council should be aware of. The Klein Farms preliminary plat encompasses 80 acres and is located north of the future School Boulevard and between Fallon Avenue and Edmundson Avenue (County Road 117). The plat calls for development of 107 single family dwellings in the area designated for R•1 uses. The residential development will occur in two or three phases, with the first phase consisting of about 40 lots. Outlot A (7.8 acres) is designated for R-2 uses. It is proposed that 48 units be developed at this location creating a density of 6.2 unita/acre. Outlot B (10.3 acres) is also designated for the R-2 zoning district and will contain 80 units creating a density of 7.8 units/acre. Outlot C (8.2 acres) is proposed to be designated under R-3 uses, which will net 44 units or 6 units/acre. Lying to themorth of the property is the Oakwood Industrial Park. According to the proposed buffer yard ordinance, it will be required that a buffer yard be built along the northern boundary of Outlots B and A to mitigate conflicts between residential and industrial uses. The construction of the buffer yard in this case is the responsibility of the Klein/Emmerich development. Emmerich has indicated that the buffer yard will be constructed simultaneous to development of the single family residential area and will not wait until development of the two R-2 outiots adjoining the industrial area. To the east of the site is Little Mountain School. An effort will be made to make sure that a crosswalk to the school property is situated at a logical location. It is likely that the crosswalk will be located at the point where the Klein Farma' access drive meets Fallon Avenue. To the south of the property is School Boulevard, which will be constructed simultaneous to development of the first phase of development of the Klein Farms property. According to Emmerich, the LU length of School Boulevard from Highway 26 to Fallon Avenue will be constructed next year. Construction of this roadway will greatly relieve traffic congestion at the Intersection of Oakwood Drive and Highway 26 and divert residential/achool traffic away from Oakwood Park industrial areas. According to the Council Agenda - 10/10/94 information provided, School Boulevard is constructed to state aid standards for a 36-40 mph road. It includes development of an 84 off-road bituminous pathway, which is consistent with the pathway plan for the city. To the west of the site is Edmundson Avenue and a business campus zone. The roadway separation between R-3 and BC uses helps to mitigate negative impacts between the two. It appears, therefore, that a logical transition in land use is accomplished at this location. The development of the property is somewhat hampered by the presence of a Northern Natural Gas Company pipeline extending through the property from north to south. The alignment of the lots and roadways are somewhat dictated by the presence of this pipeline. There are a few double -fronting lots on the plan along School Boulevard that are relatively short (146 ft). The developer has made an effort to mitigate this problem by proposing a 44 berm along the School Boulevard right-of-way to mitigate the impact of School Boulevard on such lots. There are also double -fronting lots along Fallon Avenue that have a depth of 166 it, which is about 26 ft deeper than the double -fronting Iota at the Cardinal Hills subdivision. L y Y The utility plan is currently under review by the City Engineer. According to the City Engineer, development of the property appears feasible. It is not likely that further analysis of the utility plan and adjustments made will result in substantive changes to the plat. Therefore, it appears appropriate to review the preliminary plat prior to approval of the utility plans as presented. It has also been determined that an environmental assessment worksheet will need to be prepared and submitted to the Environmental Quality Board for review and comment. This requirement will delay approval of the final plat at least 46 days. 44; "16Ji"Ir According to the developer, he is open to financing the project using private funds as done with the Oak Ridge project, or he is willing to develop the site as a City project. He has also noted that he is willing to follow the precedent for ihnding School Boulevard set by the School District and Value Plus Homes, which calls Ar the developer finding approximately 80% and the City funding 20% attributable to oversizing the road to serve city-wide needs. Council Agenda - 10/10/94 PARK DEVELOPMENT The developer is required to provide 8 acres of park land with this 80 -acre plat. In addition, another 8 acres will need to be provided with development of the area south of School Boulevard. The Parks Commission has met on two separate occasions regarding the IGein Farms preliminary plat. It is the view of the Planning Commission that the entire 160 -acre site, including the north 80 acres and south 80 acres can be best served by developing a single relatively large centralized athletic complex to be located at a position adjacent to and south of School Boulevard. The precise location for the park has not been established at this time; however, the developer has agreed to provide 16 acres of park land at a location outside of power line easement areas. It is the view of the Parks Commission that short-term development of park area on the 80 acres north of School Boulevard is not necessary at this time due to the fact that Little Mountain School is available to provide for necessary open space for the short-term. In addition, the Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires private park facilities for multi -family developments that could occur in Outlot C. Outlots B and A are medium density developments, and it is not likely that such developments would provide private park areas. FALLON AVENUE Redevelopment of Fallon Avenue should be considered to coincide with the development of phase I. It is anticipated that the cost to upgrade this roadway will be shared by the adjoining property owners. As with School Boulevard, it is likely that the City will need to consider financing oversizing expenses. � e WILA Y As mentioned earlier, the School Boulevard pathway will provide the major east/west pathway corridor for residents living in the subdivision. Pointe of destination include the school campus to the east and the future commercial area to the west. The internal road system will be built with a 36 -ft wide road surface, which will enable safe movement of pedestrians from within the subdivision to the pathway alongside the heavily -traveled School Boulevard. In addition, it is suggested that a pathway be constructed at a location connecting Blocks 4 and 3. Such a pathway would connect the west half of the dovelopment area to the internal road system linking the west side of the subdivision to Little Mountain School. Such a pathway would allow people living in the western half of the plat to walk to Little Mountain School without having to walk all the way down to School Boulevard and back up Fallon Avenue. It should be noted that there may be a problem with establishing this pathway due to limitations in grading and crossing(� the Northern Natural Gas Company pipeline. _ 1 Council Agenda - 10/10/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to recommend granting approval of the preliminary plat of the Klein Farms subdivision. Motion is contingent on 1) approval of the utility plans by the City Engineer, 2) developer making modifications to the plat as suggested during the course of the meeting; 3) developer entering a development agreement guaranteeing development of the park area south of School Boulevard; 4) negative declaration of environmental impact resulting from the EAW process; 5) approval of final plat from the County and affected oil and power companies; and 6) finalization of description of project phasing and associated financing. Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat of the Nein Farms subdivision. This alternative should be selected if the developer is not willing to make requested and reasonable changes or unwilling to satisfy contingencies. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat in some detail and can generally confirm that the preliminary plat meets the minimum requirements of the subdivision ordinance. It is suggested that the City Council review the plan in detail with the developer, make suggested changes where appropriate, and unless major modifications are needed, it appears appropriate to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with contingencies as noted. Copy of Klein Farms preliminary plat. M 12 TOTAL AREA . 00.11 ACRES I= 107 SINGLE PAMILY LOTS 1 0vTFV LCT I;AM SINGLE FAMILY 7 OUTLOTS - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING THENORTH HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTO Of SECTION 1e IS CURRENTLY OUTSIDE OF THR CITY LIMITS OF MONTICELLO. PROPOSED ZONING ' Parcel Area leereal Pr000ee�ion(na Outlot A 7. s10 •rM•a 7-.As1 Ra oltI r B 10. 110 ~-1 p•! Outlot C 0. 71��wr.0.�rn/<I R•1 Out lot D 7.e R-1 SLngle Faelly Ma.7 1Wrr4n •i�rM./al R-1 School Blvd. l.7 Edeonaon Avenue 1.3 Fallon Avenue 1.S MINIMUM R-1 REOUI REMEHTS MINIMUM LOT AREA - 17,000 E0. FT. MIHIMIM FRONT SETBACK - 10 FEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 10 FEET Mimi mum REAR YARD BCIBACK - 70 Per?MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SCI'B1" - e0 ruT DESLRIPTIOH Of PROPERTY The North halt at the southeast Quarter of section 1e. Tovns4ip 171, Range 79, Wright County, M11Lfeacts. O Kle'lit F rm S NOTES:... ,ck of map KLELN FARMS } ---------------- - T CCTICT C • , .,L ♦ n a a ✓Q /1 1 b \ .IC 2 �'iD • 0 /1; a � IIS � -- r' f - �: •'+�� r r'� . �\ i" � � _ � ! '�c Y �. ' •; .�' •'. �T �•� a� 'i i of �•.. •� � KLEIN '... 'I a „ FA MS '� rti •. � U PRELIMINARY LAT 1 PARS LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED Council Agenda - 10/24/94 10. Consideration of awarding bids on uurchase of new onmuer fire truck. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In March of 1994, the Council authorized the Joint Fire Board to prepare plans and specifications for the purchase of a new pumper and rescue fire truck. For the past few years, the City has been budgeting $35,000 annually toward the anticipated purchase of a new truck in the year 1994 or 1996. Through 1994, the City has earmarked $70,000 for the eventual purchase, and it is estimated the City's share of the truck will be 213 of the cost, with Monticello Township paying for 1/3. The plans and specifications were recently completed, and the Joint Fire Board advertised for bids returnable Monday, October 17. The fire department received time bids for the new truck ranging in price from $223,621 to $266,967. In addition, an alternate was requested for a rear suction option on the truck, and those prices added an additional $3,000 to $4,000, depending on which bid was selected. The apparent low bidder was from 3D Manufacturing Company of Shawano, Wisconsin (near Green Bay). Members of the fire department are currently reviewing the bid proposals to ensure that the bids match specifications, and it appears that the 3D proposal will meet our specifications as outlined. The new fire truck will be a custom-made aluminum cab and storage compartment 4 -door truck capable of 1,600 gallons per minute pumping capacity with a 1,000 gallon water tank. The 4 -door vehicle should have the capability of transporting 6 firemen. The Joint Department is recommending that the City and Township accept the low bid from 3D in the amount of $226,521, which includes the rear suction option alternate. Delivery time is expected within 270-300 days. Based on this bid price, the City's share of the purchase is estimated to be around $160,000, which is in line with what we were expecting. As part of the 1996 budget, we had included $80,000 in the capital outlay fund to go along with the $70,000 we had previously earmarked toward this eventual purchase. 1 believe the Monticello Township has likewise been earmarking funds for this eventual purchase. If the City Council is in agreement with accepting the low bid, the Monticello Township Board will also be asked to approve the purchase before we enter into the contract. If both jurisdictions agree, the truck will then be ordered for delivery within 9.10 months. Council Agenda - 10/24/94 One option available to the Joint Fire Board is to pre -pay for the purchase of the vehicle and receive a discount of approximately 6.16%. As part of the bid proposal, the manufacturer would be requiring the fire department to pay for a portion of the truck purchase when the chassis is delivered in approximately five months. The estimated cost at that time would be $110,000 that would be required to be paid. When factoring in the chassis payment in five months, the equivalent return of paying for the entire vehicle in advance is calculated at approximately 7.6%, which appears to be a higher rate of return than what we could receive by simply investing our funds until the truck was completed. If we would pay in advance, we would have to require a performance bond from the manufacturer to ensure delivery of the truck. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Accept the low bid from 31) Manufacturing in the amount of $226,621 as recommended by the Joint Fire Board. The purchase of this vehicle would be contingent upon receiving Monticello Township approval for their estimated 1/3 of the cost. 2. Reject the bids. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Monticello Joint Fire Board met Wednesday evening to review the bids received and is recommending that the low bid from 3D Manufacturing be accepted in the amount of $226,621, which includes the rear suction option. The low bid is fairly close to our original estimates of $220,000 to $226,000; and since our funds will be available by 1896, the purchase is still recommended. It is anticipated that the Monticello Township Board will consider this award on Monday, November 7, and any decision by the Council will be subject to their approval also. In regard to the option of pro -paying for the vehicle to receive a discount, it does appear that this option would provide us a better return than simply investing our fiinde, but the timing as far as cash flow is concerned could be a problem not only for the City but also for the Township. We may have additional information available for the Council Monday night concerning this option. Bid tabulation Corm. X BID TABULATION FOR CUSTOM ALUMINUM PUMPER TRUCK FOR MONTICELLO JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT Bids Opened: 2 p.m., October 17, 1994 FIRESID.WK4: 10/19194 Alternate Old—Rear No. of Old Base Suction Days for Company, Name security Bid Option Delivery (General Safety Equipment X $234,613 $3,675 300-350 Custom Fire I3D Manufacturing X $223.521 $3,000 270-300 IClarev's Safetv Equipment X $256,967 $4,000 300 IE -One lTom Conway Truck & Equipment FIRESID.WK4: 10/19194 Council Agenda - 10/24/94 11. Consideration of a r. guest to review newly edonted cigarette U _easing ordinance for possible amendments -Monticello retailers. (R.WJ A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND In July, 1994, the Council adopted a fairly comprehensive tobacco ordinance that not only requires annual licenses fi-om all retailers, but virtually eliminated customer access to cigarettes and tobacco products without the assistance of a store clerk. In addition, the ordinance is very restrictive on vending machines in public places requiring machines to be operated by tokens or an electronic switch device by a store employee. The ordinance as adopted is to become effective January 1, 1995. After adoption of the ordinance, the City notified all current vendors of cigarette products within the city limits, including those with known vending machines. Each retailer was notified of the newly -adopted ordinance and the requirements that will take effect January 1. Since the notification, I have received a few complaints from area retailers, primarily convenience store operators, concerned over the ordinances prohibiting self-service access to single packs of cigarettes, which you may typically have found on counters near cash registers or in other convenient locations for the customer. I have also heard comments that the retailers felt it was unfair that they were not given an opportunity to present arguments against the ordinance or to present their side of the issue. Probably the most damaging section of the ordinance, as far as the retailer is concerned, is the requirement that all cigarettes must be sold by an employee and not available for direct access by the customer. I believe the real intent of this section of the ordinance was to eliminate the shoplifting potential, which is assumed to be the most common way for youngsters to get access to cigarettes. The thought was that by eliminating displays of single packs of cigarettes and requiring them to be behind a counter, children wouldn't be as able to access cigarettes by shoplifting and would also be unlikely to make a purchase. While I certainly understand the retailers' coneem over lost revenue they aro paid by Wbacco companies for prominently displaying certain brands of cigarettes, I do believe the intent of the ordinance was appropriate in eliminating the temptation of shoplifting cigarettes by youngsters. One effect the ordinance apparently has is also to require all carton sales to occur with the assistance of a store clerk. The ordinance does not specify single pack assistance but refers to all cigarette and tobacco products. Although I'm sure that there are professional theft rings and occasional juveniles that may attempt to shoplift a carton of cigarettes, there may be Council Agenda - 10/24/94 some merit in conforming the ordinance in regard to self-service prohibition of single pack cigarettes, but possibly an amendment could be considered allowing carton sales on the self-service method if they are in plain view of a responsible employee. The reason for this suggestion is that I don't think the major problem with shoplifting occurs by youngsters in theft of cartons of cigarettes but rather is geared toward single pack shoplifting. After being notified of the City's new ordinance, some Monticello retailers apparently enlisted the help of an attorney through the Minnesota Coalition of Responsible Retailers, Mr. Tom Briant. Some of the Monticello retailers met with Mr. Briant to discuss what action they could persue in regard to this ordinance and, as a result, requested the right to appear before the City Council to have us reevaluate our ordinance. Enclosed with the agenda is a letter from Mr. Briant outlining their concerns and suggesting a few changes to our ordinance that would in effect allow all tobacco products to again be sold through a self-service method. As I noted earlier, there may be some merit to a revision in the ordinance concerning carton sales, if you would agree with my logic, but to generally amend the ordinance to allow also single service pack displays, etc., would seem unnecessary at this time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Council could, after hearing comments from the retailers, leave the ordinance as originally adopted, prohibiting self-service access to cigarettes. 2. Council could agree to amend the ordinance as requested, requiring all retailers to certify that their employees have received training on the laws pertaining to the sale of tobacco products and also amend the ,r ordinance to again allow self-service merchandising of tobacco products that are in plain view of a responsible employee. Council could modify the ordinance in such a manner that would allow carton sales to be through self-service but all other single pack sales still to be assisted through a store clerk. While our newly adopted ordinance is certainly quite comprehensive in an attempt to eliminate access of cigarettes to minors, l do not necessarily believe that requiring retailers to certify on their annual license application that all employees have been trained will eliminate youth from gaining access to cigarettes. If this is one of the real intents of this ordinance, the way it is 07+ Council Agenda - 10/24/94 currently drafted should certainly accomplish this goal more so than allowing tobacco products to be sold that happen to be reasonably close to an employees view. When single packs are easily accessible by the public, shoplifting is certainly going to be higher than they are if they are sold only from behind a counter. When the Monticello retailers were recently meeting regarding this ordinance, former Mayor Ken Maus submitted a letter to the City Council indicating his support for the current ordinance. I personally believe that as time goes on, more and more communities, states, and even nationally will enact ordinances that have strong language concerning access to tobacco products. D. SUPPORTING DAT,&: Copy of request by Monticello retailers; Copy of letter from former Mayor Maus; Copy of current cigarette ordinance. =COa4ELIA 6UILDINC 4W WEST 65TH STREET 311SNEAPOLLS, %%N'NESOTA SWS THOMAS A. BRIANT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTOWNEY AT LAW October 11, 1994 Mayor Brad Pyle Council Member Warren Smith Council Member Shirley Anderson Council Member Clint Herbst Council Member Dan Blonigen Monticello City Hall 250 Hast Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 RHs Monticello Tobacco Ordinance TELEPHONE MU) 925-30M FACSLNILE 16u1925.4223 Dear Mayor Pyle and Council Members Smith, Anderson, Herbst and Blonigens I represent the Minnesota Coalition of Responsible Retailers. As the legal counsel for the Coalition, I have been working with Monticello retailers on the recently adopted tobacco ordinance. On October 4th, I met with the Monticello retailers who are concerned about the impact of the tobacco ordinance on their business and who want to work with you to explore possible alternatives that would achieve the common goal of not selling tobacco products to minors. The retailers have scheduled time on the October 24th City Council meeting agenda to tell you about their concerns and discuss several ideas they have that would change the ordinance but still be effective in preventing the sale of tobacco products to persons under 18. The key issues for the retailers are as follows: 1. Placing all tobacco products behind the counter will have a negative financial impact on retailers because manufacturer advertising display revenues will be lost. Many kinds of manufacturers (soft drink companies, juice companies and dairies) provide advertising display payments to retailers. The advertising display payments from tobacco companies ars significant and losing the payments would have a direct impact on a retailer's profitability. 2. At least for one retailer, E -Mart, placing all tobacco behind the store counter would require extensive 0 remodeling at significant cost since the carton racks are currently on the store floor. However, the &-Mart racks currently have plexiglas shields covering the product so that only one carton can be removed from the rack at a time. The retailers have the same goal of not selling tobacco products to minors as do all of you. The real issue is training store clerks to require identification of persons that may be under age in order to prevent sales to minors. If we assume that most minors do not have the $18.00 to $44.00 it costs to buy a carton of cigarettes, then minora will most likely attempt to buy one or two packs at a time. Whether the packs are on shelves behind the store counter or are contained in self-service display racks or shelf unite on the store floor, the minor still needs the assistance of a store clerk. To buy a pack or two of cigarettes, the minor must either ask for a store clerk's help if the packs are behind the counter or hand the packs to the store clerk if they were obtained from a self-service display. In both casae, the determining factor as to whether that minor is allowed to buy the cigarettes or is prevented from buying the cigarettes is the intervention of the store clerk. The real question then becomes •Does the store clerk sell the cigarettes to the minor or request identification and prevent the sale of cigarettes to the store clerk?• To achieve the goal of reducing the access of minors to tobacco products, we need to work cooperatively with you and emphasise employee training. At the October 4th meeting, I learned that some retailers already have an in-house clerk training program for all employees which includes instructions on how not to sell tobacco products to minors. These in-house programa include employee training, manuals and video tapes. In addition, the Monticello retailers have also been provided employee training materials (video training tapes, signs and employee acknowledgement forms) as a means to properly train clerks and prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors. As an alternative to the existing ordinance, the Monticello retailers request that you consider amending the ordinance as followsi 1. Require retailers to certify on their annual tobacco license application that all of their employees have bean trained regarding the laws pertaining to the sale of tobacco products. All retailers should be given the opportunity to implement a training program to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors. The best way to prevent sales to minors is to support store clerks by properly training employees on how not to sell tobacco products to minors. 