Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 12-12-1994AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, December 12, 1994 - 7 p.m. Mayor: Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held November 28, 1994, and the special meeting held December 7, 1994. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. A. Consideration of authorizing the City Engineer to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) associated with the Mein Farms development. B. Consideration of authorizing feasibility study for public improvements associated with the Klein Farms subdivision and School Boulevard. C. Consideration of reviewing application of trunk water main fee requirement. 4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 5. Public Hearing --Adoption of 1995 budget and consideration of a resolution setting the 1995 tax levy. 8. Consideration of simple subdivision allowing the subdivision of the Tom Brennan property located just north of 1-94 between Minnesota and Elm Streets. Applicant, Tom and Elraine Brennan. 7. Consideration of a zoning map amendment which would rezone the Eleanor Malone property ftm R-2 (single and two-family residential) to PS (public and semi-public uses). Applicant, Eleanor Malone/St. Henry's Church. 8. Consideration of River Mill TIF land use plan consistency with comprehensive plan. 9. Consideration of amendment to Section 3.9 (E) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating signs by allowing one premise identification wall sign per street frontage and one premise identification pylon sign. Applicant, Arrow Sign Company. 10. Consideration of salary schedule adjustments for 1995. 11. Consideration of fund transfers for 1994. Agenda City Council December 12, 1994 Page 2 12. Consideration of purchase agreement to acquire land for drainage basin for Meadow Oak pond outlet project. 13. Consideration of authorization to attempt entering into option for purchase of land and/or obtaining right of entry. 14. Consideration of rebid of phase II of public works facility expansion. 15. Consideration of scheduling a special meeting for Planning Commission interviews. 16. Consideration of vacating a portion of a pathway easement. Location is Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Cardinal Hills 4th Addition. Applicant, Value Plus Homes, Inc. 17. Consideration of bills for the first half of December. 18. Adjournment. i ! k! S ° 'r'r ell l/ MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, November 28, 1994 - 7 pm. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None 2. Atmroval of minutes of the special meeting held November 9. 1994. and the regular meeting held November 14. 1994. A motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve the minutes of the special meeting held November 9, 1994, as submitted. Voting in favor. Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen. Abstaining: Clint Herbst. A motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 14, 1994, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. A. Consideration of entering into ark aerement with H -Window qomoanv concerning, futpe acouisition of Lots 1. 2. and 3. Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition. It was the consensus of Council to add this item to the agenda. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller explained that at the previous meeting, Council discussed entering into an option agreement with H - Window for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition; however, since no one Brom H -Window was in attendance at the meeting, Council decided that these lots would be put on the market for We. Wolfsteller noted that after informing Mr. Steve Lemme of H -Window of the Council's action, Lemme requested that this item again be placed on the agenda and that either he or a representative of the company would be in attendance to discuss entering into an option agreement with the City. Wolfsteller went on to explain that a purchase proposal has been received from H -Window proposing that the price of the three lots be revalued at $70,000 rather than stuffs proposed $79,360 due to a gas line main that runs through one of the lots. In addition, H -Window proposes that the City offer a 30% discount from the $70,000, which results in a $49,000 purchase price as the base for an annual option fee. It is also proposed that the annual option fee be figured using a Page 1 0 Council Minutes - 11/28/94 fixed 5% annual interest rate for 10 years, and H -Window would include a $1,150 annual payment for the estimated real estate taxes for the three lots. Wolfsteller also noted that tax increment financing would not be available to writs down the land cost if H -Window purchased the land at this time; however, if the City enters into an option agreement for the lots, tax increment financing could be used in the future since H - Window would not be considered the owner of the property. Wolfsteller added that if the price of the land is lowered now, Council may not want to use TIF later when H -Window purchases the property, as that would lower the price even further. Councilmember Smith suggested that perhaps a compromise could be reached if Council agreed to a price in the range of $64,000. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve entering into an option agreement with H -Window for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, with a base purchase price of $64,000, a 5% annual interest rate to determine the annual option fee for 10 years, and H -Window to include a $1,150 annual payment for the estimated real estate taxes. Motion carried unanimously. Citizens comments/petitions. reauests. and complaints. None. Public hearing for modification of the redeYelopmenj, plan and boundaries for Redevelopment Proiect No. 1 and modification of TIF Plan for District d1-9 (Tapperal. Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing. 011ie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, explained that Bill and Barbara Tapper, dba Genereux Fine Wood Products, Inc., are proposing a $700,000 expansion by adding an 18,000 sq ft production area and second - floor mezzanine, which is projected to create 15 now jobs. Koropchak noted that adoption of the proposed resolution would result in modification of the TIF plan for District 1-9 and would increase its budget by $30,000. Surplus funds from Districts 1.3, 1-5, and 1-6 would be used for assistance; and since these districts and District 1.9 were certified before June 1, 1990, there would be no HACA loss to the City. She also noted that fiends are expected to be recovered by the end of the district life through taxes generated. Page 2 0 Council Minutes - 11/28/94 Koropchak went on to note that the 30 -day notice to the taxing jurisdictions and the public hearing notice requirements per Minnesota Statutes have been met. There being no comment from the public, Mayor Fyle closed the public hearing. Mayor Fyle noted that he is opposed to the use of TIF for business expansion, as it was his view that the project would likely continue without TIF assistance; however, he did not oppose use of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund for business expansion. It was the view of Councilmembers Smith and Anderson that another purpose of tax increment financing is to help solid businesses expand in Monticello; therefore, they were not opposed to the use of TIF for this expansion project. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren Smith to adopt the resolution modifying the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and modification of plans for TIF Districts 1-1 through 1-17, specifically the plan for TIF District No. 1-9 for the proposed expansion (Tappers). Vuting in fuvur: Clint Herbst, Wurren Su,ith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen. Opposed: Brad Fyle. SEE RESOLUTION 94.36. Public hearing for adoption of TIF Plan for TIF District q 1-18 (River Mill). Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reported that the proposed 12 -year pay-as-you-go Soils Condition District is being established to assist with costs associated with reclamation of a mined gravel project in conjunction with the proposed River Mill residential subdivision. Although a Soils Condition District has a maximum life of 12 years, it is anticipated that the district will be decertified in 1999 or upon collection of tax increment sufficient to cover the $102,000 front-end investment made by the developer. Koropchak stated that District q1-18 boundaries will encompass the 72 -acre Krautbauer property, as it is necessary to excavate, grade, spread, and respread the topsoils of the entire area in order to restore the mined gravel pit as referenced in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Braun Intertec. Koropchak went on to note that the 30 -day notice and public hearing notice requirements have been met according to Minnesota Statutes. She also noted that Steve Bubul of Holmes and Graven recommends that the public hearing be held but that Council table adoption of the resolution until the December 12 Council meeting to allow for approval of the annexation by the Minnesota Municipal Board. Page 3 6) Council Minutes - 11/28/94 City Attorney Paul Weingarden reported that he talked with Mr. Bubul regarding the recommendation to table adoption of the resolution. After explaining that the request for TIF is a necessity in terms of proceeding with the project and that the annexation will not proceed if TIF is not available, Bubul indicated he would be agreeable to Council adopting the resolution at this time to create the district