4. Allow tobacco products to be sold through self-service 9 merchandising provided that the products are in the plain view of a responsible employee. The retailers believe that these proposed changes to the tobacco ordinance will prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors. These changes to the ordinance will minimise some of the impact on retailers and be a significant step toward preventing the sale of tobacco products to minors. The Monticello retailers want to genuinely cooperate with you to be a part of the solution to this problem. Thank you for your consideration of this request by the Monticello retailers. Sincerely yours, THMMS A. BRXANT' P.A. 'tea -6. A . a-:.e._...t Thomas A. Briant Attorney at Law cct Minnesota Coalition of Responsible Retailers Monticello Retailers September 28, 1994 City of Monticello: Mayor, City Council, and Staff RE: sale of tobacco products ordinance I will regretfully be out of state on October 4 for a meeting scheduled to discuss the above mentioned subject. As Monticello's major seller of tobacco products, and a resent local public official, I feel compelled to make comments toward this subject. As most of you know in December of 1992, Maus Foods took cigarettes voluntarily from a self serve atmosphere to a request for service atmosphere similar to that required in the new ordinance. This was done because; a: we felt an ordinance similar to this was just a matter of time, since we were hearing of other parts of the country doing it. b: theft was ever increasing and felt the only way to control it was to remove the product from accessibility. c: we noticed that the people we were apprehending were a high percentage of juveniles. Yes, we did impact the sale of cigarettes. And yes we did loose the display incentives offered by the cigarette manufactures, but everything considered I feel we did the right thing and would hope you would consider leaving the ordinance as -is. Sincerly; Ren Maus Maus Foods 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 give away 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 information 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 III/Chet 14/Pegs 1 3-14-4c 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 (50%) 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 first 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 sale any tobacco product by means of self-service merchandising other than through a licensed tobacco vending machine according to Section 3-14-6. 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: {61. (A) Violation of Section 3-1 (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 (16) years of age. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 14/Page Z II 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: 1. 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. A�r (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 MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chet 14/Page 3 ID waiting area, or similar unmonitored area; the tobacco vending machine shall be inaccessible to the public when the establishment is closed. 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 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. 3-14-10: 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. (0253, 7/23/94) MONTICAM CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 14/Page 4 Council Agenda - 10/24/94 12. Consideration of an offer for Durchase of Eastwood Knoll Prooertv (Meadow Oak Outlots C & D). (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On Friday, October 7, Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwartz, dba Investors Together, Inc., presented to me an offer to purchase the I&acre parcel of Outlots C & D of the original Meadow Oak Estates that the City is proposing to develop into Eastwood Knoll Residential Subdivision. I have enclosed a copy of the purchase agreement they presented, which on the surface seems somewhat attractive at a price of $175,000, but in reality, it turns out to be much less. As some of you may recall, Outlots C & D were acquired by the City through mortgage foreclosure from Ultra Homes to cover delinquent assessments in the original amount of $164,500. This figure does not include any penalties and interest that have accumulated over the last six to eight years but is strictly the City's investment in this property. In regard to the purchase offer for $175,000, the offer contains a number of contingencies that Investors Together, Inc. expect the City to provide or complete before they will go through with the purchase. To summarize, the conditions of the offer would require the City to complete the platting and recording of the proposed Eastwood Knoll plat containing at least 31 lots with the City incurring all past costs for platting and whatever it takes to finish the plat. This would amount to an estimated $16,000 in City expense. In addition to the recordable plat, they are requiring that the City complete all plans and specifications for the streets, storm sewer and all sewer and water utilities for the plat, which would cost approximately $30,000 or more in engineering fees. In addition to the above, the offer also is requiring the City to obtain the four platted lots of Meadow Oak Estates that lie between this plat and Meadow Oak Avenue and incorporate these parcels into the plat. One of the lots is necessary to complete the new road alignment that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council to eliminate traffic from all exiting through Meadow Oak Estates Subdivision. The estimated valuo of these existing Iota is estimated at a minimum of $16,600 each for a total cost to the City of $66,000. Although the City does not have to pay this amount of money to acquire the lots, we aro losing delinquent taxes and assessments of over $26,000 per lot if we throw these four lots into the package deal. At a minimum, these lots should each be worth at least $16,500 if they were just offered to the public at a reduced cost. Council Agenda - 10/24/94 As you can see, when you add up all the requirements that are conditions of this purchase offer, the City is really only getting about $64,000 for the Eastwood Knoll plat instead of the $175,000 offer. In light of the conditions attached to the purchase agreement, I am assuming the City Council would want to reject the offer as inadequate as presented. The staff is working with Denny Taylor, who is doing the plat for the City, and with our City Engineer in finalizing the plat. Once this is accomplished in the near future, it is anticipated the Council will be asked to authorize preparation of plans and specifications for streets and utilities under the final plat arrangement so that the City can continue with the project for bid letting in early 1995. While I preliminarily indicated to Investors Together, Inc. that I did not think the Council would be willing to accept their offer, the developers did indicate that they would like to see a counter proposal if their offer was not acceptable. My suggestion, based on previous discussion of this property, would be to recommend the following as a general target price that the Council would like to have proposed before considering the sale of the property. The suggested price is arrived at by the following: 1) Original city coat into acquiring Outlets C & D $ 164,500 2) If the 4 lots lying between the plat and Meadow Oak 49,500 Avenue are included in the purchase, 3 of the lots valued at $16,500 each should be included in the purchase price. 3) As part of the plat development, the City would absorb 0 the cost of the 1 lot adjacent to Meadow Oak Avenue that is needed for the new road alignment. 4) In addition to the above items, the buyer should assume 15,000 all costs the City has incurred so far platting the property and the City will finish the platting as proposed containing at least 31 residential lots. 5) As part of the purchase, the City would allow the 0 purchaser to utilize the City Engineer for completing the plans and specifications for all of the utility work with the costs for engineering to be absorbed by the developer. TOTAL $ 229,000 Council Agenda - 10/24/94 Based on the previous information, if the City is going to consider selling the 16 -acre plat in the hopes of not only getting back its original investment in the property but also other costs we have incurred during the platting process and the inclusion of additional lots along Meadow Oak Avenue, you can see the sale of the property should be somewhere around $229,000. If the Council is in agreement with rejecting the initial offer from Investors Together, Inc., the Council could propose a counter offer. Assuming the offer is rejected, the City staff is anticipating having the final plat available for Council approval in November, 1994. Upon final plat approval, the Council would then be asked to authorize the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the streets and utilities so that we can advertise the project for bids in early 1995 for early spring construction. As we have done in the past, the property would continue to be available for purchase by interested builders or developers, assuming an acceptable price can be obtained. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The Council could accept the purchase agreement offer as presented. Under this option, the Council would be agreeing to the acceptance of approximately $37,500 as net proceeds for the sale of this 16 -acre parcel, assuming the City has to meet all of the conditions outlined in the offer. 2. Council could reject the offer as inadequate and make a counter offer if it desired. Since we have previously rejected offers that are higher than this one, I would also recommend that this offer be rejected as inadequate. If the Council wishes to make a counter offer, I would recommend you review my suggested counter offer amount and the rational for my suggestion. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is my recommendation that the offer be rejected as inadequate in light of the numerous conditions attached to the proposal. If the City is going to attempt to get its original investment and all costs of development that we have spent to date returned in a sale, the sale price needs to be in the $229,000 area as I previously noted. Since it doesn't appear that we will be getting an offer for our asking price, I am recommending that we continuo with our plans to develop and improve the property ourselves. This appears to be the best way for the City to create a desirable neighborhood and recapture our investment in the property. 3 Council Agenda - 10!24/94 With more and more interest being shown in Monticello by outside developers from the Metro area, residential lots and land will only become more valuable in the neat few years. Although there are some drawbacks to this property, with it being near the freeway and adjacent to power lines, the wooded and rolling terrain still makes this a good site for residential development. If the City continues with this project, it appears feasible to expect that we can sell the lots at a price that is still competitive with other developments but still provide an area that should have larger -than -average lots suitable for a nice upscale development. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of purchase agreement proposal; Summary of proposed offer, Proposed counter offer summary; Estimate of developing properly as a completed subdivision; Copy of proposed plat. PURCHASE AGREEMENT Ib b.rn a(poea p a.r OArrieora A� d nEALiDnS'. M� da[IYne wl' try Mara d d ua P ossa d OY inn 1, Wb October S. 1991 2. Fogs 1 d F' Napes 0 RECEIVED OFInvestare_Together,.-InG._A_MLnnesots-Corpora[!^^_ y do d Tvo Thousand Five Rmdred a'd_No/100 ------ Dawn ($2.501D.00 e W E a —w to a b dapaaHtad open smeNanw d ttlaa NuApNmNa by Fnnb.. an a 7 bade Ula rrd b1Wro dna der ampbres. in • nm srcw M at 1.0% b.W but to he amnrd IS D.V. 0 Nations 6 AWWn%md a not araF by Ston. Sad aamne moray a pan pera b ob Wdmn d ae papwly k ma ■ 9 Saes 4""- ID Cey d _Monticello _ _ , C_4 d Vr1Nht StM d corned., 11 Logoydmpbdm See attecMd_pro-sed site elan (Fahibit Al u 13 i ckd sa ba+ao Ptyeny..—dry. a.rd a Sao LOM used and baba m ua PtOaM Pedbub. pats a nb. aid M bees: Moen an, am duan. eases and a.anp, ai —1- nm®. bin f. tale a d ttetwn d dnMc had am: saad bob 15 tia neand h";0lanbb9 fft a wcMw trent t00 plena hdw any b/nan. Orft oaaa and Cont as JVr sad n 16 common aw ft bubar a mndnarp aapnrd. eacaonic as Nes. Mates SoWw 0WWM / REWM / NOME, buain Nl "W 17 snd dslaldAe, 4+d Da tar and Come (d the property d So". MMT Pt" *%~ tlwvm a . cook ry pW a and WON. BUW-M: delemf s Wb9a dtTmn/ Gash cwrpadas parr Cook by Ot nappata wart!. hand tae. T9 ereacme. ATTACHED, carpelft adnora: 9mW don, apnan and NO masala: amad dngoton: Rwphea anasns, dodo and 20 heArAlo : AND: as toBwtrtp patapW PspM►: 21 — Vaaent 22 23 as d hch p oM , Sale has dna day aD.od ID .0 1. Outw tr num d ($ 173.000.00 1 Om Mmdrad Sovsnt7-N Ivo Thousand and No/100------------------------- Dal - 25 .ecn Buys epnr b pay in ale MM w V maria. Esme mm" d 9 2.300.00 29 and 9 _ _ 67x300.00 Can m AQril—1 Se�3 Nr dab d dmq, and 27 the beats 015 It0.000.00 - -- — - or b.— In s. -W— lode Me am c ad s".dan 29 Cawwniwns FMA VA Ana mVdm Gannet d Owl naw:. 29 Tye R -r— V—.10 6 MOF bpna b a Cp0Vw" SOMMMan (0 soma b M. as madrd adimdJn 1 0D Tb PVdrr AQaaraa Ig 1®Napa b ca—lbbwl d e pw'bdp weal PAd1a:e Apse—a 0.010 31 The Nacha s Apeanws 19 I®aLmpa b an Ygadgn Addardan p em— r E. Nee eadaa sddedm ) 32. A Kh d we LOW amords .tach as nen a pat d oe PuPchme Apana (Etta peps a p n on inn 2) st DEEDNIMU TANI TRIS: Upon owlannarc. oy Bow. Ben pW dna a ------------ warty Dose 34 pard h p %p 1 anyaphayep maWta idly. ailed b de (A) (Aadanp and 7m0 taw ard.wncee. mad Madan r WjW—. (B) Raadlpe dlae n b use a eW.-rwt d se pope W ww Se Mattes fa*Ue pwaarb, (Q RmwvaUcn d any re.wa nptta p M SW* d Moneela Ml Maly aid Sm Cop eealrntF ween Co nA 37 anaMn ,an amn2 aVwq n , (E) Rata at as was as Aha (LOnts wwftd. no wpad b tarana.al 39 (F) OUar. (MO be Iron wurp Q B ECTAL ASKS&MENTS sW te pad a theme y' 41 BUYER AND 9ELLER {HALL PRORM AS OF Tom Cla 09 i70is10ycucw /MALL RSV ONWR 09 ell eiOrwb 42 d CW W aoa c g C WJW In, papnara ata 0e ad OMM b M aid pap* b OM yen d Claalp N BUYER !MALL amm /@ELLER 9MALL R1ybn dee d ttoaeV s) dtw aperl aaaTwe t.Nad a el h date Of C►w^D Y BUY[R wtmL AISMAE s srLLER i(11Ai l PammE FOR Raymm W open! m—e pad($ a d 9a dda d M span - b 45 Wl—m b 90 ba been added try the CRY C-1 w dor asap &ave a (6aaa'5 pwesm b p'llniel dW he q mmart 1m 40 eons. d m 2 amfa m -led sn-wa .10. soma". a 1= a aOsad M Blya'a lade I A7 BUYER "U LL AMRG! A�BM L ttiT,e dM of dump soy orad iN MM ttaa 0. anon Ilea err l a ($paps b a mora arb MMW of ahCh b raDasd as a rad! d ar C41pp d ora ata One, dW pry me some tome On and patdds n * e9 Yet Hdtrep d-9 and weaaa and any ap W q-LaJ athn:9lare Palade amaalw aro as ftm. M pW-M d ChM a nd FD a*W paedaa sl ti d 9r da of qt sparse. Gabe nap— M Bed MAS ENA! RO7J -fted a rdo d troop b s nes tAAAO nVwwrra 62 pga0 am any pawrarnwae smaaalrlp beoay. 9a Code of etch pgat mo to aaae.d s0M r—dw a • relax d pndap 53 tp.d l s hand NOWat. da d sok gang and m a D1bs 9r des d tdpn0. Dupe 00 manna paynarl d et ALL MOUE Ot1ER: —O-- d any num cpm aaaaansb and Ssfr arra porta a parson on m dr d dory a FIOME!/ 11TWR: d nY 01M [pato ssonea 9 etch spscd �\ Se cswaa P app..noso b Co d aaMaaam a gaga ty O. W.J. O W — ad 9 — ba 57 1lsehns Aw- - Otos to nA ane we a OMs'. atmon, Pori qaa b t101 urcraon d tlathm AOataa ad me areR m nosy pall Mwmdr dW Da MkWC ad b Bryn LOOM on a boa d e Pbla epee b asp m a baba to dale d dap. to So aaaat ply a p,"a N O pay am d aM a® ray. ern rynn tory oorrtU 0110 BuysRq Qs W .1 eal PURCHASE AGRI33A rt Ib Addwae Oak Wood Knoll 6 VIR 0a It. IDS Pop 3 OM _/,.1t/.�Y I os.t ESUTE aP &pal a ark pny FRETTED FADN00 OFOP IxABD ./t3f ALL. HOPE nal netoee as due petABe n M P MSL . t04 Err aaa TO Do Of ISA4RHlJ.�irDa, All, NonIE lad esla e,e du.td PrlaaH k, ft Year roiS-. a dm am caskv dee bdrpa,�ft mead eYft tmm pds. r pialyd. b e*.Wd o r. — dartq dr Saer tI tae du and Ie palaab n 0. Yee B dj< ad be nkL^ftWM ft-Oeed d M-.WM d pal cr nmlvnMfMd Wisaft as is Bided. III Ser qaO a par &rya a ck*V S ~ -0- bad r riclnMmaeed 113. PMM If as wee Ras teaaa Bn4a gear In Pay Dry .wtrtaarnp o1Wce of M nweMW W Raw VW 0aa0.a due war MAU. 1n No Iaplaal . Yeo nada owOlni fa attar of emeaaad owl .stat am 1N POSSESSION: Seal dao do— ptmerebn of to PMNIy not taw M Date of cloalna dart doalrnp In AN I aaad, TvtnroAlm a socWm Am idea kaf.A SPA Iadun Re and al ditpea ar cry Meet CRY nmew "cutft and IWad to ges are be p1we10 bommee n Yen peon at d ds d I - SOW apwn m wove ALL DEBRIS AND ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY 117, NOT INCLUDED HEREIN Rom tan PWely by Pew dobe 110 El1YNONMEWM CONCERNS: D as beta d Lb Bryn ba.60p1 fmn w w teatwa s atdsa a aneapwed MxW wft acM t6 h&.h I.M. Ron. tID 0 SPECIAL WARRANTIES: 123. SELLS Ne1RRANTS THAT THE PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED To- Nm SIWENOTEsloo CtY W1TERorn*w CJ 54LMETt M AWMM TO PAMM WMER ORALITY TEST MM" APOIOR SEPTIC BMW CERTOROTON IF MUMM BY tta OWEIMYIO AUTIIOWTY ANmOII LENmEn. SELLER WARRRAHTB Tela ALL APPLLANCEB NEMM AIR CONORIDTm10. LA1R4tI(N RII AND PLI MSM SVBIEMS I= AND LOCATED ON SAD PROPERTY WILL BE N MR)" ORDER ON THE DOE CP CASINO, 134 EXCEPT AS NOTED ON A'DICIED ADOENDLAA WM NAS TNI MfT TO D4PELT PROPERTY PRIOR TO CLOSING, 137. ODER in ACKNONLEDOES THAT NO OftAl BEEN MADE POSSIBLE PROBLEM IM w BASE CAUSED LGE BIatAUP aF THE 48UrFA REt1E8 D MSOLELY N TKff RE [4 SELLER HADA /HAS NOT OR Cf0./ ED By 1CP RECEIVED ROPE . w RE 134 SUM HAS WELL OS ASTRAL[ !._ SaaaMl n/ TACT HAT 1 HAM REfZ1VED AND EMD THE OWWWOTY TO I<QYBW TIIE 134 RfNO[)RIAIIIfI . REAMS Mi10H ADI�IEIIT. tTf BELLERIS) Dean Hollluod and Kenneth 4chrartt stateteat the) or_a_l teanud nd •otau •gent• in_LM H, 8tita of Mlrthoata, and that they are the a of Inrotora Together, Inc. a Hinneaata COrporat eon. Dun Hoglund and Kwmeth Schrarta Century 31 Ural Rep. 4uyera tU - - - —'n...c� - - -- - Rvatee Hr TIRE HOICK DOES NOT WWV VIM EWM BT_ATUTBRV AODCV COCILMM _ IE_Nft._ _ 113 1. N wean d fa On41AA amp Wo and ^Joe" 1 age a Paden fa Poo" w M lab aro w War HIS w k7eg bdm In Wee- Red PWatr Ram far waraa. Una Reed 0-0— ea be awn H7 ,aftre &Nance nfaraae n W" lef .R`r.tL.,.., _ _—_.-_ __ --_ - . 4.1c 7G.i__ __ — ISO -Gr — _ _ - __ — Y:rti 1{S._' %6.06w na rer .0uroect [tae to TM a a 1E0ALLY 111010 CONTMACT LKTWM SMTDa me onwa IEA rel a 3 baa I NOW mm 1 SELL 011 w AMM CONrtk1 an APPOopam OIKMNDUL ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT tarty IMM two appror.a by the iftnew u AMMON d FF 1110d9! kbew A* asaocYlb, or PE LL/0d9e stases dry eatery d d ua m nwrse d ttar *r a 1. Dara y 2. Page of L popes 1 Adderdwn toPurNwa Apsernna Defween pVbn ds a,i October S f994 IDIM purehar 4. and sale olthe properly PProposed East Wood Knoll Addition 5, This purchase agreownt to contingent upon the following terms and conditions: g Section /1: Seller shell provldo buyers with a recordable plat, Containing no lea■ than 51 raaid.ntlal lots. �. Section /2: Sal ler shall provide toyer with plans sad opeci[ications for; city water, Clt) /ewer, .tdr1 aewar, curb. Butter. at It' add .tree[ figs[/. g, Section 03: Buyer: shall haw upon receipt of the Stems listed id Sactlons #1 and /2 of this agreement, lD days to reeler ens approve uta teems assess .n 9 Sectio' I1 and 12 of this agreemed[. Section 94: I) the buyer. do not approve the hews ..... a .d dace... ea a a this M agreement, all pertfe• to thle agreement shell sign a cancellationaof pureness ...— est, oda u. aerau: 'nay pa as darau6U., :11:1 . ad ry to the buyer*. Section s3: Upon approval or tn. — urea in :ecuon. • eg ..., 12 buyers .hall pay to the sellers 110,000.00 a dlpartl:l p:peent of the dornpsysent. It buyera ao dot cense on wa ae Property ua nr .,,... epyav 11 sellar: shall reals ufd II0,000.00 a 4'"ges. Settled *6t Thu agreement :lull cover all of the proposed oast woos Anoaa past, q, containing approahmuly 16 •e res plotted into 71 res ided[laI lou. AND Lot. 1, 2, 7 dna a. rases. s. nedaow wa wcaaaw, .,say ti Wright County, Ninnesata. Section I7: TN buyers sad the C1[y Adm[o.o[re[or or rm...cw.... ,. IE seater •rehltactural control co�l[[eo to ■pprovo ell futura'bullding and d.velopaent on tha property descnoaa to d eon . wg, e..v„a. 17Sald caemlttoe still approvo any building plans and apecifteatlone 1n ¢rofdame with any recorded duo-alvt*lon cow -nand.. U& 19 20 Contract for Deed Torso $110,000.00 by a Contract for Deed to be paid a follows: ?t. 1__.. r WYeaoaa-ta-ahs-asduoa-D"16a000.00-laeiwing-Islalose-as-lM-Caere!-aowen-9arceat (7I) per armttm, compuud on the unpaid balanced. Paywnta shall be credited first to the 22. aaaswd-LwtarMt-odd-ode-►Naas-eppl{w-te-eM-►Nsefpet.—P+rse-M)-int-a.11 be due and payable on the 15th day of Aprll, 1996, and a like payment on t" 15th day of April doth 23 )wr-tderu[ter,-adsLld-dey-el-Aptlly-7998.-ss-whlad-llsw-lM-anNn-earinMg balance together rl th the aeeruad ldtereot shall be due add payable. 20 25 26 27 Upon recalpt of 165,000.00 downpeywrit, dollars shall r laaao by Varranty Dead to the buyoro "pdnoi Tor ih7 aeveloperaT, n outl'Iln BdilbTI�oTfFiin eareaaent,itteciiod 29 he roto. Itpon receipt of 155,000.00 additional payesnt, seltaro shell reladae to bLsr: by Yorran[j 5td. Ph.1T Tthe N-Topmint. Upon ren ipt of the -baTanci -oi the 29 Contract for Deed. a.l len pholl rheas. Ph.. Ill. 30 72. 33 N 35 IS - 35 G35 J6 w M ms1 I t00 017ar laOY 08 W a01np. OOMIIRf, ABY safe11d111OgA�MOp{ggldlkL � ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT 1 M be Wend by M 10 mime Ani of REaUOR9! lsvrm aaorlim a 1Eal70RT i outlens w ssdatl an d uY v m!a d are bre, 1. Oafs 4 2. Pegs of L popes a Addw,W,n to PuucMes ApFwnars Oeltw I parties dated October S t9-L4—PMtalnb td Ns pureMs a and /sl/ of the popsy to Proposed Past Wood Knoll Addition 3 Thi* purchase agraes.nt le comting�at upon the following term and condition.: g Sac on I1, bailer shell provide buyers with a recordable plat, containing no lees than 31 reald.ntlal lot.. 7. Section 12: Seller du 11 provide buyer with plans and epeclitcation. for; city rater, city saver, •corm sever, curb, gutter, ■trate ane eine[ ogre. a Section 13: Buyers *hall Mve upon receipt of the items listed in Sec[lom 11 and $2 of Chit sgrelmn[. JO aaJ/ to tsarist and approve alai Stem 11/[/d In W Section* /1 and 02 of this agreement. Section mea: If the Inaye re ao not approve tme atop ala[ed m D.ruud. • his 10 egreamo[, all pettier to this egreerot .ball sig. • .on.eilationadfa Pur agrsemot, and all arneac 0"ney para -to—*, •roll w re tun.Jed 11. to the buyer. _ Section s!: upon approves or rno item a,area an d .. . J. ., .a..,� , t2 buyers shell pay to the sellers 110,0DO-00uaa a portio, PaJmeat o1 tM aovnpoJ,mdt. a Doyen 6o no: cine. n a y.3�.... ..... ..... .1r._ 1, IS *eller. d .11 retain veld I10.000.00 as damages. Section 06: Thla agroasat shall cover alt of the proposed meet rune anoaa yaec. 1a containing approslmtely l6 acres plated Into )! neldent lel lob. 1 AIiU Lot. 1, 1. ! em a, etocr !, neadw wa ran c.u, uacy or no"cacaaau, 1� Wright Coudty. Mlnmdote. Section 97: The buyera and the city Ass lnletrator or mnc ic.l.� .,... .v . . .... .. tg masbar architectural control comlttm to approve all futun•buf lding and Asara Iup= at on tM proper[] aacr[sed la sec..uo ..a....�.,v.. A - Sold cotaftles shall approve any bullding plum and dpeclficat ism In — accordance wRK any recordadTu�dlvla lo"�'£oYiRBBt.. tg i 19 20 Contract for lead Term, 1110,000.00 by a Contract for Dud to be paid as follov*t 21• Amml-payrata-lo-tG�mros-o{-115.OW.00-(m7rdfag-1Meneb-ee-eM-•ate-el-asvenyarcent (71) per annus, computed on the unpaid balancse. Payments dull be cradl tad first to the 22• adasltad-los.mems-aW-spa•-Nlaaoe-apl.la/-b-/MyHse{p*1.—Fume-Payment- bell -be -dee and payable on the 15th day of April, 1996. and . like pay—t on the 15th day of April each 23 year-tberafter,-watt,-the-titA�ey-of -h"4 f rtQ9----- vMeb-t/r-eM-satfn-rert0,mg 2a balance together vltb the accrued lot steel shall be due and payable. 25 I26 27 Upon receipt of 165,000.00 dovnpaymnt. sellers atoll island* by Warranty Med to the tiuyiri PluoTrof tTie�"ir7lops/ne, au ou-tiTo7d'in'Ei67blt'—Ci of thio ogrumnt. attached 20 herald. Upon receipt of /53.000.00 addltlond��p�ymmt, dallera "hall relnd*_to tutero by VaFraniy Deed: T/hs,io If-oT tl,i aevoloprn[. Upon r.ceipl'o7-tTw baTinti o'f tAe 29 Contrsat for Med, sellers shall release Phase M. 30 32. .----- — — - --- - 33 35 339---,t t—B�-y-�-pe'�p '� ,►wr - �.1fft.�- 1 A m No tm I e00 Orm tIOY c7R t AC= OOtSILy�M AllRpl mmv WCANT LAND ADDENMM M s spored oy ea bereeraa Aecdem d FF-AU01t9-. Mede decease ore easy ae1aV m co as a meas d @a lam I. Ow October S, 1994 2. Pape AP G Pape S AAdWdM Is Purchase Apeewsd beam Pa0@a daald October S 19-2-4- Oso to the pedes 4. eb ee of h pop. y a Proposed Bast Wood Knoll Plat and 4 lot@ in Meadow Oak. Estate.. S City of Motticsllo, Wright Collnty Minnesota. a SPECIAL COMMSOEMMEM This Pdaafe AV" as b Koo In Ua aSeab'V wdlpeeldaP ad @ da ' - V malpucir deldad 7. babe C." be ssemled a e@had. n aerp. by Seryv by January 1 19 95 _ qy gedme Away shot becoas, e nor am.atlaa w..ner nvay etw a atuatw la s■ � Bsys eM Berea ape la ripe a o■crdPon d d. wdm. Ap..�.a 9 (9ead wpwkftAMQa+b D 90 SUMER / at Wade a OVOCm d Amy d ea Pop t% a BUtEli ua nal or Wn M Jan.— 1 to -U_ 12 O (M 94w obtak ho appaa of af/e7aal d paopard b,"v Pace aro apedkwua r MR / IZL—�- .masa M IX1e Ekw dAea+I+D afpuw CO dyAaaalip d Popaeed ab*Aion dW*pTdM Plan a BUM LER masa w e" o &rya dl ! --ER /Epaaa 1S ❑ M Blgv abr@aq d BUYER/SELLER arcane. Putoldl -. oras Mich are atnepable In BIM1 b VS Sinn atAa@aap s EPM_4Q aaa all m Hide WO. Ula de PW" .1y be I Pmad WOW asap - aiap 17.ns0ek. v ma. tM O Aja Suyee abtsap appal d "" pane wdvapeoAe7ba n eCmda ce eth laryy aetasd SA0AWon nmw" Geld app -M d Is dsaddedualosadcaaek.a Sea Bectioa 17 of attached addaedem. 20 O N MOM: 21. 22. Sees's auras Im des oaM1gaeyw pryl adad nal aawd a 21 Bela, pores P Mob d scree b ds papaly ore a" and -norm pupoaee 2e. PU= More: 944M mq nta edOlval oha9Pe I pDAV ea p , eauV bd m Mrs a MAAW am aowae ' go 1 naricyd dlq¢a. ab b olear 4w= - a®= nose amu:= tae dads on. Men awn day con smn aro mrsftV 26 las tab m ab No plaaV drpr 27. SPECIAL ISOMANTES: Bean eases ae1 the Papa dearaed n ab gads AV --a- ovale of 21 Alan I "!t t FEST ad Y to mad R-1 29 Bei aortas 01a M Popy 0 jjgI6 M 1ia@0 = Is Send plan ase ]D Bede w.as go h P— v ami a�nady lsoos, Paelewal@l k. a..m Pa. Own Ata► ata D1.OTNER: a dmW _.._ _ .�-� -c2, ick.. -- _, - — ' -• --,166 Se ore a A LIMAV RaOaD amyrim P m"m Swrm AID deA11s. a P MU OMN UMM OR TAM OVA= OOIDUIy W ANa011SDa ROM10prL 36 M aA 1sq 0 Summary of Offer by Investors Together. Inc. for Purchase of "Eastwood HnoIr Base Offer $175,000 13UT Conditions Attached to Offer: 1) City to assume all )lending assessments 24,800 (ie: Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet) estimate ® $1,660 acre estimate for (4) lots along Meadow Oak Avenue 1,700 2) City of provide recordable plat 15,000 (estimate cost to date @ $11,000) (estimate cost to complete $4,000) 3) City to provide completed set of plans/ 30,000 specifications for all utilities & improvements (estimate 0 7.5% of improvement costs) 4) City to include the (4) lots located along 66,000 Meadow Oak Avenue as part of plat. (Est. value ® $16,000 to $18,000 each—used $16,000 each.) (Delinquent assessments for original principal and interest totaled $16,600 each). Total taxes, assessments, penalties and interest over $29,000 per lot. Total City Expenses or Costs Forgiven as S(137.500) Part of Offer Approximate Net Proceeds to City if Offer $ 37,500 Accepted NOTE: In discussion with developers, they indicated 26.500 they would assume assessments for planned storm sewer project, so we could add back the storm sewer estimate. Approximate Net Proceeds of S 64,000 Offer 1 Proposal indicates that an Architectural Control Committee would be established, they would not want to be tied to recorded restricted covenants. 0 Suggested Counter Offer 1) Original cost incurred by City on property $ 164,500 2) Estimate value of (3) lots along Meadow Oak Ave. 49,500 that could be included in plat ($16,500 each) 3) City agrees to absorb (1) lot along Meadow Oak Ave. 0 for street right of way purposes 4) Buyer assumes coat of platting expense paid by City 15,000 5) City allows developer to use OSM for completion of 0 all utility plans at their expense Counter Offer Total S 229,0D0 Development Cost Estimates Outlets C & D, Meadow Oak Estates (Eastwood Knoll Plat) A B 8 Year Sales Period 8 Year Sales Period 1) Original Coat of Land to City $ 164,500 $164,500 (Does Not Include Interestl 2) Street, Utility & Grading 460,000 450,000 Improvement Costa 3) Platting Costs & Misc. Engineering Coats 15,000 15,000 4) Tree Plantings, Landscaping, Entry Signs 10,000 10,000 & Misc. 5) Estimated Value of (4) Lots Along Meadow 74,000 74,000 Oak Needed For Road Access to Plat With (3) of The Lots Incorporated Into New Plat (Estimate ® $18,500 Each: 4) 6)' Interest Holding Cost ® 5% 125,000 78,125 7) Estimate Real Estate Commission Fees ® 58,500 55,000 t 7% If All Lots Are Sold Through Realtors 8) Misc. Closing Costs For Abstracts, State 6,600 6,600 Deed Tax, Etc. ® Estimate $200 per Lot. TOTAL $ 803,600 $853,225 Average Price Needed Per Lot To Recapture $ 26,575 $25,100 Investment (divided by 34 Iota) • Interest costa were calculated by assuming that an equal amount of lots were sold each year. The interest was calculated based on City spending $450,000 for improvement costa, $25,000 for platting and mise., along with the assumption that we would have sold the raw land for $150,000 to someone oleo if we didn't develop it ourselves. Under column A. 1 assumed (4) lots sold per year over 8 years. Under column B, 1 assumed approximately (7) lots sold per year over 5 years. Because of the "larger" size of these proposed tote and our intention to create an upscale neighborhood by requiring (3) car garages, minimum home square footage and other architectural controls. 1 would believe we should be able to command prices for lots in this development that meet or exceed the average price noted above. Many of the lots will be capable of having walkouts and will contain trees and ponds. These features should make them desirable residential sites and allow us to act a higher price than the average price noted earlier to recover our costs and still be competitive with other developments. PROPO-NSED EAS-TWOOD KNOLL F" AT inns all: APA of Is 9i IS%// \ `,\ ` ' t,i ; \\ // A too ett p 11t�4��� i 11 �I L°":-.'"—_—..``='�^!•�� `' „�yy,��_. i \„�,,./ \ Is Is - — - — - — - — - — --------- ------- ----- 1#71 ly PROPOSED EASTWOOD KNOLL PLAT S (former oudots C&D) pi J � I7 1 %� % • i ! r A 1 1 , t �• 1 1 C 8y: Drowing•Title Comm. No. R G D�j„�.n BITUMINOUS PATHWAY 5445.00 �y�r a L Date- A=oatfl.Ine. Figure 3/28/94 �mrviraw,C. l 11ininm •4•..�•���u�•w��� MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA Council Agenda - 10/24/94 1& Update on Gille orouerty cleanno oroigc&. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the recent building demolition and underground tank removal projects being completed on the former Gille Auto property site, we are nearing completion of our cleanup project and should soon be able to offer the property for sale so that it can be put back on the tax rolls. Although we have not yet received a clean bill of health from the PCA, our environmental consultant, Agassiz, Inc., is preparing a report that should indicate the property was not significantly contaminated and that no further soil cleanup work will be necessary. We anticipate that the PCA will agree with our findings and eventually grant the site a clean bill of health. It is anticipated that the City will have spent approximately $30,000 in the entire process of cleaning up the site along with demolition of the building and tank removal. At this time, it's uncertain how much reimbursement the City might be eligible for through the Petmfund, but we do expect some reimbursement for our environmental consultant fees. With the expected approval of a clean bill of health regarding this site forthcoming, the Council is now being asked to determine how you'd like to proceed with the eventual sale of the property for development purposes. As some of you may recall, the City of Monticello reached an agreement with the Wright County Board last year whereby the City agreed to accept ownership of the property from the County under the following conditions: 1. After the cleanup, the City would be able to sell the property and keep sufficient fiends to cover all out-of-pocket cost. 2. Any remaining funds above the City's cost would be applied to County expenditures they incurred in the tax forfeiture process. 3. If there were any remaining funds still left, they would be applied to the delinquent taxes of approximately $11,300 with penalty and interest being waived by the County. 4. Any Binds remaining after the above expenditure reimbursements have been made would belong to the City of Monticello. Council Agenda - 10/24/94 If the City did not receive sufficient funds from the sale of the property to cover its own out-of-pocket expenditures (estimated at $30,000), the County would agree to split any additional expenditures on a 50/50 basis. Based on advice from our City Attorney and the Attorney General's office, the City decided to wait on obtaining title to the Gille property until the underground tanks were removed to reduce any potential liability from contamination on the site. If the City would have owned the property before the tanks were removed, the City could ultimately have been responsible for the entire cost of cleanup if the site would have been extremely contaminated. Now that we're very confident it is not a problem area, the City could request a deed from the State so that we can start the process of selling the property, or we could let the County handle the sale under the tax forfeiture proceedings. Even if the County was to continue with the tax forfeiture auction process, Tm sure the County would agree to still reimburse the City first for our out of -pocket expenses before any funds are applied to back taxes. The real question becomes whether the City wants to handle the sale process or whether the County should seek a buyer. Since this property does not currently have city sewer and water, although it is easily accessible to the property, the Cite would want to make sure that any development occurring on this property has city sewer and water extended. One advantage to the City selling the property is that we can somewhat control how the property will be developed if we have an idea of what we'd like to see built on the property, whereas by turning it back to the County, they would be strictly concerned with selling it to the highest bidder. If the City does not want to get involved with the sale and is not necessarily concerned over who is proposing to build what on this site, it may be simpler to turn it back to the County, although it may not be faster. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: S�1. Council could reaffirm the acceptance of the property from the County d` and request the County Auditor to obtain a deed from the ��, �� Department of Revenue so that the City can continue with the process of marketing the property. 2. Council could inform the County Auditor that the City is not interested in obtaining title to the property and would allow the County to sell the property under the tax forfeiture proceedings contingent upon the monetary distribution of finds being consistent with the previous County Board action X Council Agenda - 10/24/94 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although it may be simpler to avoid the City becoming involved in the chain of ownership on this property, I am assuming the City Council would prefer to have some control over how the property is developed now that it appears to be a non -contaminated site. Based on this assumption, I would recommend the Council reaffirm the acceptance of the property under the conditions agreed to by the County and authorize the County Auditor to obtain a deed from the Department of Revenue. If the Council does not feel it is necessary to get involved in determining who should own and/or develop this property, there is nothing wrong with turning it back to the County and letting them handle the sale, provided they are willing to reimburse the City for our cost fust. D. SUPPORTING DM: Project summary cost as of 9/9/94. 3 PROJECT COST SUMMARY AS OF 9/8194 GILLE AUTO PROPERTY CHARGES I. PAST COSTS A. Mowing $1,851.16 B. Environmental Cleanup $6,851.80 C. Braun Intertec Engineering Fees $660.00 D. Cleanup charges (Ruff Auto) $1,500.00 E. Misc. penalty & interest & sales tax $726.10 SECTION TOTAL $11,589.06 II. RECENT ADDITIONAL COSTS A. Demolition and stockpile contaminated soil (Veit) $6,260.50 B. Well abandonment (Rennen) $379.00 C. Technical assistance (Agassiz Environmental) $336.00 D. Advertisements $122.48 E. Legal fees (Paul Weingarden) $187.50 SECTION TOTAL $7,087.98 SUBTOTAL $18,677.04 III. UNDER CONSIDERATION A. Fuel tank removal & contaminated soil excavation $8,947.00 (Schluender proposal) B. Agassiz ??? GRAND TOTAL $27,824.04 (excluding PCA report & contaminated soil disposal) 0 Council Agenda - 10/24M 14. Conai¢eration of final navment to Gridor Construction for Proms SWC. Second Stage Digester Cover. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The second stage digester cover is now complete and in operation. The original contract amount for the project was $168,600. With the addition of change order #1, which was previously approved at $1,985.10, the total construction cost is $170,585.10. To date, Gridor has been paid $160,170, leaving a balance due of $10,415.10. The first alternative is to make final payment to Gridor Construction of Plymouth, Minnesota, in the amount of $10,415.10 pending delivery of required lien waivers and documentation. The second alternative would be not to make final payment at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and City Engineer that the Council approve final payment to Gridor Construction in the amount of $10,415.10 as outlined in alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of request for final payment. on 0A1S)&=tnL 3WPMk PLaCe Eag 5775 Wayzata BMkrard MWieapdis, MN 55416-i 328 612.595-5775 1-BOb7SL5775 FAX 595.5774 s A1clu ecu October 14, 1994 Pune" swvey— Mr. John Simola Public Works Director City of Monticello P.O. Baas 1147 Montimilo, ZAN 55362 Re: Replacement of Second Stage Anaerobic Digester Cover City Project No. 93-07C OSM Commission No. 5098.00 Dear John: Enclosed, for your review and processing, is Pay Request No. 4 (final) for the above referenced project. This pay request includes Change Order No. 1, but does not include any other outstanding issues you may have with the contractor. If you have any further questions, pleases call. Sincerely, ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, IN Jon D. Peterson, P.E. Project Manager Bret A. Weiss, OSM /nm j:\5M.W\dvU\0xM\C01rCWMbW emnoppmuu"En" GRIDOR CONSTR., INC. 1848 BERKSHIRE LANE P.O. BOX 41246 612-U9-37UPLYMOUTH, MN 55441 I owner City of Momiocuo, Minnesota Om 720/94` I For P. 6110/94 to 720/94 Reauea Na 4 - (Final) ++ I Engonm Ort-Schden-t� 4 Amodates. Inc. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT Replaocnam of Digester Cover - City Project No. 93-076 SUMMARY: 1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT 2 CHANGE ORDER - ADDMON (OSM Imo d718M l midis kne d6/17A) 3 CHANGE ORDER - DEDUCTION 4 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT 5 VALUE COMPIE7ED TO DATE 6 MATERIAL STORED 7 AMOUNT EARNED THIS PERIOD 8 LESS RETAINAGE - 0% 9 SUB -TOTAL 10 LESS AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY INVOICED 11 AMOUNT DUQ TEW REQUEST Recommended for Approval by: OSM ASSOCIA QUC. Approved by Contractor, GRIDOR CONSTR.. INC. �j�u Robert Meyer /D /MAI Date 720/94 Date s s EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1,985.10 s s s s s s s s s Approved by owner: CITY OF MONTICELLO 168,600.00 170.585.10 170,585.10 0.00 170,585.10 0.00 170,385.10 160,170.00 10,415.10 Date 0 Council Agenda - 10/24/94 15. CV Agideration of advertisgment for bids for purchase of 125 kX emeraencv Generator. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City currently has one 125 kw emergency generator stationed at well ill near our reservoir in the industrial park. This generator will operate well #3 and will also operate two of our booster pumps at the reservoir to provide approximately 1,000 to 1,200 gallons of water per minute to the community during a power outage. The generator is on a trailer and is mobile so it can be taken to various lift stations during power outages. The most crucial lift station is the Chestnut Street lift station. This lift station receives a significant amount of flow, especially during an outage at the nuclear power plant, as the numerous workers use a significant amount of water during that period at that plant. When the generator is used at the Chestnut Street lift station, there is not a power supply for well #3 or the reservoir or some of the other lift stations in the community such as Meadow Oak, Cardinal Hills, and the industrial park lift station. All of our lift stations except Bridge Park are fitted with emergency generator connections. Bridge Park has a standby pump which has to be manually hooked up to operate that facility. In addition, we also have a natural gas -powered engine at well 02, which will deliver 500 to 600 gallons per minute to our water supply system in the event of a power outage at that point. Due to the recent power outages this summer, we are becoming more and more aware of the need for an additional generator. We have been lucky enough in the past not to fill any basements with sewage and not to run the community out of fire protection water simply because the tower happened to be full, we were able to respond quickly, and the outages were not extended in length. As the community grows, it becomes more imperative that we purchaso an additional generator, consequently, we have budgeted $41,600 for 1995 for the purchase of another generator duplicating the one we have at the reservoir. The cost of the generator is estimated to be $39,100. If we dedicate the new generator to use at the well 03 site, we believe that it would be tax exempt, and we would save the $2,500 in taxes. Specifications for the generator are identical to the last unit purchased with the exception that we are adding a light bar for working in the evenings. Council Agenda - 10NW% B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to authorize advertisement for bids for a new 125 kw emergency generator based upon the specifications for the last unit purchased in 1991. Bids would be returnable November 10 for consideration at the November 14 meeting. 2. The sccond alternative would be not to advertise for bids for an additional generator at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and Water and Sewer Collections Superintendent that the City Council authorize advertisement for bids for an additional generator as outlined in alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Al Council Agenda - 10/24/94 18. 4gngideration of adootina resolutions acxeDting annexation of Hawk's Bar and Krautbauer nronerty. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the special meeting on October 12, 1994, Monticello Township reviewed the development plan in accordance with the urbanization plan procedures and voted to approve the annexation of the Hawk's Bar and Robert Krauthauer property. Attached you will find a letter from the Township noting their approval of the annexations and also noting concerns regarding the use of tax increment financing and concern over the absence of a connection between Highway 75 and Highway 39. Please note that Township comments on the development plan are for information only. Township approval is not contingent on the City taking specific action to address the comments. Council is asked to review the attached resolutions and consider adoption. Please note that the vote to approve annexation under the resolution provided is subject to the developer obtaining approval of the final plat. As you know, approval of the final plat is dependent upon the developer providing financial guarantees necessary to support the funding of the improvement project. If the developer is unable to complete the requirements of the City under the development agreement and provide the associated financial guarantees, then the plat would not be approved and the property would stay in the township. I have spoken to the Municipal Board regarding placement of this contingency in a joint resolution supporting annexation. They have informed me that the Municipal Board can Wile on an annexation contingent on a final plat being completed and adopted. By placing this contingency that the final plat be approved on the annexation, the City is able to maintain its promise to the Township that the City will only annex property that is truly ready for development. 13— ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt the joint resolutions supporting annexation of Hawk's Bar and Krautbauer property to the city of Monticello. This alternative should be selected if Council desires to allow the project to proceed as envisioned under the development plan approved four weeks ago. Council Agenda - 10/24/94 Motion to deny the joint resolutions supporting annexation of Hawk's Bar and Krautbauer property to the city of Monticello. City Council should select this alternative if Council is no longer convinced or has a change of heart regarding the development of the Krauthauer property as proposed under the preliminary plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Unless Council cares to reject the development proposal approved previously, it is recommended that the joint resolutions be adopted as proposed. Once adopted, staff will present the resolution to Franklin Dern for signature, then submit the document and other supporting data to the Municipal Board for review at the Municipal Board meeting scheduled for November 10, 1994. WMME�l W. -RW -11161 Copy of resolution --Hawk's Bar, Copy of resolution—Krauthauer property; Petitions for annexation; Letter from Township Board regarding proposed annexation. 0 RESOLUTION 94 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION FOR ANNEXATION WHEREAS, Joe Abbot and Theresa Abbot, owners of territory described on Exhibit A, currently known as Hawk's Bar, request that the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota, annex this territory to the city and to extend the city boundaries to include the same; and WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed consists of 2 acres more or less, all of this land entirely within the county of Wright, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the territory described above abuts directly upon the city limits at the northeast boundary thereof, and none of it is presently included within the corporate limits of any incorporated city, and WHEREAS, annexation of this parcel is consistent with the land use guide plan adopted by the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located in the urban service area which identifies land that is presently urban or suburban in nature or about to become urban or suburban; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is now capable of providing municipal water and sanitary sewer to this area; and WHEREAS, a development plan is in place showing the need for municipal water and sanitary sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned for annexation; and WHEREAS, the development plan meets standards and requirements of the City of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use plan, and comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and ready for use within two years from the date of annexation; and WHEREAS, Monticello Township has reviewed the associated River Mill development plan and deemed it to be consistent with the Joint City/Township Urbanization Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Monticello accepts said petition for annexation contingent on final plat approval of the River Mill subdivision. Adopted this 24th day of October, 1984 Mayor City Administrator DIP IN THE MATTES OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION BETWEEN THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO M04NESOTA STATUTES 414 OSS SURD. I TO: Minnesota Municipal Board 166 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 66101 The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly agree that the joint resolution between the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello, designating an area for orderly annexation dated December 8, 1872, be amended to include the following contingent on approval by the City of the final plat of the River Mill subdivision: Both the Town and the City agree that no alteration of the stated boundaries of this agreement is appropriate. Furthermore, both parties agree that no consideration by the Board is necessary. Upon receipt of this resolution, the Municipal Board may review and comment but shall, within 30 days, order the annexation of the following -described properties in accordance with the terms of the joint resolution. Exhibit A - Hawk's Bar legal description Approved by the City of Monticello this 24th day of October, 1894. City Administrator Mayor Approved by the Town of Monticello this day of 1884. Town Chair Town Clerk RESOLUTION 94. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION FOR ANNEXATION WHEREAS, Robert Krautbauer and Betty Krauthauer, owners of territory described on Exhibit A, request that the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota, annex this territory to the city and to extend the city boundaries to include the same; and WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed consists of 31 acres more or less, all of this land entirely within the county of Wright, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the territory described above abuts directly upon the city limits at the northeast boundary thereof, and none of it is presently included within the corporate limits of any incorporated city; and WHEREAS, annexation of this parcel is consistent with the land use guide plan adopted by the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located in the urban service area which identifies land that is presently urban or suburban in nature or about to become urban or suburban; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is now capable of providing municipal water and sanitary sewer to this area; and WHEREAS, a development plan is in place showing the need for municipal water and sanitary sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned for annexation; and WHEREAS, the development plan meets standards and requirements of the City of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use plan, and comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and ready for use within two years from the date of annexation; and WHEREAS, Monticello Township has reviewed the associated River Mill development plan and deemed it to be consistent with the Joint City/Township Urbanization Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Monticello accepts said petition for annexation contingent on final plat approval of the River Mill subdivision. Adopted this 24th day of October, 1994. Mayor City Administrator I IN THE MATTER OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION BETWEEN THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO hUNNESOTA STATUTES 414.0388, SURD. 1 TO: Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 66101 The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly agree that the joint resolution between the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello, designating an area for orderly annexation dated December 8, 1972, be amended to include the following contingent on approval by the City of the final plat of the River Mill subdivision: Both the Town and the City agree that no alteration of the stated boundaries of this agreement is appropriate. Furthermore, both parties agree that no consideration by the Board is necessary. Upon receipt of this resolution, the Municipal Board may review and comment but shall, within 30 days, order the annexation of the following -described properties in accordance with the terms of the joint resolution. Exhibit A - Krautbauer property legal description Approved by the City of Monticello this 24th day of October, 1994. City Administrator Mayor Approved by the Town of Monticello this _ day of 1994. Town Chair Town Clerk 0 CITY OF MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO The undersigned Joseph P. Abbott and Teresa B. Abbott, being the owners of a tract of land consisting of 2 acres more or less, generally known as Hawks Bar, located on County Road 75 north of Interstate 94, lying within the Township of Monticello, hereby request annexation by the City of Monticello of the Hawks Bar property. This petition is executed in duplicate originals. A OWNER: os�� h� �.�A�bbott Kn �a4&* Teresa B. Abbott (9 CITY OF MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO The undersigned Robert G. Krautbauer and Betty Ann Krautbauer, being the owners of a tract of land consisting of 71 acres more or less, generally described as tying within the west half o1 Section 18, Township 121, Range 24 south of County Road 39 Right of Way and north of the County Road 75/Interstate 94 Right of Way, approximately one-half of which tract lies within the City of Monticello and the remainder within the Township of Monticello, hereby request annexation by the City of Monticello of that portion of the tract lying outside its current City Limits. The entire tract is under contract to Residential Development, Inc., of Chanhassen, Minnesota for a phased development project upon annexation. Residential Development, Inc. will be processing all documents including surveys and effecting all improvements in accordance with applicable ordinances. This petition is executed In duplicate originals. ATTEST: 6/6/ v OWNER: / Obert G. Kra/utb)au`er betty AnrvRrautbauer Monticello Township County Road 117 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 �r October 11th, 1994 Mr. Rick Wolfsteller City of Monticello Administrator 250 E. Broadway Monticello, Mn. Dear Ricks The Monticello Township Board at a special meeting on Monday, October 10th, agreed to the annexation of the Bob Rrautbauer property as it is in compliance with the Urbanization Plan; but we do have the following issues that we are concerned with. Tax Increment Financing as proposed to cover land reclamation costs is detrimental to the township; also County Road 39 is the only access to the public from east of Monticello between I-94 and the Mississippi River and there is congestion presently with the traffic there, with the matter to become worse. MO�NTIC�ELLO TOWNSHIPBOARDOF SUPERVISORS / Vi'l�w<—�"�"�'� by clerk, Darlene Sawatzke. Q] Council Agenda - 10/24/94 17. Consideration Qf raging bryllding iqppwdon Rrocess nrocedures and amending building permit fee schedules. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, some months ago it was determined that the need existed to add a building inspector to handle the inspection duties associated with the recent increase in single family housing development. Subsequent to this decision, Paul Waldron and Associates was brought on to help the City handle the immediate need. In the meantime, City staff has been at work analyzing the current manner that building inspection services are delivered in an attempt to determine if we could improve efficiency of the department in an effort to avoid hiring additional staff. During this process we realized that building permit fees charged by the City are overdue for an update. It appears that increases are justified in order to keep pace with the rising cost to provide building inspection -related services and to provide revenue for future City expenses that are, in part, caused by the housing growth. The purpose of this report is to describe recommended strategies for improving efficiency. Also outlined is a building permit fee survey, which includes proposed increases to Monticello fee categories. OPPORTUNITIES FOR MPROVEMENT Building Permit AaDlication Process After reviewing the operation of the building inspection department in detail, we found that there are a number of areas where we can improve efficiency. Certain forms have been developed in recent years which resulted in duplication of Wormation on multiple forms. We found that very little information was available to the public in writing regarding design standards or projects such as decks, garages, etc. This lack of public information made it necessary for the Building Official to meet individually with building permit applicants on relatively simple projects, thereby wasting valuable time that could have otherwise been handled with an information handout. Also, a standard procedure for plan review providing the Building Official with a standard amount of time for reviewing and issuing building permits has never been established. This has resulted in the Building Official being placed under pressure to turn around applications in very short order, Council Agenda - 10/24/94 which resulted in, on some occasions, contractors beginning construction without an approved permit and did not provide time for adequate plan review. Another area of inefficiency relates to the manner in which the City collects sewer and water access fees. Presently, sewer and water access fees are collected at time of occupancy of the structure. The most efficient method for collecting these fees, and the method used by almost all other cities, calls for the applicant to pay the hookup fees at the time that the building permit is issued. A number of the builders actually are requesting that they pay the hookup fees with the building permit because it reduces paperwork and is one less check for them to write. Insuection Scheduling During the review of the department inspection procedure, it was found that the method for scheduling building inspections was very customer -oriented, which is good unless taken to an extreme. Essentially, the Building Official would drop everything as soon as he got a call for an inspection. This level of response may have made sense when 20 to 40 homes were built per year, however, now that over 80 homes per year are being built, it is simply not possible to allow the Building Official's calendar to be driven completely by the needs of the building community. Not requiring any advance notice for scheduling inspections meant the Building Official was running ragged, and there was no set time available for him to complete paperwork and complete plan review duties necessary to maintaining good office organization. Additionally, it was found that no addresses were maintained on the building sites, which represents a safety hazard to the builders. Obviously, in the ovent of a construction accident, it is nice to have an address for helping to locate the accident. In addition, addresses posted on site are necessary to help construction delivery trucks find the building site. PROPOSED CHANCES To THE BtntmiNO I pEcnm PRocEss In response to the problems noted above, City staff has developed the following plan for improving the efficiency and operation of the building inspection department. Procedures 1. A written procedure outlining Cho application process, procedure for scheduling inspections, procedure for documenting inspections, and procedure for issuing a certificate of occupancy has been developed to help provide a guide and to help maintain consistency, order, and adequate control. This procedure is outlined in two forms: one is an internal document that everyone can read and understand at the City Council Agenda - 10/24/94 staff level; the other is a more simplified version that is submitted to each applicant for a building permit. 2. Introduction of the Development Services Technician position to City staff will help immensely in maintaining the process. For instance, the DST is responsible for explaining to the public what the information requirements are for each application, and the DST is responsible for making sure all applications are submitted with all required information. The DST also plays a role in helping the Building Official by assisting with paperwork necessary to maintain the information and status of each building permit. Please see the attached procedure outline for more information on DST duties relating to building inspection procedures. 3. The number of forms and length of forms have been greatly reduced, thereby improving efficiency and clarity. All of the forms within the building inspection department were reviewed and consolidated. 4. Public information regarding design standards associated with development of common projects such as garages, decks, etc., has been prepared along with a plan checklist, thereby eliminating the need for the Building Official to meet with people completing simple building projects. 5. The procedure identifies a 5 -day maximum turnaround time for permits, although the goal will be to turn around building permit applications in 3 days or less. The building community will be aware that staff will have b days to complete the plan review process. This policy will allow the Building Official to do a more thorough job of reviewing permits and allow him to work plan review time into his schedule. 6. Staff reviewed the number of reports and long-term record keeping maintained in the building inspection department and consolidated this activity into a single master record, thereby simplifying record keeping and eliminating duplication. In addition, reports provided to City Council were reviewed. Reports that provided redundant information were eliminated. 7. In torms of improving scheduling, the policy calls for a 24-hour advance notice in order to be guaranteed an inspection. No afternoon inspections will be allowed unless scheduled in the morning. No inspections will be completed outside the hours of 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Building Inspector will be asked to block out time when Council Agenda - 10/24/94 necessary to complete plan review work and other City duties. Builders will not be allowed to schedule inspections during times blocked off for other work. A master form documenting the inspection activity for each building permit on one report has been prepared that will improve our ability to track inspection activity and will enable us to flag problem projects prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Finally, under the policy, the Building Official will not inspect a site if the address is not posted. Level of Inspection Obviously, the level of building inspection required or provided by the Building Official will have an impact on the capacity of the Building Official to keep up. As part of our analysis of the operation of the department, we inventoried the building phases inspected and determined which phases are required for inspection by code and determined which inspections are not code required but necessary to protect against future problems. As a result of our inventory, it was generally concluded that the level of inspection that our department requires is very high when compared to other communities. Obviously, it is important that all items be inspected that are required for inspection under the Uniform Building Code; however, building inspectors do have some discretion to skip inspection of certain phases of a project if problems are so rare that inspection is not justified. For instance, sheetrock inspection, garage door inspection, and basement floor inspection all appear to be required under the Uniform Building Code; however, none of the 17 communities that we surveyed require a separate inspection for sheetrock, garage floor, and basement floor phases of the building project. In response to the discovery that no other communities are inspecting these phases, I contacted Fred Driver, State of Minnesota UBC Consultant, to determine if skipping certain inspections is acceptable. Driver noted that building inspectors do have some discretion as to which phases of a project are inspected and which aren't. If they are confident that problems are not occurring and are unlikely to occur, then they have the discretion to not inspect "non-structural" items. Ho noted that in 18 years of work as a building inspector, he never onto received a complaint about a problem with installation of sheetrock. He also noted that inspecting garage and basement floors prior to pouring of cement is not necessary unless the cement will be poured over ducts, conduit, etc. In many cases, Council Agenda - 10/24/94 the inspection of conduits, ducts, etc., is done in conjunction with the rough - in plumbing and electrical inspection. He estimated that no more than 5% of the cities in Minnesota are inspecting the sheetrock, garage floor, and basement floor phase. He also noted that it would be fine to inspect these items if you had time for it. Following is a summary of the change in the level of inspection as proposed by the Building Official and staff. Drivewav Inspection In addition to building construction phases, the City has been inspecting driveways prior to paving. This inspection is not required by the Uniform Building Code or by city code. No other cities contacted complete this inspection. It is proposed under the new procedures that good information regarding city code requirements on driveway design and placement be provided to applicants prior to obtaining a building permit. Inspection of the driveway would DA occur prior to paving but rather at the time of final inpsection. At the final, the Building Inspector will check to make sure that the driveway is 3 It off the property line and that paving materials have not been placed over private services. Checking at the final will save a trip to the site. Inspection Verification of Proper Building Elevatiog We have found that an area that has not received enough attention in terms of inspections is establishment of the proper elevation of the building relative to the approved grading plan. Improper placement of the structure can result in area drainage problems that are difficult to correct after the project is well underway. It is, therefore, recommended that the inspection of the house footings and garage footings include a determination as to whether or not the setback and footing elevation matches the survey/ grading plan. Adding this inspection will not result in an additional trip to the building site. Gornge Floor Under the new procedures, inspection of garage floors in attached garages will be discontinued. This is a non-structural phase that is not inspected by any other city contacted. Gary Anderson is satiefled that the benefits of regular inspection of garage floors is limited, therefore justifying elimination of this inspection phase. -4- Council Agenda - 10/24/94 Basement Floor Although few other cities inspect this phase of construction, there appear to be some excellent reasons for continuing to inspect basement floor preparation prior to pouring concrete. The most important reason to inspect is to make sure that drain the has been installed and to check for installation of a sump basket. Proper installation of these items reduces the chance of water seeping into the basement and ultimately into the city sewer system via the floor drain. Due to the importance of limiting infiltration into the city sewer system, it is proposed that the Building Official continue to inspect this phase. heetrock Inspection of sheetrock installation prior to taping is a "non-structural" phase that is not inspected by other communities because problems are very rare. For the short term, the inspection procedure calls for confining to inspect sheetrock installation. Gary Anderson is concerned about shoddy workmanship that he has witnessed in the recent past and feels that continued inspection of the aheetrock phase is justified; however, we will be monitoring the number of correction slips issued for sheetrock inspections. If we find a very low number of corrections slips are issued, then it is likely that this phase of inspection will be discontinued. summaryGAR e, In an effort to improve efficiency, ps and forms have been redesigned and driveway and base ant floor inspections have been discontinued. Verification of proper footing elevation has been added. It is hoped that the improvements in efficiency will reduce the need to contract with Paul Waldron and Associates and/or reduce the need to hire an additional building inspector. A final determination on whether or not to hire an inspector will be determined after we have had a chance to operate under the now streamlined procedures. FBEs City staff surveyed a number of communities and found that, generally speaking, Monticello's fees are well below the average charged by other communities. At the same time, tho City is facing the need to develop a wastewater treatment plant at some point in the next 5.6 years which, to some extent, is needed due to the growth in the single family housing inventory. Following is a quick summary of each fee currently charged by the City in conjunction with a single family development. This information is summarized in the attached table. Included in this summary are the recommended adjustments to the present fee schedule. Council Agenda - 10/24/94 Unfortunately, no incremental increases in fees have been made since 1988, which now results in the need to make a relatively big jump at this time. In 1988, when the present fee structure was established, there was a concern that high fees would discourage development in Monticello. At that time, less than 35 new houses were being built per year. Now that development pressure has greatly intensified (100 homes/year), it may no longer make sense to keep fees low to encourage development. Inspection and Plan Review Fee The Monticello inspection fee ($542) is slightly below the average charged by the communities listed and is based on a charge equal to 90% of the UBC recommended rate. It is recommended that the City amend its policy for establishment of this fee by charging 100% of the rate recommended under the Uniform Building Code. This is the practice that the cities of Big Lake, Elk River, Rockford, Watertown, Belle Plaine, Hutchinson, Norwood, and Waconia follow. Under this proposal, Monticello's fees will be consistent with what most other communities charge. Similarly, it is proposed that we adjust the plan review fee to equal 60% of the inspection fee. Currently, the City only charges 10% of the inspection fee for plan review. Monticello charges a lesser amount bemuse, when this fee was established, it was determined that it was important for Monticello to charge a competitive rate as compared to other communities. Due to the fact that development pressure is high, it may no longer make sense to reduce our plan review charge to encourage development. Water Access Fee The City presently charges $300 for access to the water system. This is well below the average ($832). It is proposed that this fee be increased from $300 to $500. Staff does not recommend an increase beyond this amount because our water system is generally in good shape in terms of capacity, and we do not foresee any major improvements at this time. The increase in the water access fee as proposed will also result in a concurrent 66% increase in the hookup fees associated with commercial and industrial users. Please see the attached table for more information on the impact of the fee change on industrial users. Sewer Acceno Fee Monticello's fee is currently $300. The average fee for hookup to the sanitary sewer system charged by other communities is $743. The list includes many cities with less growth than Monticello and cities not anticipating major wastewater plant expansion. When compared to Buffalo, Elk River, and Rogers, the average of those cities is $1,200. It is 6 Council Agenda - 10/24/94 recommended that the sewer access fee be increased to $1,200. This recommendation is based on the goal of accumulating as much cash as possible to pay for small improvements to our sewer system and a portion of the cost to design or expand the treatment plant. Increasing the sewer access fee to $1,200 will result in a concurrent increase in fees charged to industrial and commercial users. Please see the attached table which outlines the expected increase to industrial users. In summary, the fee charged to industry will increase at the same rate of increase to residential development. As you will note in the attached table, even with the major increase as proposed, Monticello's hookup fees for industrial users will remain relatively close to the average. On Thursday, October 20, the IDC reviewed the proposed change to the sewer and water hookup fee and voted to request that increases to new industry be limited to not exceed what the City of Buffalo chargee. The vote was not unanimous. Please see the draft of the meeting minutes of the IDC for more information on the IDC recommendation. One of the rationale for limiting the increase to industry is to limit the barriers to industrial growth. It was the view of the majority of the IDC that it is acceptable to shift expenses away fiom new industry and to fisting taxaavers because it will result in one leas barrier to valuable industrial development and, therefore, represents a good investment by existing property owners. Storm Sewer Access Fee At the present time, the City Attorney is working on completing the details relating to the storm sewer access fee. We are not sure if this fee will be charged with each building permit as a separate access charge, or perhaps it will be a fee that is paid by the developer at the time of platting. Please note that the total building permit fee projected as recommended by City staff does not include the $600 access charge. Plumbing. Mechanical. Electrical Feen The proposed fee schedule proposes a plumbing and mechanical fee increase to a level approximately equal with the current average. Summary The existing fee structure results in a total coat of $1,411. Under the proposed fee schedule, the total fees would amount to $2,877. The average total for all of the other cities listed amounts to $2,638. Obviously, the new total represents a big increase and places Monticello's fee at a level higher than the average; however, please now that the fees charged by a number of Council Agenda - 10/24/94 communities listed will likely be increased soon, which will likely result in Montioello's total fee being closer to the average. The IDC also requested that staff inventory City building/zoning standards and fees and compare Monticello requirements with requirements in other communities. They were interested in knowing how Monticello compares to other communities in terms of overall start-up development expenses. This information would have been useful to determine to what extent sewer/ water fees should be raised. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: DECISION 1: Alternative til: Motion to adopt or modify and adopt building code inspection procedures as described. Under Me alternative, City Council is essentially satisfied with some of the measures that City staff has recommended to improve the efficiency of the building inspection department and to improve the service that we are providing to the citizens of Monticello. Staff looks forward to your comments and ideas relating to the procedures that we have adopted. DECISION 2: Alternative #I: Motion to adopt or modify and adopt the recommended fee structure for single family permits. Under this alternative, Council should review the proposed table in detail and determine to what extent adjustments to individual fees are warranted The staff recommendation, of course, is a beginning point for discussion. As part of the motion, Council may wish to identify at what point the now fees should be implemented. It is staffs recommendation that the fee schedule be initiated immediately; however, a number of building permits have already been issued that have paid the access fees for sewer and water. It is recommended that for building permits already issued, it would be acceptable for the builder to pay the old sewer and water access fee if hooked up by November 1, 1994, or another date as determined by City Council. 0 Council Agenda - 10/23!94 As a modification of this alternative, Council may wish to tentatively adopt the procedures and fee schedule and direct City staff to organize a meeting with local builders to discuss the proposed changes. Staff would take this opportunity to provide information to builders and seek input, etc. The results of this meeting would then be forwarded to Council accordingly prior to final approval of procedures and plana. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I would like to thank all of City staff, along with Jim Kangas and Paul Waldron, for the effort put forth to reorganize the building inspection processes. It has been quite a task to analyze the operation of the building inspection department and come up with ideas, strategies, new forms, etc., for improving efficiencies and effectiveness. Staff looks forward to City Council's comments with regard to recommendations on procedures and fees. No further specific recommendations are provided other than those that are mentioned in the body of the report. SUPPORTING DATA: Building permit fee survey table; Inspection survey; Building inspection requirements inventory; Commercial/Industrial access charge comparison; Proposed water access fees; Sewer and water hookup survey; Procedures: building permit applications, scheduling, and inspections; Applicant Information: building permit applications, scheduling, and inspections; Information sheet: garage permit; Building permit application; Checklist: garage; Building permit; Inspection record card; Inspection notice; Inspection schedule; Master inspection record; IDC recommendation Brom 10/20/94 meeting. /G BUILDING PER' ! FEE SURVEY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION - Wood Frame Type V TWO BATHROOMS 1300 SOUARE FOOT RAMBLER FULL BASEMENT - Unfinished BUILDING VALUE OF $91,765 24'x24' GARAGE TOTAL SOUARE FEET BUILDING - 1300 I Monticello Albertville Buffalo Big Lake Elk River Rockford Watertown Belle Plaine Hutchinson Norwood Waconia Average PM nticellllo Curren � w Inspection Fee $602 $542 S388 $422 $602 $604 $604 $602 $602 $602 $602 $602 $563 a Pj Plan Review $301 $54 $252 5275 $100 $392 $392 $301 $391 $391 $301 $301 $310 state stndra Surcharge $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 Water Access Fee 5500 $300 $200 $600 $450 $1,070 $1,000 $400 $750 $500 $600 $655 $623 Matert0ther $100 $100 $100 $70 $100 so $60 $60 $65 $90 $65 $98 $71 Sewer Access Fee $1,200 $300 $1,500 $1,100 $450 $1,300 5850 $300 $750 $500 $200 $480 $7431 Storm Sewer Access r3 1$60011 $0 $100 50 $100 $67 Plumbing $45 $24 $25 $30 50 $100 $45 $45 $84 $50 $45 $45 $47 IMachanical $38 $0 $25 $50 $0 $100 $38 $38 50 $50 $38 $38 $391 jEle tric $45 $45 50 50 $0 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $321 IDEPST 50 50 50 50 $0 $0 $0 (55001 $0 (Sin Dpst) ()Iher IPrK-WI TOTAL $2,877 1 51.41j__$2 6361$2 693 1 74Q�3 857 I S3,Q80 I >�1 B3J��2 733 52,274 1 842L$2_41_0 L—>z2 538 ' Information taken from survey conducted by Paul Waldron Associates - 1992 m Represents 1009E of base bullding permit fee as defined by 1988 Uniform Building Code m Represents 50% of the inSIM00 lee m Represents 90%01 base building permlt toe as defined by 1988 Uniform Bullding Code m Represents 10% of the InspocUon lee Onr J Pending: mol included In total BLDPRM94. WK1: 10/20/94 1 inspection Survey Games Floor Basment Floor Sheet Rock Comments Monticello Yes Yes Yes Required Buffalo Yes -detached No No Time Becker Yes -detached No No Inspected firewalls (sheetruck) at final St Cloud No No No Not structural -no time Elk River No No No Not needed -no problems with not insp. Plymouth No No No No time for extra insp. (following 12 cities Paul Waldron's office inspects -have not had problems in 22 years;) Cologne No No No Time Glencoe No No No Time Hamburg No No No Time Mayer No No No Time Minnetrista No No No Time New Germany No No No Time Norwood No No No Time Plato No No No Time St. Bonifacius No No No Time Waconia No No No Time Watertown No No No Time Young America No No No Time BUILDING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS INVENTORY Single Family Dwellings (Proposed changes outlined in bold frame) GENERAL AND SPECIFIC INSPECTIONS Yes if Monticello Staff SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONST. required Inspections Recomm. by code HOUSE FOOTINGS I YES YES YES Setback I Yes Yes ves I Soil/compaction I Yes Yes Yes I Forms I Yes Yes ves Rebar I Yes Yes Yes Rebar for core fills I Yes Yes Yes I Frost ftg depth ves Yes Yes Elevations to certified survey & building plans Yes no ves GARAGE FOOTINGS I YES YES YES I Setback ves Yes Yes I Soil/compaction I Yes Yes ves I Forms/depth of frost footing I Yes Yes Yes Rebar I Yes Yes ves Rebar for core fills vas v25 ves Elevations to certified survey r} building plans ves no ves BASEMENT FLOOR PREPARATION I YES YES Slab preparation I ves ves Interior drain tile/sump basket I Yes ves Proposed slope around floor drains I ves Yes I Proposed thickness of concrete I Yes ves I Duct work installation I Yes Yes I Waterline sleeve through floor I Yes Yes I GARAGE FLOOR PREPARATION YES NU Slab preparation Yes no Slope Yes no Thickness of materials Yes no Reinforcement Yes no Support ledge ves no ' Common practice among all cities surveyed and confirmed by the State Uniform Building Code Consultant Is to NOT Inspect despite being rquired by lode. Problems experienced are very rare; therefore, a specific Inspection Is not Justified. INSPECTN.WK4: 10/21/94 0 Page 1 GENERAL AND SPECIFIC INSPECTIONS Yes it Monticello Staff SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONST. required Inspections Recomm. by code )RIVEWAY NO YES NO Base - class V - compaction no Yes no Bituminous/concrete thickness no Yes no Reinforcement materials I no yes no Location - lots line/service line no Yes no FOUNDATION WALL I YES YES YES I Block alignment on footings I yes Yes Yes Anchor bolt/straps installation I yes Yes Yes All wall core fills I Yes yes Yes Fill top blocks I yes Yes Yes Brick ledge & slab support ledge II yes yes yes FOUNDATION WALL - B.F. 1 I YES YES YES Insulation I yes yes Yes I Exterior drain file I Yes Yes vas ROUGH -IN HEATING I YES YES YES I Vent stack installation I yes Yes yes I Warm Air/Cold air register locations I yes yes yes I Combustion air installation I yes yes Yes I Installation of ductwork I yes yes Yes I Gas line rough -in I yes yes yes Exhaust fans Installation I yes yes yes ROUGH -IN PLUMBING I YES YES YES I Waste and vent piping yes yes yes I PVC/ABS connections Yes yes yes Pipe suppo"pe protection yes yes yes Five pound air test -15 min. (waste & vent only) I yes yes yes I FRAMING YES YES YES Structural support -framed openings ves yes yes Stairs/window/door openings yes yes yes I Fastening - fioodwall/roof sheathings I yes yes yes Root venting - location and number I Yes yes yes I Roof/shingle appllcatlon I yes yes yes Verity joist grading & spans I Yes yes ves Truss plant ties I Yes ves yes Truss damage I ves yes yes INSPECTN.WK4: 10/21/94 (1) Page 2 GENERAL AND SPECIFIC INSPECTIONS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONST. NSULATION Voids are filled Air sealing around piping/wiring Wind wash at wall plates Air chutes Vapor Barrier/smoke poly INTERIOR COVERING - SHEETROCK Fastening Bathroom type/grade Garagethouse fire wall HEATING FINAL Onset test All duct work connected Exhaust fans operational Flue and gas line installation Combustion air location Yes If Monticello Staff required Inspections Recomm. by code yes yes I YES YES YES I I Yes yes yes I Yes yes yes Yes yes Yes I Yes yes yes I I yes Yes yes I YES YES I yes Yes I Yes Yes I yes yes YES YES YES I yes yes Yes I yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 'LUMBING FINAL I YES YES YES I Monometer test I yes Yes yes I Fixture installation yes Yes Yes Outside water fixtures - anti syphon I yes yes yes 1 Sump pump I yes yes yes BUILDING FINAL I YES YES YES Egress windows I yes yes Yes Smoke detectors yes yes yes Hardware installation yes Yes yes Garage to entry door I yes yes yes Siding application I yes yes yes Address posted I yes yes yes All stoops Installed/frost walls yes yes yes Trees no yes yes j Sodlseed no yes yes Final grading no yes yes Driveway - width, location, setbacks I no yes yes Utility markers still on site I no yes yes I NSPECTN.VVK4: 10/21/94 / Page 3 J COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SEWER ACCESS CHARGE AND WATER ACCESS CHARGE COMPARISONS (Excluding Meter Cost) October 19,1994 Standard Iron ($1,870,000) Aroplax (:700,000) Custom Canopy ($977,075) u) m w m m m SAC WAC TOTAL SAC WAC TOTAL SAC WAC TOTAL Existing Monticello $3,300 $1,500 $4,800 $1,200 $2,000 $3,200 $600 $300 $900 a. Buffalo $5,600 $2,800 $8,400 $3,000 $1,500 $4,500 $2,000 $1,000 $3,000 Ropers $17,600 $8,800 $26,400 $6,400 $3,200 $9,600 $3,200 $1,600 $4,800 m a m Elk River $14,300 $11,000 $25,300 $5,200 $4,000 $9,200 $2,600 $2,000 $4,600 Proposed Monticello $13,200 $2,500 $15,700 $4,800 $3,325 $8,125 $2,400 $500 $2,900 NOTES: 1. Based on 11 units and 6' water service. Q 2. Actual usage would be 11.24 units In Buffalo. ' 3. Does not Include Elk River fire protection charge of $1,070 to $1,570. 4. Based on 4 units and 8' water service. + 6. Based on 2 units and V water service. .�i 7. Land and building estimated project costs (excludes equipment or furnishings). SAC o sewer access charge WAC o water access charge PROPOSED WATER ACCESS FEES Water Line Size: 1" $ 500 + material cost 1-1/4" 710 + material cost 1-1/2" 920 + material oust 2"1,170 + material coat 3" 1,500 + material coat 4" 2,000 + material Cost 6" 2,500 + material oust 8" 3,335 + material cost DEFINITIONS: WAC.Water access charge SAC=Sewer access charge i GPD=Gallons per day 17 F SEWER & WATER HOOK UP SURVEY OCTOBER, 1884 BASE RESIDENTIAL FEES Gallons/Day City water Sewer Unit Basis Monticello 300 ♦ Meter 300 250 Big Lake 375 ♦ Meter 400 Currently considering increase k formulas Buffalo 500 1,000 184 Elk River 1,000 1,300 274 Hutchinson 500 500 Working on formulas & increases Rogers 400 1,300' 274 • Note: $300 Base ♦ $1,000 Waste Water Expansion Fee RESIDENTIAL NOTES: A Buffalo, Elk River and Rogers charge 80% sewer access charge for apartment units and 75% for subsidized apartments. B. Monticello charges 75% for multiple apartment units. COMMERCIAL NOTES: A Buffalo reduces sewer access charge by 50% after two units and 80% after eight unite. B. Elk River uses the metro table based upon 274 GPD (per unit) s $1,300 per unit. C. Rogers increases residential base WAC & SAC chargee by 100% far commercial and uses 274 GPD (per unit) SAC (eg., 5300 a 2 0 $800 $1,000 n $1,800 for each unit). D. Monticello uses 200 GPD (per unit) a 5300 per unit for commercial and industrial. DEFINITIONS: WAC.Water access charge SAC=Sewer access charge i GPD=Gallons per day 17 F CITY OF MONTICELLO PROCEDURES BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, SCHEDULING, AND INSPECTIONS Anulication Process 1. Applicant contacts city hall to obtain a building permit. Development Services Technician (DST) defines necessary permit and provides information regarding application and information requirements. 2. Applicant completes building permit application form, plan documentation (site plan, etc.), and provides necessary survey requirements. 3. Applicant delivers completed permit application packet to the City. DST reviews packet for completeness. If complete, DST informs applicant that they will be contacted in 3-6 days to pick up the processed application If incomplete, DST informs applicant of deficiencies; no permit issued. Once additional information is received and approved by the Building Official, the permit will be processed within 3-6 days. 4. Building Official reviews plans and, if acceptable, furnishes inspection record, address card, and determines building inspection and necessary hookup fees. Approved permit number is registered by the Building Official on master inspection record. Necessary inspections are identified with asterisk (•) on the master inspection record for each permit. Additional information needed on the permit form is entered on the form by the Building Official who then gives the information packet to the DST. b. DST transcribes information onto formal application form and creates a permit file for each permit using 81/2: 14 manila folders. Permit files are organized by address. DST submits completed application to Building Official for signature. 6. Building Official signs approved application. 7. DST calla applicant to inform them that the permit is ready. Applicant signs permit form. DST then directs applicant to finance department for payment. Finance department collects all fees, issues receipt, and makes 2 copies of permit form, one for utility billing and one for finance to determine if assessments are due at time of occupancy. If assessments are due prior to oacupancy, finance department will record (.) that assessment is due in the master inspection record book. 1. Scheduling of inspections is completed by DST at city hall. Generally, 1/2 hour is provided for each inspection. 7 INSPGEN.PRC: 10113/94 & Page 1 2. A 24-hour advance notice guarantees neat day inspection. Same day inspection may be allowed in the afternoon only. No inspections shall be conducted before 9 a.m., after 4:30 p.m., or on Saturday, Sunday, or city -recognized holidays. 3. Building Official is responsible for contacting DST to block out time necessary for plan check activities. 4. Builder provides building permit number to DST when scheduling an inspection. 5. DST checks master inspection record to determine if a permit has been issued. If so, an inspection is scheduled as requested. 8. Inspection notice is completed by DST for each inspection and given to Building Official. 7. Address and inspection record card must be posted at site in order for inspection to occur. 8. Builder is free to move to subsequent construction phase after inspection record card has been signed by the Building Official showing an inspection was made on the previous construction phase. 1?�rocedune for Documentina InsnecliM 1. An inspection notice must be completed for each inspection. A copy shall be placed in the permit information bag. 2. Inspection notices completed by contract inspector must be placed in the Building Official's basket to be reviewed by the Building Official. After review, the Building Official will put the inspection notices in the DST basket. 3. Master inspection record is updated by the DST using inspection notices. 4. Inspection notices are filed in the individual manila permit files by the DST after information from the notice is recorded on the master inspection record. P>eucednre for IRauina Certificate of Occnoancv 1. If assessments are due and payable prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, DST will place typed C/O in finance folder. Once the finance department has obtained required assessment payment, the C/O may be issued. INSPf 3EN.PRC: 10/13/94 Page 2 APPLICANT INFORMATION BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, SCHEDULING, AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES ADDlication Process 1. Applicant contacts city hall to obtain a building permit. Development Services Technician (DST) defines necessary permit and provides forms and other information regarding application and information requirements. 2. Applicant completes building permit application form(s), providing plan documentation and necessary survey requirements. 3. Applicant delivers completed permit application packet to DST, who reviews application for completeness. If complete, DST informs applicant that they will be contacted in 3-5 days to pick up the processed application. If incomplete, DST informs applicant of deficiencies; no permit issued, applicant returns to step 2. 4. Building Official reviews plans and, if acceptable, furnishes inspection record and address card and calculates building inspection and hookup fees. If not acceptable, applicant is contacted by Building Official regarding problems. Applicant returns to step 2. 5. DST calls applicant to inform them that the permit is ready. Applicant signs permit form, and receives permit information bag. Applicant is then directed to finance department to pay for permit, including hookup fees, and receives receipt. Procedurehj:jchedulinq nI fflHtj#o 1. Scheduling of inspections is completed by DST (295-3060). Do not ask for the Building Official to schedule inspections. Generally, 112 hour is provided for each inspactiom 2. A 24-hour advance notice guarantees next day inspection. Same day inspection may be allowed in the afternoon only. No inspections shall be scheduled before 9 am., after 4:30 pm., or on Saturday, Sunday, or on City -recognized holidays. 3. Builder must provide building permit number to DST when scheduling an inspection. 4. DST checks master inspection record to determine if a permit has been issued. If so, an inspection is scheduled as requested. INSPAPP.PRC: 10/122/94 0 Page 1 I� Address and inspection record card must be posted at site in order for inspection to occur. Builder is free to move to subsequent construction phase after inspection record card has been signed by the Building Official showing an inspection was made on the previous construction phase. For each inspection, an inspection notice will be completed and placed in the information bag. If inspection results are positive, the inspection record card will be signed. INSPAPP. PRC: 10/12J96 Pape 2 I " CITY OF MONTICELLO EAC' Y^ Q� L Building Inspection Division PO Boz 1147 250 E BROADWAY G(,K.yQ- Monticello, UN 55382 �0 / General Information (812) 295-2711 Sn Inspection Information and Scheduling (812) 298-3080 INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR A RESIDEFLUL DFTACBED GARAGE RuiLDING PERMIT APPLICATION L Signed, completed BuMng Permit application term. 2. Two (8) copies of a Plot Plan based on a current Certificate of Survey, and/or Side Plan drawn to scale indicating the lot dimensions, the location and ground square footage of existing struepue(s), and the location and area of the proposed structure. Indicate the setbacks from the property lines. 3. Two (2) copies of plans showing proposed design and material Plena shall be drawn to scale and shall include the following: A. A floor plan indicating: Proposed garage size Type, size, spacing and direction of roof Gaming Size of window and door headers Location and size of window and door opening B. Caws section plan indicating: Footing/slab design and size Roof Construction materials Roof slope C. An elevation plan indicating: Front and side view of the proposed garage Approximate height of structure Location of door(s) and windows Siding and roof covering materials Size of all overhangs Attached are esarnples of drawings which may assiaL you. They aro intended as a girh only. LANDUSS RESTRICTION& 1. Minimum required setback distances from the side and rear lot lines may vary aaordhtg to location. They are set by Zoning Ordinance and approved plans. Contact the Zoning Development Department for this information (when requesting this information, please provide the legal description for the property). 2. A detached garage may not be located within any required front yard. 3. A detached garage shell be located at lees 10 feet (rem the principal building. 4. If manufactured trusses aro to be used, they shall be stamped "Approved' by a recognized third party inspection agency. 0. Real Sheathinc and Coverin¢ Approved roof sheathing and coverings shall be installed according to the manufacturer's recommandations. 5 11 NOTE: The above only outlines general code requirements relative to garage construction. For specific code requirements, please contact the Building Inspection Division at 2983080. Questions regarding design and costs should be referred to a professional builder or architect. A ` IIRM INSPECTION& L Concrete Slab: To be made atter all form work is se, the mesh has been laid, rods have been wired in, etc, but PRIOR TO THE PORING OF CONCRETED 2. Framine: To be made after the roof, all E4ammg, and any bracing is in place, rough electrical (if any) is approved, but. PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF ANY SIDING OR ROOF COVLWNG 3.Frnat: To be made upon completion of the building and grading. GENERAL NOTES: L Post address viseble from curb. 2. The City stamped, approved Building Plan and Plot Plan shall be kept on the job site until the final inspection has been made 3. Plan review and Building Permit issuance normally require three (3) worbng days from receipt of a complete application. You will be contacted when the permit is ready. 4. The Inspection Record Cards shall be placed on the outside exterior wall of the garage addition and shall remain posted until the final inspection hes been made. Bards should be gMj2dgd pm the weather. S. A separate permit is required when installing an electrical wiring system. Please contact the State Board of Electricity at 012-483.5670 for this information. 0. Call 012.2853000 between 7:40 AM and 4:30 PM to arrange fbr an inspection or use the Inspection Request Line. a 24 hour recording service (call 6112954M for inspection requests only). Please provide the permit number with your request 24 ROUR NOTICE 18 REQUIRED FOR ALL MPBCTIONSM wrn$t, -% jLl f u pftt, - VLPO r 5Wt, bBILi►Ii.� 011D �IwrtGN dN H ' S�Dw�•Ve{�rrsli_Ouctyfs ,,WvsTi4rk*- vr+!iy KF—AND J%{rC 5TU05• VbNOIr 6tM AND 7PA&U& e -a" G Ise %s^PJ1+ = 4 sl.pb FeINPeFLiNv•ver�y sas�'^re '� V ftmIwICo Ff mp-ve's!y ogl► i QUL*Mfr r L 6 "L.Ym4py Tm OHa�llorally� 0{�.oveD �eATlD of� N/',�Fou..Y Ma>TUF4' pey�aTb� >;u. �u.Ta A"WoF Fei.t4 • Yb(dfY bI: a1JD sPaal� V apAoR C*O" * of TAWx �AROt %� •o' ►7 --- --- -- �o:pr� l�`vhu�tlu+� III v vt-hr'{ b�pF IGS ELtYay'lOj.� '�'=��-o P] T—ayp r Zc: CR F• VwF6t' 1 LoNL{�T! �Piby 0114L 0 I FA Q , � i r J J;F N&m-r DiKcrto%) 10, CRY OF MONTICELLO PID p BUILDING PERMIT APPUCA 1ON (612) 295-3060 P: .ASE PRINT—INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Site Address: Zone: Leges: Lor Block Plat Property Owner Name: Phone 0 Address: City: State: Zip: Contractor Name: Phone # State License N Address: City: State: Zip: Eng./Architect Name: Phone b Address: City: State: Zip: Plumber Name: Phone N Address: City: State: Zip: Mechanical Name: Phone 0 Address: City: State: Zip: Time of Wnv*i Q New ❑ Sin& Family Use of buiiaing: r I Addition ❑ Duplex a of stories: Altew;on Muld-Family ® Floor area sq. R: U Repair Commercial Estimated value: Move ❑ iadustrinl Water meter size: in. O❑ Other ® Res. Garage Water line size: in. Other Sever access units (e): Description of wort: egg. (if applicable) Flrtena T.m NEW CONSTRUCTION: Please record any pre ds wristnsction site damage such water Ciao ( ) Ballituh as but not limited to damage to curb: water dud -off; pub c utilities (no utility Lavatory (wast basin) marten in place): street: dgns: etc.: Shower — Kitchen Sink - Dishwasher (cmuiatre on back if necessary) LarsbY Tub - Clothes washer u••....•....•..••••s••.•• Water Heater Wet performed without required will result In removal of materials as Urinal ownerlconuwtor's expense until inspections aro completed. NO EXCEPTIONS Drinking Fountain — Floor Drain 1 have rod and examined this permit application and agree to comply whb the Slop Sink building code In effect at the time of this application. 1 agree to comply with the Hydrants 0 axes of the City of Monticello. 1 u dentand that any damage to the pre- — co .trmtion site oat ootM above will be repaired at my expense. — TOTAL FIXTURES sit par nmwl Signature Application Dam Applicant CHECKLIST OF REQjfIRED INFORMAT[ON F011 THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS Screen/3 Season Porch Swimming Pool Fireplace (Factory Built) Finished Basement Room Addition Garage Deck The following items constitute a complete application for a Building Permit for various types of Residential Construction. 1. Application: Signed and Completed 2 Plena: Two (2) -foundation plane: Room Addition, Porch, Garage -floor plans: Room Addition, Porch, Garage, Swimming Pool, Finished Basement, Deck -cross sections: Room Addition, Porch, Garage, Swimming Pool, Deck -elevation plans: Room Addition, Porch, Garage 3. Survey or plot plans: Two (2), drawn to scale indicting the lot dimensions, the location and ground coverage area of existing structures, the location and area of the proposed structure and the setbacks from property lines when applying for the following: addition, porch, deck, swimming pool or garage. Firmlace Only lostallation instruction manuals: Two (2) from the fireplace manufacturer to include fireplace listing by U.L., AGA or recognized testing agency. Masonry fireplace rep. cross section of hearth and pot, throat and damper. Bm- Addition Onlv Brterior envelope calculation: Two (2) -which complies with the State Energy Code. These plans are to reflect design and materials which meet or exceed the standards of the current Minnesota State Building Code. Plena which are code deficient require more review time, may be returned for corrections, and delay the issuance of permits. Plan review and Building Permit issuance normally requite Ba working days from receipt of the complete application. You will be contacted when the permit is ready. b CITY OF MONTICELLO BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION PO Box 1147 250 E Broadway Monticello, MN 85382 General Information (612) 295-2711 Inspection Information and Scheduling (612) 298-3060 CHECKLIST OF REQjfIRED INFORMAT[ON F011 THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS Screen/3 Season Porch Swimming Pool Fireplace (Factory Built) Finished Basement Room Addition Garage Deck The following items constitute a complete application for a Building Permit for various types of Residential Construction. 1. Application: Signed and Completed 2 Plena: Two (2) -foundation plane: Room Addition, Porch, Garage -floor plans: Room Addition, Porch, Garage, Swimming Pool, Finished Basement, Deck -cross sections: Room Addition, Porch, Garage, Swimming Pool, Deck -elevation plans: Room Addition, Porch, Garage 3. Survey or plot plans: Two (2), drawn to scale indicting the lot dimensions, the location and ground coverage area of existing structures, the location and area of the proposed structure and the setbacks from property lines when applying for the following: addition, porch, deck, swimming pool or garage. Firmlace Only lostallation instruction manuals: Two (2) from the fireplace manufacturer to include fireplace listing by U.L., AGA or recognized testing agency. Masonry fireplace rep. cross section of hearth and pot, throat and damper. Bm- Addition Onlv Brterior envelope calculation: Two (2) -which complies with the State Energy Code. These plans are to reflect design and materials which meet or exceed the standards of the current Minnesota State Building Code. Plena which are code deficient require more review time, may be returned for corrections, and delay the issuance of permits. Plan review and Building Permit issuance normally requite Ba working days from receipt of the complete application. You will be contacted when the permit is ready. b CITY OF MONTICELLO / BUILDING PERMIT PERMrr # (612) 295-3060 PH) # Site Address: Otho Handwat Regained ❑ Yes ❑ No Legal: Lot Block Plat I ..petty Owner Name: tip: Address: City: Contractor Name: Ocr— grou;y State License # Address: City. EngJArchitect Name: M Storiex Address: City: Plumber Name: Mat. occ. toad: Address: City: Mechanical Name: Ire tyinkl— ❑ yes ❑rho Address: City: lkscripdon of work: Est. Value: $ Tym err Wase_ Tree OMinaam Applin: p Yes ❑ No New r� Addition Otho Handwat Regained ❑ Yes ❑ No gAtteration �Rqair hove tip: Other C.aou type: T?SO4S�0: Ocr— grou;y ❑ Slagle Family ❑ �� Ston Sq. F Sq. Ft Mu ti-Famlly M Storiex 8 C Rime ciat • Res. arch ❑ Irdastrw Mat. occ. toad: ®Res. Garage FILE xor= Other Ire tyinkl— ❑ yes ❑rho Off sum Parking covered Off-street padting uncovered: wort petfbrtaed wllhoat required toapeetbm will emit in r+emovsl of materb at owoer/cam octal Is e>aeme until impeedom an mmpkted. NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read and emmined this permit and agree to comply with the buBAing code In erect at the dme of this application 1 agree to comply with the ordinance d the City d Monk . Applic= Signmme Dazs Building Official Signuura gate I Zone: Phone # State: Zip: Phone # State: tip: Phone # State: Zip: Phone # State: Zip: Phone # State: Zip: L� F.n.M Tree water 0033 (toilet) Bmnmb Lavatory (wash basin) Showa Kiwi= Sink Dishwasher Laundry tab Clothes washer Water Hems Urinal Drinking Fountain Floor Drain Slop Sink Hydrants Other TOTAL FUTURES (f l ps ti�w) EUL Big. permit Plan review State stutauc Big. Total Pin& permit Futures State sur= Plbg. Total Sewer access Water amen Wow meter Sola tat S / w permit other TOTAL FEES Receipt • Data Post M a conspicuous place City of Monticello Building Inspection Dept. INSPECTION RECORD BUILDING PERMIT NO. DATE ISSUED ADDRESS OWNER CONTRACTOR Approvals Dab Time hnpedor Set Backe . Mage Foodngs Garage Footings Basement Fktor Garage Floor Do not pour concrete wall above has been Inspected and signed. Foundation Wall Foundation Wall B.F. Rough Plumbing Framing Insulation Interior Covering Do not cover work until above has been Inspected and signed. ng�' I i Do not occM until above hes been Inspected end &Vsed. BUILDING TYPE: Minnesota Bleb RaWalbn No. MONITICELLO BUILDING OFRgAI Call 2964= for all requleed Inepwilom — M I'1 Gary's Notice for each inspection - copy left I DATE TIME CITY OF MONTICELLO �S&� ed INSPECTION NOTICE IComoleted PERMIT #: ADDRESS: OWNER: PHONE #: CONTR: ' ❑ Setbacks ❑ House Footings ❑ Garage Footings ❑ Basement Floor ❑ Garage Floor ❑ Driveway COMMENTS: ❑ Foundation Wall ❑ Foundation Wall B.F. ❑ Framing ❑ Insulation ❑ Interior Covering ❑ Plumbing Rough -in ❑ Plumbing Final ❑ Mechanical Rough -in ❑ Mechanical Final ❑ Building Final INSPECTION RESULTS: REASONS: Inspector: ❑ Approved—Proceed ❑ Work Not Ready ❑ Unable to Inspect ❑ No Permit Issued ❑ Stop Work ❑ Corrections Not Done ❑ Correct Work—Proceed ❑ Do Not Occupy ❑ Correct Work— p Unable to Access Call for Inspection Call 295,3060 for the next Inspection 24 hours In advance. Whte Copynnspectore File Yellow Copy/sra Notice 4 to, INSPECTION SCHEDULE Date: Tues OcG - /F I TIME F -INSPECTOW-AK . IMME .. _ . INSPECTKTN:- PX - - I Name:Iuc. p .13'1 us 01 Name: Kok$ {Jus 0 1Vol- Locanm:- 3Yo M-,Loeation: 93o /headoj or 0/' 8✓ 1A0 Type: Go -5c flo,,/, Type. i3sont Name: I,[ Lh t Yiw 0 a3d(a Name: ,jM-+n Koof,;,5 a ;Lyvs Location: 931(0 I/.c1;Cc✓1 Location: laaay s3a 190 ✓Type: G`r`') e- �/cc:/ ' Type: - Name: iSrPc-^ 54--P g.73.?1 Name: V,rZnvP6A4.j 10.100location: 109 £/..oed 220 Locdon:S.••y yo csf�✓�*+' �'V ,/ ..�/ ✓T�' 17-.(-�arnod¢j Type.. d- C Name: q\ n7V # kul Name: M. %D&Kdkhtn ravy Location: (Ili Or Location: fob 4-ok C.s(L / 1090 230 r ./'Type: r M� ( Tom• 4,vw time: -,rj;NN b /f 2. 0 Name: G• b it 7YaS Location: 7C0 SUrc:4c(wc Location: II Sandi wp C;/, >' ✓ Type: c,Mt lS ° Type: mowe 5kd wu l( Name: pormut Andes.^ o 2,4as ` Name: p.E•4w1fr. p�'�lQ 1190 Location: l 0 3 Cry 5 1�� �, 330 Location: Type: �ooFc n� S - S-� .� t Sod Type: J/ Name: a\\.,:ju(tl fu//^@A •$Us Name. Alw-/�L,��- ��Al� L 0 2Y3 9 Location: gw II Sond,t,-p c,,- Loeanon:11V /I AdW O+t 01- A" MVrc— Time Type: �Ou�'n5 %�", c, Type: :en Pao no. Of th:94 r Name: 4 Name: D E . - y Location: i �/n I�04.1 7 �!n on: � rmme Type: %(/ ' 1 cGF� Tim Type: . 1 � � psi k.1�� � Name: y/o,ftA44,; • Name: r 0 Locatlon:� ,(�,-0--v w �,y,�n Location: Type:%: /N / �j'• J- T1ma Type: L INSPSCHD: 10/12/54 -rV C S P- 9 R - Re.mocb a Noosed j C T ��KRWT O WMAMM 1994 MASTER INSPECTION RECORD O B I JO6 MTI 11109 PI.UrB ISA T r! ffCW4"PMM 'f74on As 316 RR T., 1i4k�rc iD , , 6 z5 22 M u�ARVBR IZ i 6ti1 D�eK . r 'MIG ilH6<. 106 $A CgOUL ;1 �g4ACer 'K�; voiw PL O FA(Coa/ p 3)JSW - rN J� Z. 3.SIL0 LFLCe✓� 3 N6W - f -FFM I oal 7'0 2300 F1 RPOLDRVSri,! !C��prr G44- E,f,(�IoLp RD _ �J0 Cy Z-341 !ROD 6-19_11.11.911 508 R,9" -WY 0 G �rA.►c r 1 �o Ey ?,302 ;SPRING[=R Bl� 29R� ��_ �2;N' Q �eso� mr•• ��Tjo� NoMES P6 u5 2-95/ n.VW a B I-FOh Mgr or e.r � RRIDGR J4,DR r D6pa- ��'SuN�Jr F�6'Srr 'L06 W.tTU Si' -rRN ../M t .. Z37o5 ,VRA. 49' P[.uS :535 �T4RLi4 �„� N6W- 1-�MM �' o na ow l\ nY 15 15 LTD zao6'HRRIFN N6Stby,�q/.z.9 a/c0y' � LTD- JQu.0u4�4 ' 07 i WAR 80WaAbA.1 V.6 Ni siPPI 'g Al6�J - -r p•'!,'��j' s Q_ �.'-f,5 �C y L-14 Mo rl 8.4 4017 t✓q1, 51- s"roA�Lop�GJlkwaw 906 w. �8���,.j INSPREC: 0&2at94 R.DORi EXTERIOR 11 i62. 647 Ells" I.®® Mw IDC RECOMMENDATION Thursday, October 20, 1996 Based on the IDUs objective of industrial business recruitment, Bill Tapper made a motion recommending the City Council deny an Increase of the sewer and water access charges as it relates to industrial businesses and if the Council duly felt an increase was necessary to limit the increase to an amount not -to -exceed the Industrial sewer and water access charges of the City of Buffalo. Merrlyn Seefeldt seconded the motion and further discussion followed. Some members were uncomfortable to vote on a motion without having access to the total project coats of construction. Other project costs of concern were those associated with required site Improvements, plan review and permits. City staff was directed to complete a comparative study of project costs charged by other cities and actual project costs incurred by industrial businesses. Some members felt the pro-bueinese message sent by the City of Monticello to prospective industrial businesses Per-outweighted the small amount of revenue anticipated from the proposed industrial access charge increases. The motion passed eight to four. Recorded by 011ie Koropchak, IDC Executive Director Q@ ►i$irii�iii 250 0. Box 11147 TREE PICTURES hloniWlo, MN 33362.9245 ,_Ar- Council Agenda - 10/24/94 18. Consideration of condemnation of two hazardous trees in the Citv of Monticelio. W.S.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The city tree inspector has noted the existence of two hazardous trees within the community. The first tree is located on the Ms. Chantelle Mitchell property at 206 E. River Street. This tree was first brought to our attention by an adjoining neighbor, Mr. Stromberg, in July of 1993. At that time we informed Ms. Mitchell that the tree was in danger of falling and that it could cause significant property damage or even personal injury. We recommended that the tree be removed by a capable insured tree cutter. The tree was again brought to our attention by a new adjoining property owner who requested that the tree be inspected and removed. Our tree inspector again looked at the tree and it still represents as big of a hazard as it did last year. We again asked that Ms. Mitchell remove the tree. She indicated that it would be costly to remove the tree and she did not wish to have the tree removed due to the high coat. The second tree is located east of the Monticello fire hall on the east side of Locust Street on the Robert Ameriks property. This tree is dead and rather large. It appears that the dry, heavy limbs from above could fall onto the street at any time. In addition, a large wind storm could knock the tree over. We have informed the estate of Robert Ameriks of this situation and Roger Mack has had discussions with a member of the estate. Again the tree would be very costly to be removed and the property owner is hesitant to have this taken caro of. I spoke with the City Attorney on both of these issues and it is his recommendation that we condemn the trees as we would any building violation. Then have the trees removed and assess the property owners for the removal. Consequently, I am asking the City Council to condemn both these trees and order the removal as allowed by the building code and city ordinances. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Council could condemn both of these trees and authorize the removal as per city ordinance and building code. 2. Council could have the City have the trees removed by a contractor and subsidize the removal by paying a portion of the cost and/or assisting with some of the clean up. 3. Council could take no action. Council Agenda - 10/24/94 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and tree inspector that we condemn the trees and order the removal as outlined in alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of letters to Ms. Chantell Mitchell; Copy of letter to Robert Ameriks; Photos of trees. 2 250 East Broadway P. 0. Box 1147 Mondcello, MN 55362-9245 Phone. (612) 295.2711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 Fax: (612) 2954404 Ms. Shantelle Mitchell 206 E. River St. Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Storm Damaged Maple Tree Dear Ms. Mitchell: July 29, 1993 COPY This is to inform you that it is the opinion of the City that the large storm damaged Maple tree to the rear of your lot may be unstable during one of the larger wind and rain storms which can typically occur in our area. Should the tree fall in an inappropriate place, significant damage to property and even personal injury can occur. It is our recommendation that you have the tree removed by a capable and insured tree cutter. If you have any questions or if we may be of assistance with this matter, please contact us. Respectfully, AJC'hn Simola Public Works Director JES/pk cc: Roger Mack, Monticello Tree Inspector David Stromberg, Adjacent Property Owner / 102 Cedar St. Monticello, MN 55362 Ig 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Merro: (612) 333.5739 Fax: (612) 295-4404 Ms. Shantelle Mitchell 206 East River Street :toncicello, MN 95362 REi Storm Damaged Maple Tree Dear Ms. Mitchells October 4, 1994 Enclosed please find a copy of our letter dated July 29, 1993, which is in regard to a storm damaged Maple tree on your property which needed to be removed. It has come to our attention chat nothing has been done to mitigate this situation as of yet. I have been instructed to inform you that this matter is slated to be on the Agenda of the City Council if no action on your part has been taken by October 17, 1994. If you have any questions regarding this matter or if we can be of any assistance, please feel free to call me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, CITY .% Moi cnio 9� e Al Roger C. Mock Streer 6 Parks Superintendent RCM/beg Enclosure D 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Metro: (612) 333-5739 Fax: (612) 295-4404 Dear Mr. Amerika: DATE: June 16, 1994 OWNER: Mr. Robert Ameriks 38 Harrison Avenue South Hopkins, MN 55343 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Block 13, Lots 1,2,3,4, and 5, Original Plat Addition 155-010-013010 225 West 6th Street The manner in which vegetation is being maintained on the above property is in violation of one or each of Sections 7-1-4 (C), (D), end\or (E) of the attached excerpt from City Ordinance No. 7-1-1. Please take action to correct the situation within 7 days. If you so aeire, you may appeal to the City Council for a determination that the .omplained of activity does not violate the ordinance. Please submit written notice of your appeal within 7 days of the date of notice. Appeals will be placed on the next City Council agenda for purposes of the Council hearing the appeal. If no action is taken to remove tall weeds and grasses or if no appeal has been received by the City, the City will be compelled to remove the public nuisance and collect the cost to do so as a special assessment against the property. Included in the cost to remove the nuisance will be an administrative charge of $25. The balance of the charge will be based on labor and equipment time required to remove the public nuisance. Please be aware that this notice serves as your single notice of violation for the remainder of this growing season. If after this notice repeated violations occur, the City, wLtho t additional notice, may correct the conditions creating such violations and assess the cost against your property. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF MONTICELLO 4 1a5 C de� //' Zoning Administrator 06 cc: File C 2 TY Oi-- M01�7'S 2 C==LO • Bi.iC'ss3T =NS?ECT=OST R=�QRT L°3- O!0 -0/30/0 video up. t cess,-e�oz: r M --S: 79 Me ct-_r, StAZO.:.4: 4-I'*P7 � c''cl l,-I'•�i�� IIcsased =at= -- c I at==[I zrczc ."--L'ceased moot.-- VO -4 r-, /x�e"^�•' veh:�e, L�avabLe LI C=&=%-'7 L'==ad met= veh-,e:e/_acmd a veh-lrle, movable Pill El I ' EcaaacaiGfi • (� Grata/weeGa .. • ���' � r is. 2_re�=ra eats'. I i/�p�' u-, L.r- Daes: I OF . 21 I:sye�..aa Data: • ed: (I iea [I so Dats'=T and Cvar tz 6-e- • , lY moi:, .. �• .'Y � ' �Qr�P>L a f'+t i• Data asvieNd by ,C==- Qc Date 2--- ab ti=id ?I.ZLi 1 Cal! Q! S3 ?Clz SD Fm CST!! L" -mur: Qs= Data SecsiTeG by Ccoa--7 &t`�__ eq: C__C_ Data : aLiaSi ZC'.= R C=W. CT "'0 S YLlOi 0.0 ffi C:'! Ct '.fir.-C='.:d FCA CCR *4 Qui C^=!J= . =a .=. L" COUNCIL. UPDATE October 17, 1994 1995 Budget Revisions from WorkshoD Session. (R.W.) Attached you will find some new 1995 budget worksheets that reflect some of the changes that occurred as a result of the discussion at the session September 6, 1994. In addition to the changes that were discussed at the session, I have also received final valuations from the county assessor that also resulted in revisions to our tax levy increases. The two funds that have revisions since the workshop are the general fund and the capital outlay fund. The general fund levy is proposed at an increase of an additional $6,655 as a result of an increase of $7,405 for the additional salary requirements for the Mayor and Council departments, and a reduction of $750 from the community education/summer recreation budget. This net increase of $6,666 in the general fund was accomplished by lowering the capital outlay by an equal amount. Although the community education/summer recreation budget will undoubtedly be discussed further before a final allocation has been made, I did lower the proposed amount by $760 to the same level we are currently budgeting in 1994. In regard to the capital outlay fund, the total tax levy requirements were not altered very much, but the capital outlay expenditures proposed for the Meadow Oak Park Improvement project was lowered from the original $89,000 to $45,000 per Council consensus. The $44,000 reduction in the park improvement budget still remains within the capital outlay fund but was simply added to the reserve for future wastewater treatment plant expansion project account. One other change that has come up since the workshop relates to the City's tax capacity valuations for determining individual property tax amounts. Since the workshop, the county assessor has provided me with final valuation figures after deductions for tax increment financing districts, which lowered our tax capacity value slightly from $15,651,653 to $16,686,930. This slight reduction in our tax capacity value will result in our proposed 1995 tax levy increasing by 4.43% instead of 4% as the Council had originally anticipated. If the Council feels it is important to keep the increase at only 4%, we would have to reduce our tax levy at the final hearing by $11,780. If the Council eventually chooses to lower the levy to the 4% increase, it is then suggested the lost revenue be deducted from the reserve for future wastewater treatment plant expansion. Council Update - 10/17/94 Since the changes that have occurred since the workshop are relatively minor, with only slight adjustments in the general fund and a reallocation of funds amongst the capital outlay departments, the Council may not find it necessary to have an additional workshop session prior to the actual public hearing on the proposed budget Wednesday, December 7. If you would like to meet prior to December 7 to go over additional items in the budget, we could possibly set a time for this additional workshop session at the Monday night meeting. If you do not feel that the changes are enough to warrant an additional meeting at this time, I will prepare the budget for the public hearing similar to the summary enclosed. Revised 10/6/94 - Based on a 48 levy increase with updated tax capacity values from County ALTERNATIVE $1 Fund General Library Transportation Shade Tree OAA NRA Debt Service Capital Imp. Revolving TOTAL TAH LEVY SUMMARY 1995 BUDGET ALL FUNDS Net Certified Levy Increase - $188,658 Payable 1989 Net Payable** Adjusted Levy Before 1995 Adjusted Levy HACA Adj. Levy After Payable 1994 Payable 1995 Deducting HACA $1,726,851 $1,859,960 $1,674,402 29,510 30,735 30,735 15,024 16,816 15,054 18,004 25,960 23,271 26,401 29,450 26,390 15,255 17,850 15,995 600,863 706,400 637,098 220,619 463.123 417,684 $2,652,527 $3,150,794 $2,841,185• Net Certified Levy Increase - $188,658 Payable 1989 Tax Capacity Rate 14.283 Payable 1990 Tax Capacity Rate 16.187 Payable 1991 Tax Capacity Rate 15.511 Payable 1992 Tax Capacity Rate 16.492 Payable 1993 Tax Capacity Rate 16.313 Est. Payable 1994 Tax Capacity Rate. 17.527 Est. Payable 1995 Tax Capacity Rate. 18.228 (4.0t increase) Tax Capacity Value '88/Payable 1989 $ 15,405,139 189/Payable 1990 15,873,242 190/Payable 1991 16,161,043 191/Payable 1992 15,513,574 '92/Payable 1993 15,490,500 193/Payable 1994 15,154,786 '94/Payable 1995 15,586,930 Tax Capacity Rate Tax Levy 14.283 $2,198,008 16.187 2,568,106 15.511 2,506,132 16.492 2,558,554 16.308 2,526,216 17.527 2,652,527 16.228 2,841,185 • Actual levy collected from taxpayers --balance received from state in HACA aid payments ($309,109 is est. State Aid for 1995). •• Did not deduct HACA from library levy, but deducted library portion of HACA from general fund levy. NOTE: To keep 1995 levy increase to 4%, the preliminary levy adopted In September would need to be reduced by $11,780. V Preliminary levy as certified in September 1994 (Based on updated tax capacity values from County) TAS LEVY SUKKARY 1995 BUDGET ALL FUNDS Payable 1989 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 14.283 Payable 1990 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 16.187 Payable 1991 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 15.511 Payable 1992 Tax Capacity Rate 16.492 Payable 1993 Tax Capacity Rate 16.313 Est. Payable 1994 Tax Capacity Rate. 17.527 Est. Payable 1995 Tax Capacity Rate. 18.304 (4.43% increase) Tax Capacity Value 188/Payable 1969 $ 15,405,139 '89/Payable 1990 15,873,242 Net Payable•• 1991 Adjusted Levy Before 1995 Adjusted 15,513,574 Levy HACA Adj. Levy After Fund Payable 1994 Payable 1995 Deductinq HACA General $1,726,851 $1,859,960 $1,675,144 Library 29,510 30,735 30,735 Transportation 15,024 16,816 15,054 Shade Tree 18,004 25,960 23,271 OAA 26,401 29,450 26,390 HRA 15,255 17,850 15,995 Debt Service 600,863 706,400 637,345 Capital Imp. Revolving 220,619 474,903 428,475 TOTAL $2,652,527 $3,162,074 :2,852,965• Net Certified Levy Increase - $200,438 Payable 1989 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 14.283 Payable 1990 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 16.187 Payable 1991 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 15.511 Payable 1992 Tax Capacity Rate 16.492 Payable 1993 Tax Capacity Rate 16.313 Est. Payable 1994 Tax Capacity Rate. 17.527 Est. Payable 1995 Tax Capacity Rate. 18.304 (4.43% increase) Tax Capacity Value 188/Payable 1969 $ 15,405,139 '89/Payable 1990 15,873,242 '90/Payable 1991 16,161,043 191/Payable 1992 15,513,574 '92/Payable 1993 15,490,500 193/Payable 1994 15,154,786 194/Payable 1995 15,586,930 Tax Capacity Rate Tax Levy 14.283 $2,198,008 16.187 2,568,106 15.511 2,506,132 16.492 2,556,554 16.308 2,526,216 17.527 2,652,527 18.304 2,852,965 • Actual levy collected from taxpayers --balance received from state in HACA aid payments ($309,109 is est. State Aid for 1995). •• Did not deduct HACA from library levy, but deducted library portion of HACA from general fund levy. 1995 BUDGET SUMMARY (Based on 4.43% increase) • includes $367,750 Depreciation --contributed assets •• includes $165,930 Depreciation --contributed assets NOTE: If overall levy is reduced to 4% increase, capital improvement revenue and expenditures would be reduced by $11,780 each to a new total of $517,523. L_I 1994 1995 FUND REVENUE EXPENDITURES REVENUE EXPENDITURES General $2,402,985 $2,402,985 $2,432,730 $2,432,730 Library 31,335 31,335 31,865 31,865 Transportation 70,647 70,547 67,479 67,229 Shade Tree 26,160 26,160 32,960 32,960 UDAG 10,845 85,000 11,695 -0- OAA 29,800 29,800 29,800 29,800 HRA 352,210 272,035 414,700 321,771 EDA 218,710 2,110 118,770 201,440 SCERG 8,345 -0- 63,100 33,300 CMIF -0- -0- 13,320 13,320 Debt Service 1,261,020 1,423,350 1,266,115 1,419,712 Liquor 1,487,125 1,479,495 1,540,900 1,483,625 Water 174,280 332,905•• 182,350 411,000•• Sewer 464,785 812,985• 505,900 862,575• Capital Imp. 278,190 262,195 $28,553 528,553 Water Access 15,550 28,000 24,400 -0- Sewer Access 14,675 35,000 33.550 -0- TOTAL $6,844,162 $7,311,402 $7,298,187 $7,869,680 • includes $367,750 Depreciation --contributed assets •• includes $165,930 Depreciation --contributed assets NOTE: If overall levy is reduced to 4% increase, capital improvement revenue and expenditures would be reduced by $11,780 each to a new total of $517,523. L_I GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 1995 BUDGET REVENUE 1994 1995 Taxes Current Ad Valorem $1,934,765 $1,859,960 Penalty/ Interest 1,000 11000 Tax Increments --Kmart 103,000 99,600 $2,038,765 $1,960,560 Licenses and Permits - Business Liquor 17,000 $ 20,950 Beer 1,550 1,445 set UPS 300 325 $ 18,850 $ 22,720 Licenses and Permits - Non -Business Building Permits 44,500 $ 80,000 Variances/Conditional Uses 1,500 1,800 Dog Licenses 150 150 Others 2,200 3,600 $ 48,350 $ 85,550 Inter -Governmental Fire Department Aid 30,875 $ 31,125 Police Department Aid 19,500 20,000 State Highway Aid -0- 40.000 $ 50,375 $ 91,125 Charges for Services General Government 1,000 $ 1,150 Public Safety (Township Contract) 59,770 60,020 Streets - C.S.A.H. Ntnc. 3,650 5,050 Deputy Registrar 68,000 93,750 Other 100 3,200 Subdivision Fees 500 9,000 Special Processing Fee (Garbage) 5,000 8,500 Recycling Incentive 6,000 7,500 Inspection Fees 2,500 3,000 Garbage Cart Rental 3,200 3,700 $ 169,720 $ 194,870 Fines Atmel Impoundment 20,000 20.000 $ 20,000 20,000 Miscellaneous Revenue Interest on Investments i 37,425 $ 50,555 Sale of Property 300 350 Contributions/Donations/ Park Dedications/Rofunds 2,500 2,500 Other 1,700 2,500 $ 41,925 $ 55,905 Refunds and Reimbursements IDC Reimbursement 15,000 # 2,000 $ 1$.000 i 2.000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $2,402,985 $2,432,730 i GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 1995 BUDGET EXPENDITURES Proposed 1994 1995 Mayor and Council f 18,400 $ 29,750 Administration 231,970 232,120 Finance 92,900 97,960 Insurance 58,250 66,825 Audit 12,500 13,500 Legal 23,275 23,775 Planning & Zoning 53,010 81,290 inspections --Bldg. Official 44,655 96,550 Assessing 13,880 12,525 Deputy Registrar 70,470 85,685 City Nall 48,385 50,260 Computer 23,325 29,840 Elections 13.595 -0- TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 704,615 $ 820,080 Law Enforcement t 279,875 i 293,635 Fire 123,395 132,400 Civil Defense 7,930 9,405 Animal Control 38,225 38,075 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY $ 449,425 $ 473,515 Inspection $ 35,500 39,800 Admin. b Engineering 82,490 102,795 Streets b Alleys 297,920 230,850 Snow 6 Ice 28,885 17,735 Street Lighting b Parking Lots 54,950 64,490 Shop & Garage 42,900 35,500 Refuse Collection 304,090 269,070 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS $ 846,695 $ 760,240 Senior Citizens Center i 36,500 36,500 YMCA/Community Ed. 25,000 25,000 Information Center/Museum 2.095 1,795 TOTAL HEALTH & WELFARE $ 63,595 $ 63,295 Parka & Rec./Cemetery S 186.650 f 170,055 'DOTAL PARKS & RECREATION $ 186,650 $ 170,055 Community Development 6 146,505 i 135,045 TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S 146,505 $ 135,045 Misc.--Severence Benefits L 5.500 ! 10,500 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $ 5,500 = 10,500 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $2,402,985 $2,432,730 E SUMMARY DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 1995 BUDGET FORECAST CURRENT AD VALOREM INTEREST SPECIAL ASNT--COUNTY TRANSFER IN --TAX INCREMENT 1994 1995 671,992 706,400 66,725 80,165 195,778 1500900 326,525 328,650 TOTAL REVENUE $1.261.020 11,266,115 rrrrrrsrrrrrarrsrararr�arrrrarrsarraraararararrraararaarrrrr EXPENDITURES PRINCIPAL 880,000 925,000 INTEREST 508,734 456,851 PAYING AGENT FEES 91191 8,661 INTEREST EXP. 25,425 29,200 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,423.350 11.419.712 F CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS 1995 BUDGET (Based on 4.43% levy increase) FUND/ DEPARTMENT ITEM AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE Admin.: (1/2) Copier replacement $ 5,000 General Fund Small copier at counter 2,700 General Fund Typewriter 1,280 General Fund Computer file rack 150 General Fund $ 9,130 Finance: Check signer b stand $ 1,800 General Fund Planning S Zoning: Comprehensive plan review $ 15,000 General Fund Data Processing: Personal computer - PW secretary $ 2,500 General Fund - City hall secretary 2,500 Genoral Fund Laser printer 3,500 General Fund Uninterruptible power supply 700 General Fund (2) Data racks 175 General Fund Big. inspection software 3,500 General Fund $ 12,875 City Hall: Brick sealing 3 repair $ 10,000 General Fund Interior wood sealant 8,000 General Fund (50) Council Chamber chairs 3,250 General Fund Reserve for future city expansion 90,550 Capital Outlay $111,800 Deputy Registrar: Office chair $ 275 General Fund Microwave 125 General Fund Refrigerator (used) 250 General Fund Ticket i system 350 General Fund $ 1,000 Fire Department: Building refinishing -- siding $ 7,000 General Fund Unallocated 10,000 General Fund Balance of new fire truck ($70,000 allocated from prev. yrs.) 80,000 Capital Outlay $ 97,000 Building Inspection: Llteraturo rack for handouts $ 225 Gonsral Fund Mobile radio 575 General Fund Car phone 125 General Fund $ 925 �i V CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS 1995 BUDGET FUND/ FUNDING SOURCE DEPARTMENT ITEM Pub. Works Reserve for interceptor Admin.: Document feeder --copier WWTP: Typewriter $ 21,500 Cabinets Streets: Small loader 6 trailer 81000 Paint striper 27,500 Used pickup $ 61,000 Sealcoating Water Department: Senus Meter Master Control panel wiring 125 KW generator Sewer FUNDING SOURCE Collection: Gas detector 1,280 Reserve for interceptor 800 sewer ext. (3rd year) WWTP: Tri- or quad- gas meter $ 21,500 WWTP expansion 4,000 Future City share of 81000 intrastructure imp. 27,500 Klein/Emmerich plat) $ 61,000 Sewer lateral i 6,100 Trunk water 3,550 School Blvd ext. 41,600 (117 to Fallon) S 51,250 Fallon Ave. rebuilding WWTP: Reserve for future 60,000 expansion Storm Sowor: Noadow, Oak pond outlet Pub. Works Bonds Buildings Phase iI expansion Pub. Works Inspections: Scale AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE $ 1,220 General Fund 1,280 General Fund 800 General Fund t 3,300 $ 21,500 General Fund 4,000 General Fund 81000 General Fund 27,500 General Fund $ 61,000 i 6,100 Water Fund 3,550 Water Fund 41,600 Water Fund S 51,250 $ 2,500 Sewer Fund 60,000 Capital Outlay $ 62,500 $ 3,000 Sewer Fund i5-8 million Bonds i 10,000 Capital Outlay 33,800 or Bonds 54,000 66.000 $163,800 $205,153 $375,000 Bonds $400,000 Liquor Fund $ 1,500 General Fund 0 FUND/ DEPARTMENT Shop a Garage: Parke: Parks— Meadow Oak Park Imp: Parke: CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS 1995 BUDGET ITEM Electric arc 6 air cutter (plasma cutter) Picnic tables a repairs Front -mounted diesel mower Trees (1/2) of fertilizer spreader AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE S 2,500 General Fund $ 4,000 General Fund 15,000 General Fund 10,000 General Fund 11500 General Fund i 30,500 (2) Irrigated ballfields $ 45,000• Capital Outlay (1) Irrigated soccer field Capital Outlay (1) Storage building Capital Outlay (2) Basketball courts Capital Outlay (1) Sand volleyball court Capital Outlay Assumes improvements are phased over two years with this being (1/2) of costs. Balance of pathway project (ISTEA) $ 45,000 Capital Outlay Tree Department: (1/2) of stump grinder $ 7,500 Tree Fund 1898 SUMMARY OF LEVY INCREASES/DECREASES PROPOSED BY FUNDS General fund levy is down $52,449. Some of the increases or decreases by department are as follows: 1. Council - Up $11,400 to allow for increase in Mayor/Council salary. 2. Assessing - Down $1,355 mainly due to no longer allocating portion of Building Inspector's salary to this department. 3. Planning & Zoning - Up $37,370 primarily to cover 75% of salary and benefits for new Development Services Technician (Wanda's position) and allowance of $15,000 for comprehensive plan review. 4. Deputy Reeistrar - Up $15,215 mainly due to additional salary and benefits for parttime help and extra costs associated with being located in separate building. 5. Police Contract - Up $13,750 due to hourly rate increase from $30.50 to $32. 6. Fire Denartment - Up $9,000, includes $7,000 for refinishing/ maintenance of siding on building. 7. PW Administration - Up $18,305 mainly due to addition of part-time secretary position and related office equipment purchases. 8. llefuse - Down $34,980 because of lower tipping fees at compost facility. 9. Parks Department - Down $18,095 due to lower capital outlay purchases. 10. Buildine Inspection - Up $52,105 duo to allocation of 25% of Development Services Technician position, salary/benefits and funding for additional full-time Building Inspector position, and related costs such as benefita/mileage. 11. Street, Denprtment - Down $67,000 mainly because of reduction in capital outlay. '94 budget for Capital Outlay was: $116,000 '95 budget proposed for Capital Outlay: $ 61,000 In addition to the changes noted by various departments above, the 1995 general fund budget also has additional non -tax revenue fiutds of $40,000 for state LEVY.SUM: 10/18/94 Page 1 highway aid and approximately $36,000 additional building permit revenue. With the proposed expenditures only increasing by $23,000, the additional revenue allows the actual tax levy for the general fund to be reduced by over $52,000. The second area of notable change from the 1994 budget is in our debt service funds where the levy proposed is up $32,000 to cover next year's debt payments. So that you can get an idea of our debt payments and tax levy requirements in future years, I have enclosed a summary of our outstanding debt and a schedule of future year tax levies we will be collecting. As you will note, most of the remaining funds have proposed tax levies very similar to the 1994 budget with the only exception being the "capital outlay" fund, which will vary depending on the amount of tax levy increase the Council is comfortable with. The following is a revised summary of the expenditures proposed in the capital outlay fund under the preliminary levy increase of 4.43% and the alternate levy increase of 4%. Prelilm uwv Levv as Adonted: Balance of fire truck purchase (estimated City share at $150,000 with previous year allocations of $70,000) $80,000 Park improvements (Mepd9jy Ogk): (phased over 2 years) a. 2 irrigated ballfields $53,000 b. irrigated soccer field 15,000 C. storage building 9,000 d. 2 basketball courts 10,000 e. 1 sand volleyball court 2.000 $69,000 Proposed allotment for 1995 (1/2) $45,000 Balance of ISTEA trail system project (City share) $46,000 Reserve for interceptor sewer Ord year) $60,000 Reserve for future WWTP expansion (2nd year) $144,000 Reserve for future city hall expansion $90,550 Additional reserve for future WWTP expansion $61,153 TOTAL PRELIMINARY CAPITAL OUTLAY BUDGET CERTIFIED $625,703 LEVY.SUM: 10/18M Page 2 Alternative Levv #1 (4% total levy increase): Same items as previously listed $525,703 LESS: Reduction of additional reserve funds for WWTP expansion 11780 REVISED CAPITAL OUTLAY BUDGET TO KEEP OVERALL BUDGET AT A 4% INCREASE $513,923 The expenditures proposed under the two alternatives above were done to match capital outlay fund revenue for each alternative to possible expenditures the Council may want to consider, depending on how much of a tax levy increase you are willing to consider. Under each of the tax levy proposals, the primary adjustment was always made to the capital outlay revolving fund using most of the tax levy increases to be set aside for future projects we know will be coming down the road. While the capital outlay fund has built up substantial reserves during the past years, the Council is reminded that most of these funds have already been earmarked for various future improvements such as: New dog pound $ 75,000 Portion of new fire truck purchase $ 70,000 Future interceptor sewer extension $160,000 ISTEA trail project $ 95,000 The Council should take under consideration in deliberating a potential tax levy amount what the future needs of the city will be to keep up with the growing demand and our eventual replacement of infrastructure throughout the community. As the city continues to grow, the City will be faced with being involved with various improvements such as the recently -discussed Meadow Oak storm sewer project, future water and sewer line extensions to new developments, and the eventual replacement of some of our streets and infrastructure. As an example, the main street project in 1977 saw curb and gutter, along with bituminous paving, being installed in the core city, which will soon be 20 years old. Normally, the expected life can be anywhere from 20.30 years, and eventually we will be facing major replacements of streets. I'm sure the question at that time will be whether the City will be participating in the cost of the replacement, or will we attempt to assess 100% to the property owners. While it may be unrealistic to exiwa to save sufficient funds to cover all the City share of these various improvement projects, the Council is reminded that every year we get closer to the possibility that the power plant may no longer be part of our tax base. That's not to any that the City should get too carried away in over -taxing today for future projects, but it may be prudent to systematically continue a process of levying certain dollars for reserve funds to cover some of these eventual projects we know well be facing. For example, it may be easier to simply set aside $75,000 to $100,000 per year for the eventual city hall expansion that will be needed so that the funds are available in 3.5 years rather than requiring a referendum bond issue. The same could be true for many projects, but it does come down to a philosophical question as to whether we want to take the LEVY.SUM: 10/18/94 Pago 3 approach that we will increase taxes when projects are needed by issuing bonds, or whether it would be better to have increases in taxes but at smaller steps by saving annually additional funds. Other items the Council may want to discuss that do not necessarily affect our tax levy for next year include: 1. Phase II of the public works building expansion - $400,000. The current liquor budget again earmarks $100,000 as a transfer to the EDA for the revolving loan program. Even with the potential transfer, the liquor fund is estimated to have a surplus of approximately $427,000 at the end of 1994, which would primarily cover the phase I1 expansion. 2. Meadow Oak pond outlet project - $350,000. (Not covered in 1995 budget and also assumed that this project would be financed by bond sale.) 3. Future WWTP expansion in 3.5 yrs - estimated cost $5 to $8 million. Also assumed that most of this cost would have to be covered by a bond sale even if we start setting aside some money annually through additional tax levy. 4. Possible acquisition of agricultural land for sludge disposal - $200,000 to $300,000. 6. Future city share of infrastructure improvements for 10ein/Emmerich plat - $160,000 to $260,000. LEVY.SUM: 10/18194 Page 4 Is Based on 4.43% Levy Increase SUMMARY OF PROJECTED REVENUES, EMMIN RURES, AND FUND BALANCES (CASH & RMSTMEM) REVSUAM.WKt: 10/19% 61 PROJECTED 1995 1995 PROJECTED FUND BALANCE 1201194 PROJECTED REVENUE PROJECTED FXPENDITLIRES BALANCE 12/31/95 General $1,613,500 $2,433,480 $2,433,480 $1,613.500 Ubrary $4.400 $31,865 $31.865 $4,400 Tree $117,250 $32,960 $32,960 5117250 OAA $6,345 $29,800 $29,800 $6,345 Water $108,700 $182.350 $245.070 $45.980 Water Access $146500 $24.400 $0 $170.900 Sewer $61.000 $505.900 $494,825 $72.075 Sewer Access $24,800 $33.550 $0 $58.350 Transportation $7,400 $67,479 $67,229 $7,650 Liquor $427,350 $1,540,900 $1,883,625 $84,625 Capital Outlay Revolving $379.000 $528.553 $528.553 $379.000 HRA $410,400 $414,700 $321,771 $503.329 UDAG $38.000 $11,695 $0 $47,695 EDA $87,100 $118,770 $201,440 $4.430 SCERG 533,300 $63.100 $33,300 $63.100 CMIF $540 113 320 $13320 M SUBTOTALS $3,463.545 $6,025.417 $8,309,833 $3,179,129 Debt Service General Obliptlon Bonds $527.519 $577,504 $588280 $518,743 Special Assessment Bonds $1,864,653 $357,971 $513,970 $1.708,654 Tax Increment Bonds 9350158 1330,840 x318482 1,361.336 SUBTOTALS $2,742,330 $1266,115 $1,419,712 112.588.733 TOTALS $8,205,875 $7,291,532 $7,729.545 $5.787,882 REVSUAM.WKt: 10/19% 61 CITY OF MONTICELLO COMBINED STATEMENT OF INDEBTF,DNF.SS (PROJECTED) 12.31-95 Auth. and General Obligation Bonds $3,900.000 $1,940.000 $1,990,000 Specht Assessment Bonds $15,449.00D $11.748.000 $3,700,000 General Obligation Tax $32,OOD $32.00D $0 Inurement Note General Obligation Tax S a2.45MO 5855.0DO 161.690.000 Increment Bonds LI -0 082901 621.725,000 $14,375,ODD $7,350,000 $880,000 $508,734 $925,000 $456,951 $6,425,000 62,742,330 Projected Funds On Mand For Prindpal Interest Prindpal Interest Debt Paid In Paid in Due N Due In Outstanding Retirement 1994 1994 1995 ]995 12131ts5 17131[94 $275,000 $127,662 $295,000 $114,597 $1,675,000 $527,519 $415,000 $245,493 $445,009 $220,739 $3,255,DOD $1,864,653 $D $0 $0 So $0 $0 1190 QDQ 1135519 1195 -ODD 4121.516 41.495.000 vi5D-12 621.725,000 $14,375,ODD $7,350,000 $880,000 $508,734 $925,000 $456,951 $6,425,000 62,742,330 CITY OF MONTICELL.O TAX LEVIES TO RETIRE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS Dmmftn 71, 1f W BONDDEBT.N6U96r7t/W 3 Gens Owasso Ovoll Owasso 0.rr @¢en o— 011. 0.tar 0." a..r a4ao 0..r 00" o.w r 0.a.. �� OmQW- 00 ooamm 0aam" 0evio" 09.. = a.o•.m tiam.s.+ wes er.r. laisr /pra w4s /r4um ava.n.1 „ oboe Ftv.wn.4 P400.a YM co Bao B.iw Bona BMr Bael.44 BoeBs 9"Goll !mels Baa ss"m ancon ams/ aMMD Inw fnl.fa laea1477 Bematlee 8$327$3$4!! ,61M 19rm I.71R IFOR QW IMI• Ian. ire" IMA I TmAAL. 8887 ,6391 114,1113 634,323 {121,OS1 $149,246 $129.6'88 $26,084 i20.J82 11,876 (,,029 {,72.8$3 $67],849 1984 1997 (17,819 $37,,08 (124,an 6148.37 $t2S.b71 (21,131 9W.ODO $26,010 62,971 $10272 114&770 i706,490 1988 1991 W503 $37,091 $124,/82 8126.741 $27,626 00,000 924,1,7 67.907 $11.117 1114,6W $126,812 03,.167 1896 1987 8&310 876,414 $124,672 $125.743 (71.400 $1$.086 127,160 6111843 $171.167 9670.081 1887 1996 {&876 63&866 {124.072 $126.717 $20.4,1 $87,167 =181 $12.414 8178.6" swim 1886 1899 $W= f, 2&200 $128.235 W,BU 184.087 $2&423 $7.578 $17/.782 :36&970 1889 2000 634.631 {1126,310 1170.597 179,715 $23.034 8&,40 $170,916 $571,987 2000 2001 $37,689 6129,207 f, 28,604 scam 88,697 9172.076 (480.057 2001 2002 11126.712 $&90211127.490 $267,,01 2002 200) 0120.704 $127.090 6277.762 2007 2001 so 2004 2006 so 2003 20D/ i0 i m TOTAL , �,y i U== .= W= It 777 flu JIM6i L7= &a= a= 12n39 UnAU sib' BONDDEBT.N6U96r7t/W 3 1995 (Based on levy Increase of 4.3°x) The effect of budget Increases or decreases on the proposed: Effect on General fund +29,745 -51,707 Library fund +530 +11,225 Transportation -3,068 +154 Tree +6,800 +5,421 OAA 0 +174 HFLA +49,736 +833 Debt service -3,638 +36,482 Capital outlay fund +246,358 +207.856 EDA fund +199,330 0 UDAG +850 0 Liquor +4,130 0 Water fund +78.095 0 Sewer fund +49,590 0 Water access fund -28,000 0 Sewer access fund -35.000 0 SCERG +33,300 0 CMIF + 13.320 0 TOTALS --ALL FUNDS +642,078 +200,438 3 2� Re-w-� 1%Af:cello Fee 6tP}. T�ly - sc-?I"ber 30pl, /?N Co ks , 585 elks. AoeraZe Offen ce /y alert Lpe--r-oe. r 141 Srtoke. 0.tafr-." 7 S+rvci q Gross 3 Power I"P- 60,z.,- S} 0,z.,S} or,-, w., &- b —'b " 2-,C lucka :s owikc l &A G; uen> B't 6Xe- • errie L>ke 3 Trc.;,,;^% Sess;o.,s eetu:r:n% Are. ()Mtpt dunce —> d3 me.,-.- K em k n cs4.i- ay .-rPs, cJ•'A( /a? .ve4 Ii Pal}:CGQa�to.. ;. Ae %Iloa;w9 F[5%u:�:e5> BeC�tC/ H� ol� Porade . Aokrel% kvv ),:rest. a•) Held oux owAuo.l Sleo.K dry A,,gas . 4 l- cello F,- I -e- Dep/. 4 61to.kJo,.>. A c -Its %r T,,.11 — $arae bel` 30th /994. sAC'ello .LY—: S}ruc: ,Om > a rlt uo .l A;d ,rcce: Jed 76W ,wMber of c,.11s N:9h� c.%\) vel.:cle. 3 Grass I Resuxe II Vclvcle p Gross 1 Rcscv 3 oi'1.e� I _:�; Ivrr Cmek Tzo : Sero url—z > O vel�:cle I G raSS I Reese. o o}ter' n z s}roc}vr2 > o VP6,:c-1e- I Grass O Resc.Kr- O offer Tfi�l —> I rlt uo .l A;d ,rcce: Jed 76W ,wMber of c,.11s N:9h� c.%\) ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 09/30/94 15:23:05 �a.,RRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37357 09/30/94 R. P. UTILITIES 37358 09/30/94 U.S. POSTMASTER 37359 09/30/94 PETTY CASH 37360 09/30/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37361 09/30/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37362 09/30/94 U.S. POSTMASTER 91363 09/30/94 KOROPCHAK/OLIVE 37304 09/30/94 TRI-STATE PUMP & CON )7364 09/30/94 IRI -STATE PUMP & CON 1',65 09/30/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 1366 09/30/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 313G7 09/30/94 PETTY CASH 37367 03/30/94 PETTY CA:+H 1/367 09/30/94 PETTY CALH 37361 09/30/94 PETTY CA14H x'1367 09/30/94 PETTY C.ASN M67 09/30/94 PETTY CASH G�NLkAl CHECKING c Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLI 821 CONST COSTS/C HILL 65,225.01 210 POSTAGE/DEP REG 145.00 166 PETTY CASH/DEF REG 50.00 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 467.00 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 10.00 210 RECYCLING WEEK MAILIN 230.84 97 TRAVEL/CONFERENCE REI 213.56 832 CHANNEL ALARM DIALE 2,500.00 832 CHANNEL ALARM DIALE 1,872.88 4,372.88 •CHL 118 WATER/SNOW/A1V REG 9G8,00 0 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 30.00 166 POSTAGE REIMB 0.01 166 POP RF'IMB & SUP/C HALL 10.4'1 166 POST CARDS/FIRE DEPT 2.05 166 FAPES/8LD DEPT 911P 7.01 166 POSTAGE REIMB/DATA PROC 9.53 166 VCR TAP(:S/PLAN E 2GN 23.37 91.?6 *('.HE TOIA( 11.193.5') BFC FINANCIAL SY:'TEM 09/28/94 13:36:06 4ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37368 10/03/94 ADVANTAGE PAPER 37369 10/03/94 AFFORDABLE SANITATIO 37370 10/03/94 B & D PLUMBING & HEA 37371 10/03/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 37371 10/03/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 3 737 1 10/03/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 31371 10/03/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 37372 10/03/94 CHOUINAD OFFICE PROD 37373 10/03/94 DAVIS WATER EQUIPMEN 37374 10/03/94 FLICKER'S T.V. & APF 37375 10/03/94 GOLDEN VALLEY FURNIT 37376 10/03/94 H & H WATERTOWER, IN 31377 10/03/84 HERM173/JERRY 37378 10/03/94 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC 37370 10/03/94 HOLMES & CRAVEN 37380 10/03/94 J C� K SERVICES 373131 10/03/04 J M OIL COMPANY 3'1382 10/03/94 JONES/WILLIAM 0 3130? 10/03/94 JONES/WILLIAM 0 37383 10/0)/94 K MART :.PORE /:)03 10/03/04 K MART STORE 37,103 10/03/94 K MART' OTORE JJJO3 10/03/94 K MART ,`.TORE ;17104 10/03/94 L t'• 1001. & DELLIGN 3130b 10/03/94 I.FAGIIF OF MINNLCUTA 1 1306 10/03/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO Disbursement: Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA 833 PLASTIC BAGS/BLD DEPT 88.95 802 LATRINE RENTAL/PARKS 58.58 600 HEATING/NEN DEP REG 2,045.00 794 CAR PHONE CHGS/GARY A 111.91 794 CAR PHONE CHGS/FIRE DEF 1.74 794 CAR PHONE CHGS/MATT T 11.59 794 CAR PHONE CHGS/TOM B 88.45 213.69 *CHE 413 TYPEWRIIER kLPAlkS/L1 1US.UU 290 STORM PIPE/MEADOWS DI 926.97 GO COPY IAPB/BLD INSP 6.00 720 RUG MAT/NEW DEP REG OF 53.20 575 INSTALL SAFETY CLIMBE 504.00 81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONI 227.50 85 GAS/FIRE DEPT 45.02 86 HRA I.EGAL FEES 262.00 834 HAUL LOADER TO SHOP 50.00 95 GAO/�;1'RF.ET DFPI 850.b0 026 INI'O CENTER SALARY 170.00 070 INTO CENTER SAIARV 60.000N 1?0.00 *CHI 460 CLFANING 5UPPLIF'�/P WR 90.?,1 460 CLLANING S'UP/C HALL 1:1.03 460 IiUPPI.II'i/NFW DFP RI1, U 21. 12 460 MISC SUPPLIES/FIRE ULP 31.03 1'0. 16 *CIU ?J1 E.HARPEN CHIPPER RLADEO 75.00 98 MF.MBER5HTP DIA, ''. 3,0?7.00 105 ANIMAL CONTROL PYM1' 1,100.00 8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 09/28/94 13:36:06 t JAkRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37387 10/03/94 MONTICELLO SENIOR CI 37388 10/03/94 MONTICELLO VACUUM CE 37389 10/03/94 D.E.I. BUSINESS FORM 37390 10/03/94 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, I 37390 10/03/94 ONE CALL CONCEPTS. I 37391 10/03/94 PITNEY BOWES 37392 10/03/94 REACH EQUIPMENT 37393 10/03/94 RED'S MOBIL 37394 10/03/94 RIVERSIDE OIL 37395 10/03/94 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 37395 10/03/94 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTTC 37396 10/03/94 SCHLUENDER CONSTRUCT 37397 10/03/94 SERVICEMASTER BY HIC 37390 10/03/94 5HUMAN/CATHY 37399 10/03/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 37399 10/03/94 SIMONSON LIJMOI:R COMP :.7799 10/03/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 37399 10/03/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 37401) 10/03/94 4PE(,TRIIM SUPPI Y Co. 31401 10/03/94 1RUEMAN-WELTERS, INC 3740? 10/03/94 II C & MASONRY CONTR 17403 10/03/94 V 0 N C 0 CORPORATI 37404 10/U3/94 WOLE'�TELLF.k/RICHARD 37406 10/03/94 WRI(.HT COUNTY SUkVFY 1741111 10/03/94 ZEE MFUICAL ,FRVTI1 GCNLkAL CHCCKINC Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA 139 MONTHLY CONTRACT PY 2,833.33 141 VACUUM CLNR REPAIRS/LI 54.87 158 COPY MACHINE PAPER/C 149.53 836 GOPHER STATE PRINTE 1,073.75 836 GOPHER STATE CALLS 420.00 1,493.75 168 POSTAGE SCALE RENTAL/ 129.00 705 NUTS & BOLT/SHADE TREE 60.45 324 GAS/FIRE DEPT 21.00 496 ANTIFREEZE/SHOP & GAR 181.58 227 TIRE REPAIR/PW INSPECT 31.57 227 TIRE REPAIR/PARKS DErr 10.84 42.41 187 TANK REMOVAL/CILLI: 8,897.00 835 CARPET CLEANING/LIBRA 466.47 191 TRAVEL REIMB/CONFERENC 54.60 193 CEMENT/KRAMER RENTAL 17.03 193 NF'W DEP REG OFFICE 119.34 193 CONCRETE MIX/SIREETL 27.10 193 LUMBER/LLECTION DOO1H:: 132.19 215.'74 498 SUPI'IIES/PARKS RCPT 172.32 207 EQUIP RI PAIR PARTE/`-.IR 04.22 90380 MCMIICRSHIP DUF.r�/OLD IN 50.00 013 DUMPING CHGS/NEM OrV 0 80.00 217 TLLEPH0NIr!;/NL'W DIP RI 233.50 1,32 PIAT COPY/P W INbPECT10 (1.1,0 1,94 MEDICAL- !IUPPLICS/';HIII' 3?.06 TOTAL 25.196.00 MCHf *CHI *CHI M BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 10/06/94 14:36:07 !ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37407 10/05/94 U.S. POSTMASTER 37408 10/05/94 NORTHWEST MINNESOTA 37409 10/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN 37409 10/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN 37409 10/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN 37409 10/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN 37410 10/05/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37411 10/06/94 A.E. MICHAELS 37412 10/06/94 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL 37413 10/06/94 AME GROUP 37413 10/06/94 AME GROUP 37414 10/06/94 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 37414 10/06/94 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 37415 10/06/94 ASSOCIATED VETERINAR 37416 10/05/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELE•PHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37417 10/06/94 CAMPBELL ABSTRACT CO 37418 10/06/94 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT 37410 10/00/94 CORPORATE REPORT t 37420 10/06/94 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP l Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA 210 POSTAGE/CITY HALL 1,500.00 156 REG FEE/SEMINAR/GARY A 10.00 327 MILEAGE REIMB 45.10 327 MILEAGE REIMB 15.03 327 MILEAGE REIMB 15.03 327 MILEAGE REIMB 15.03 90.19 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 577.00 339 PAINT/NEM DEP REG OFFI 36.36 3 PEST CONTROL/LIBRARY 46.92 8 IMPROVEMENTS/PARKS 1,617.75 8 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 0 106.73 1,724.48 10 PAINT & MSC SIGNS/STR 836.75 10 BKTBL BACKSTOP/PARK 2,955.50 3,792.25 683 ANIMAL CONTROL SUPPLIE 47.50 24 PHONE CHARGES 85.92 24 PHONE CHARGES 60.28 24 PHONE CHARGES 123.01 24 PHONE CHARGES 42.01 24 PHONE CHARGES 108.08 24 PHONE CHARGES 22.94 24 PHONE CHARGES 20.75 24 PHONE CHARGES 171.67 24 PHONE CHARGES 31.16 24 PHONE CHARGES 725.74 24 FAX PHONE CHG/PW INSPE 22.94 24 INSTALL PHONE/DEP REG 207.69 1,622.39 28 ABSTRACT/OAKWD PARK 81.00 822 CMIF PYMT 4 LOAN 00 1.100.21 837 SUBSCRIPTION/OLLIE K 29.00 394 POSTAGE DUE 34.SU •CHE •CHE •CHF •CHt BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 10/06/94 14:36:07 r /ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37421 10/06/94 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I 37421 10/06/94 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I 37422 10/06/94 FLICKER'S T.V. & APP 37423 10/06/94 HEARTLAND APPRAISAL 37424 10/06/94 HOGLUND COACH LINES 37425 10/06/94 HOLMES & GRAVEN 37425 10/06/94 HOLMES & GRAVEN 37426 10/06/84 KERN/DAVE 37427 10/06/94 M & P TRANSPORT, INC 37428 10/06/94 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU 37428 10/06/94 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU 37428 10/06/94 MARCO BUSINESS PROOU 37428 10/06/94 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU t 37429 10/06/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 37429 10/06/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 37429 10/06/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 37430 10/06/94 MINNEGASCO 37431 10/06/94 MN OEPARTMENT OF HEA 37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37433 10/06/94 NORWEST MECHANICAL I 37434 10/08/94 PAGE LINK 37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK 37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK 37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA 56 PROF SERVICES/WATER DP 60.00 56 CHEMICALS/MATER DEP 3,045.15 3,105.15 60 BATTERY/BLD INSPEC DEP 62.84 838 APPRAISAL FEES/BAUER 400.00 483 HEARTLAND EXPRESS C 4,985.63 86 FAY MAR LEGAL FEES 144.OU 86 HRA LEGA FEES 48.00 •CHE 192.00 *CHE 357 SIGNS/NEM DEP REG OFF 160.00 265 VEHICLE REPAIR/FIRE D 131.24 106 CALCULATOR/DEP REG OFF 93.67 106 TONER/COPY MCH/P WOR 100.64 106 MTC ARGMT/DICTAPHONE 372.00 106 TYPEWRITER/P WORKS 1,112.93 1,679.24 107 SEED/MEADOWS DITCH PR 151.23 107 MISC SUPPLIES/STREET 0 23.00 107 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS OP 32.27 206.50 772 UTILITIES 10.70 235 WATER CONN FEE/3RD 2,101.00 148 UTILITIES 3,236.96 148 UTILITIES 286.02 148 UTILITIES 4,666.06 148 UTILITIES 596.59 148 UTILITIES 14.14 148 UTILITIES 436.58 148 UTILITIES 229.23 148 UTILITIES 531.33 148 UTILITIES 020.93 10,917.84 777 FINAL PYMT/DECHL DI 2,451.90 703 PAGER CHARGES 42.60 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 24.50 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 •CHE •CHE *CHL BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 10/06/94 14:36:07 /ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK 37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK 37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK 37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK 37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37436 10/06/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 37436 10/06/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 37436 10/06/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 37437 10/06/94 VIKING COCA COLA 37438 10/06/94 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CO 37439 10/06/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 37440 10/06/94 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLP 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 194.90 *CHE 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 14.00 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 27.28 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 12.80 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 12.80 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 59.03 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 59.03 184.94 524 OIL RECYCLED/SHOP & GA 60.00 524 GARBAGE CONTRACT/SE 9,508.62 524 SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 612.18 10,180.80 779 POP/PARKS DEPT 63.00 670 METERS FOR RESALE 3,184.99 219 SCERG PYMT t4 LOAN 2,760.51 512 UTILITIES 9.00 TOTAL 53,674.00 *CHE *CHE BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 10/10/94 15:45:25 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37441 10/17/94 JONES/WILLIAM O 37441 10/17/94 JONES/WILLIAM 0 37442 10/17/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37443 10/17/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37444 10/17/94 MICHAEL W HAMLINE 37445 10/17/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 37446 10/18/94 A T & T INFO SYSTEMS 37447 10/19/94 ALBINSON, INC. 37448 10/18/94 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORK 37449 10/18/94 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 37449 10/18/84 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 37450 10/18/94 ARA CORY REFRESHMENT 37451 10/18/84 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS 37452 10/18/94 BRAUN INTERTEC ENVIO 37453 10/18/94 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, 37454 10/19/94 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 37455 10/10/94 CENTRAL MCGOWAN, INC 37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST 37456 10/10/94 COAST TO COAST 37456 10/19/94 COAST TO COAST 37456 10/10/94 COAST TO COAST 37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST 37456 10/10/94 COAST TO COAST 37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST 37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST 37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST 37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST 37450 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST 37457 10/18/94 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT C Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA: 826 INFO CENTER SALARY 170.00 826 INFO CENTER SALARY 50.000R 120.00 *CHE( 118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 945.00 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 10.00 90367 REPAIR CAR WINDOW/REI 189.75 162 ENG FEES/PATHVWAV 19,000.00 15 FIRE PHONE CHARGES 27.60 412 SMALL TOOLS/PW INSPEC 77.99 843 MEMBERSHIP DUES/J SIMO 60.00 10 MISC STOP SIGNS/STREE 135.82 0 10 EMPLOYEE PKG SGN/DEP R 23.49 159.31 *CHE( 408 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 114.00 17 BATTERIES/FIRE DEPT 79.81 636 ENG FEES/C HILLS IV 1,279.00 25 CLASS V/SAND/PARKS DE 181.70 27 ELECTION SUPPLIES 517.15 30 SUPPLIES/SHOP & GARAGE 21.12 35 NEW DEPUTY REG OFFICE 85.08 35 MISC SUPPLIES/SEWER CO 37.21 35 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 0.95 35 SUPPLIES/SHOP & GAR 2.00 35 SUPPLIES/CITY HALL 47.25 35 TOOLS/PARKS DEPT 23.87 35 SUPPLIES/PARKS DEPT 15.24 35 SUPPLIES/SHOP 8 GARAGE 23.42 35 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/MAT 20.21 35 TOOLS/SEWER COLLECTION 83.06 35 CLEANING SUPPLIES/LIBR 12.75 351.94 *CHE, 661 OIL & TAR/STREET DEPT 55.45 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 10/18/94 15:45:25 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37458 10/18/94 COMPRESS AIR & EQUIP 37459 10/18/94 COMPUTER PARTS & SER 37460 10/18/94 COMPUTER 1 37461 10/18/94 COPY DUPLCATING PROD 37462 10/18/94 CULLIGAN 37463 10/18/94 DYNA SYSTEMS 37464 10/18/34 EGGHEAD DISCOUNT SOF 37465 10/18/94 EMERGENCY APPARATUS 37466 10/18/94 ENERGY SALES, INC. 37487 10/18/94 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE 37488 10/18/94 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE 37469 10/18/94 GOVERNMENT TRAINING 37470 10/18/94 H WINDOW DESIGN CENT 37471 10/18/94 HARRV'S AUTO SUPPLY 37471 10/18/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37471 10/18/94 HARRV'S AUTO SUPPLY 37471 10/18/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37472 10/18/94 HERMES/JERRY 37473 10/18/94 J CRAFT, INC. 37474 10/18/84 JOHN'S AU10 ELECTRIC 37475 10/18/94 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN 37470 10/18/94 KOLLES SAND & GRAVEL 37477 10/18/94 KRAMBER & ASSOCIATES 37479 10/18/94 MAPLE LAKE LUMBER CO (� 37479 10/10/84 MAUS FOODS 37478 10/16/94 MAUS FOODS 37479 10/16/94 MAUS FOODS 37470 10/16/04 MAUS FOODS Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA 356 MTC AGRMT/FIRE DEPT 34 1.50 500 CABLE/COMPUTER/CITY HA 72.23 839 NOTEBOOK COMPUTER/C 2,566.00 41 LIBRARY COPY MCH MTC 54.40 753 MATER SOFTNER CHG/RENT 23.11 50 SHOP & GARAGE SUPPLIE 343.56 51 COMPUTER SOFTWARE/C H 379.47 480 VEHICLE MTC/FIRE DE 2,389.56 640 GASKET/SHOP & GARAGE 342.28 510 TOOLS/FIRE DEPT 253.50 64 SOD CUTTER RENTAL/PARK 79.50 72 REG FEE/C SHUMAN/SEMIN 55.00 841 WINDOWS/NEW DEP REG 0 986.87 78 STREET SUPPLIES 15.25 79 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARKS 1.28 78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREET 1.03 78 SUPPLIES/MATER DEPT 3.37 20.93 81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50 844 NEW SNOW PLOW/INST 12,652.66 615 MTC OF EQUIP/STREET D 100.66 697 ANIMAL CONTROI SERVICE 90.53 592 CLASS II/STREET SUPPL 736.45 686 ASSESSING CONTRACT 1,245.83 604 NEW DEPUTY REG OFFI 3,555.08 100 SUPPLIES/SHOP & GARAGE 24.14 108 SUPPLIES/CITY HALL 62.50 100 CLEANING SUPPLIES/LIGRA 9.03 100 ANIMAL CONTROL SUPPLIE 13.30 +CHE BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM C 10/18/94 15:45:25 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37480 10/18/94 METRO SALES INCORPOR 37481 10/18/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE 37481 10/18/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE 37481 10/18/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE 37481 10/18/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE 37482 10/18/94 MN STATE TREASURER 37483 10/10/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 37483 10/18/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 37484 10/18/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37484 10/19/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37484 10/18/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37484 10/19/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PP. p 37484 10/16/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR \ 37484 10/18/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37484 10/18/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37484 10/18/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37485 10/18/94 MONTICELLO PRINTING 37486 10/18/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37486 10/18/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37486 10/18/84 MONTICELLO TIMES 37486 10/10/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37486 10/18/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37486 10/18/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37487 10/18/94 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN 37488 10/18/94 MTI DISBTRIBUTING CO 37489 10/18/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37488 10/18/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37489 10/19/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37499 10/19/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37489 10/18/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37499 10/10/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA 108.97 819 MTC AGRMT/FAX MCH/C H 150.00 119 SALES TAX ADJ/3RD QTR 0.35CR 119 SALES TAX/3RD QTR GEN 307.22 119 SALES TAX/3RD QTR/WAT 972.80 119 SALES TAX/3RD QTR/TREE 42.33 1,322.00 262 3RD QTR BLD PERMIT 1,823.52 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 185 BARK ELIMINATOR/ANIMA 164.95 1,264.95 136 OFFICE SUP/PW INSPECT 39.42 136 SUP/DEPUTY REG OFFICE 86.23 136 NEW DESK/CITY HALL OF 514.74 136 OFF SUPPLIES/P WORKS 367.78 136 SUPPLIES/BLD INSPECT D 50.51 136 OFFICE SUPPLIES/CITY 933.74 136 COPY MCH PAPER/CITY H 240.13 136 PAPER/RECYCLING MAILI 123.48 2,356.03 137 BUILDING INSPECT FORMS 26.73 140 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 983.02 140 BLD PERMIT INFO 60.90 140 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 231.35 140 CREDIT/COMMUNITY GUIDE 25.000R 140 ADS/MOTOR VEHICLE MOV 104.40 140 LEGAL NOTICE/FAY MAR P 69.12 1,423.79 142 GASKETS/TREE FUND 167.07 299 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARK 117.60 144 SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT 69.89 144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREE 94.26 144 VEHICLE MTC/FIRE DEPT 10.93 144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/MAT 15.96 144 EQIP REPAIR DARTS/STREE 3.91 144 VEHICLE MTC/STREET DE 136.79 321.74 •CHE- •CHE- 'ACHE, *CHE +CHE SCHE n BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 10/18/94 15:45:25 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37490 10/18/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37490 10/18/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37491 10/18/94 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS 37492 10/18/94 O'NEILL/JEFF 37493 10/18/94 OLSON & SONS ELEC TRI 37494 10/18/94 OLSON, USSET,AGAN 8 37494 10/18/94 OLSON, USSET,AGAN & 37494 10/18/94 OLSON, USSET,AGAN & 37495 10/18/94 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, I 37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 37497 10/18/94 PAUL A WALDRON & ASS 37498 10/18/94 PHOTO I 37498 10/10/94 PHOTO I 37499 10/19/94 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 37499 10/18/94 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 37500 10/18/94 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 37501 10/18/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 37501 10/18/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 37502 10/18/94 QUALITY LAWN MAINTEN 37503 10/18/94 RELIABLE CORPORATION 37503 10/18/94 RELIABLE CORPOkATION 37503 10/10/94 RELIABLE CORPORATION c Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAI 148 UTILITIES 30.61 148 UTILITIES 29.81 60.42 •CHEC 550 PROF SERVICES/PLAN 3,790.58 161 MILEAGE EXPENSE 89.60 160 CITY HALL COMPUTER MT 165.50 292 LEGAL FEES 540.00 292 LEGAL FEES/WWTP 131.25 292 PROF SERV/EASTWOOD KN 150.00 821.25 'ACHE( 836 GOPHER ONE STATE CALL 300.00 162 PROF SERV/WWTP DECHLOR 88.88 162 ENG FEES/C HILLS IV 6,337.24 d 162 MISC ENGINEERING FE 4,726.94 162 ENG FEES/M 0 TRUNK SE 158.00 162 ENG FEES/POLYCAST PRJ 99.00 162 ENG FEES/FAY MAR PRJ 266.63 11,676.69 •CHE( 830 BLO INSPECTION SERVIC 840.00 743 SUPPLIES/PW INSPECT 38.00 743 SUPPLIES/C HILLS IV PRJ 8.70 46.70 •CHE( 173 FIRE HALL CLEANING CON 50.00 173 CITY HALL CLEANING CO 400.00 450.00 *CHE( 175 WWTP CONTRACT PYMT 31.840.50 20 PROF SERV/HRA 225.00 26 PROF SERVICES/TAPPER 225.00 450.00 •CHE( 319 MOWING CHARGES 1.200.25 179 MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIE 112.87 179 COMPUTER OFFICE SUPPLI 74.52 179 CITY HALL OFFICE SUP 22.41 209.80 •CHE• BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM ( 10/18/94 15:45:25 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37504 10/18/94 RIVERSIDE OIL 37505 10/18/94 RWE ASSOCIATES 37506 10/18/94 SCHARBER & SONS, INC 37507 10/18/94 SETON NAME PLATE CO 37508 10/18/94 SHAMROCK INDUSTRIES, 37509 10/18/94 TELXON CORPORATION 37510 10/18/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 37510 10/18/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 37511 10/18/94 WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEY 37511 10/18/94 WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEY Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA 496 GAS/STREET DEPT 860.65 344 STREET SUPPLIES 132.59 229 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARK 287.45 691 RECYCLING LABELS 302.05 576 RECYCLING BINS 3,368.10 842 SCANNING WANDS/RECYCL 313.44 219 SHERIFF'S CONTRACT 23,322.33 219 ADD'L LANDFILL CHAR 8,312.15 31,634.48 *CHE 632 POSTAGE CHARGE 7.00 632 AERIAL MAPS/P WORKS 72.00 79.00 *CHEQ 37512 10/18/94 WYBRITE INC. 755 COMPUTER CABLE/C HALL 137.39 37513 10/18/94 V.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO 224 CONTRACT PAYMENT 625.00 GENERAL CHECKING TOTAL 148,539.28 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 09/10/94 08:44:31 Disbursement Journal .RkANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Cl/ LIQUOR FUND 17748 09/29/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE CREDIT 12.99CR 1774£ 09/29/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 3.954.98 3,941.99 *CHI 17749 09/29/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 6,509.94 17749 09/29/94 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800018 WINE PURCHASE 663.77 7,173.71 mCH! 17750 09/29/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 856.94 17750 09/29/94 F.AGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MIX FOR RESALE 25.75 882.69 #CHE 17751 09/29/94 CITY OF MONTICELLO 800003 TO GENERAL CHECKIN 80,000.00 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 91,998.39 17752 10/04/94 NORTHWEST CARPEI & U 800179 MTC OF SLD/CLEAN CARP 266.25 LIQUOR FUND TOTAI 266.25 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 10/04/04 MONTICL'L(0 TIMES (400032 ADVERTTGIN(, 10/04/94 08:21:10 17/( / 10/04/94 Disbur:;e.nent Journal 000050 MT(t ;UP/VArl)UM BA-;.-. 19.05 1/701 10/04/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE AMOUNT C ARRANT DATE VENDOR PA11'1TI5 8 :SUN'' DESCRIPTION Il( ( R PURCHA ,1 J0. 011 //411 LIQUOR FUND PAUSIIS C ON', 000103 WINE PUFCHASE SPG. 15 17753 10/04/94 BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA 800001 POP PURCHASE 208.85 17754 10/04/94 CEDAR. MAP COMPANY 800084 ADVERTISING 143.00 RON'1� ?(,1 ( OMPANY 17755 10/04/94 COAST TO COAST 800004 PAINT FOR OUTSIDE SIGN 61.73 17756 10/04/94 CONSOLIDATED COMM DI 800163 ADVERTISING 39.25 17757 10/04/94 OAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 BEER PURCHASE 14,593.70 17757 10/04/94 DAHLHEIMER OISTRICUT 800009 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER/RE 403.25 14,996.95 tr 17750 10/04/94 DAY DISTRIBUTINGG COM 800010 NON ALCOHOLIC BELR/RES 31.70 17750 10/04/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 000010 BEER PURCHASE 597.50 17758 10/04/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 CREDIT/JUICE RETURN 11.75CR 617.45 4c 11759 10/04/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO.. 800011 BEER PURCHASE 2,057.40 17759 10/04/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 36.75 2.094.15 4C 77760 10/04/94 FLFSCH'S PAPER SERVI 800116 SUPPLIES/PAPER BAGS 39.43 177UI 10/04/94 G & K SERVICL 000129 RUG MATS/MTC OF OLD 30.70 1/'762 10/04/94 GRO££L(TN BEVERAGE. 1 000019 BEER PURCHASE 9,30.05 11703 10/04/04 JUDE CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 CIGS & CIGARS FOR RI;S 269.41 1'7/63 10/04/94 DUDE CANDY & TOBACCO 000021 LIOUOR STORE SUPPLIES 64.00 334."i 17764 10/04/94 MINNEGABCO 800160 UTILITIES In,79 1116', 10/04/1)4 MN UAR f',UPPLV 000130 5T'VROF'OAM 0001 LCRti/REG 37.04 10U5 10/04/04 MN OAR SUPPLY 000130 SIGNS/GENERAL OPER SII(' 10.41 1/746 10/04/04 MONTICL'L(0 TIMES (400032 ADVERTTGIN(, ?00.60 17/( / 10/04/94 MOr4TI(.Fl_l.() VACUUM (f 000050 MT(t ;UP/VArl)UM BA-;.-. 19.05 1/701 10/04/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 00003E UTILI IEU 1,244,"1. 1770!) 10/04/134 PA11'1TI5 8 :SUN'' O00103 Il( ( R PURCHA ,1 J0. 011 //411 10/04/114 PAUSIIS C ON', 000103 WINE PUFCHASE SPG. 15 564. /5 0. . IIIU 10/04/94 RON'1� ?(,1 ( OMPANY 100041 IC( lOk RESALL .(;?G. 66 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM ,10/04/94 08:21:10 Disbursem?nt Juurn, I IL"ARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT _ LIQUOR FUND 17771 10/04/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 MIRES FOR RESALE 115.50 17771 10/04/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 MI. -'C LE000R STORE SUP 34?.G", 458.35 11772 10/04/94 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 BEER PURCHASE 19,316.35 11772 10/04/94 T40RPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 NON ALCOHOLIC BEEF/RE 159.75 19,476.10 17773 10/04/94 VIKING COCA-COLA BOT 800051 POP PURCHASE 575.85 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 52,184.37 0— c CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT 14 $497.50 $1970 $43.90000 78 04 Month of September, 1994 PERMITS $ USES 29 trKkzvlal 9 thisSame Alomh Lest Year TM Year PERMITS ISSUED Month SEPT. Last Year To Date To Dare 17 $456 DO $1150 RESIDENTIAL Be -- Number 31 24 141 190 valuation $1.252.60000 9932.10090 $4.272.40000 $6.305.70000 FW3 $9,36998 $6.68684 $31.745 32 $46.387.10 $1500 $0.50 91,500 00 Surtrra'm $62390 $46355 $2.097.60 $3.132.09 COMMERCIAL 0 DFMOLII ION Namber2 32 24 „F�.4-1v�__fTiQ$1.252.W000-_ Valuation 9:26.50000 $1.697200 00 $709.60000 Feel 91.79205 $12.81893 $7,3.6.03 ,;Wcha%n $113,00 $842.10 9363.30 INDUSTRIAL "ber 1 4 12 VaWatbn $60.20000 $351.763.00 $1.659.600.00 Fees $75966 92.98981 $11,771.99 Surcharpm $3010 $17598 $829.55 PLIIMBIN0 Nurrloer 17 14 58 83 Fees $45600 $36000 $1597.00 $2.429,00 Surcharyes $850 $700 $2900 $48,50 OTHERS Number 4 5 vilwo n $58.900 00 $000 Fees $759.02 $50.00 Sur0hames 929.20 9250 TOTAL PERMITS 48 41 239 314 TOTAL VALUATION_f1,25260000�_f1.218.80000 $0328.28300 $4874.909,00 TOIALKES __99.62588, _fy.59Bb5NB 87009 $87.994,12 TOTAL SLI�CHAROES 230 $61383 i3,173.78�4.373.94 CURRENT MONTH FEE$ I N VEl TO DATE PERMIT NAA�RE Numbm Parml__�S uchorpc Valuatlor Thg YBai Last Y$ai SIr101a Famty 15 $7.511,72 $528.45 $1.056,90000 77 49 tea' 0 0 Mual ramty 1 $1.34566 $75.15 $150,30000 2 2 Commercial 1 3 loduaulal 3 1 Roe a,&Dn 5 4 69M 0 0 P"c BldP 0 2 ALIERATIOWREPAIR DrWtrgs 14 $497.50 $1970 $43.90000 78 04 Commercial 23 29 trKkzvlal 9 3 PLL7AIOINO AN Tyam 17 $456 DO $1150 93 Be ACCcSSORY SIRUCIURES SSvAm a9 Pooto 0 0 DOW1 $1500 $0.50 91,500 00 20 22 TEMPORARY PERMIT 0 0 DFMOLII ION „F�.4-1v�__fTiQ$1.252.W000-_ 314 MONT143LO WKt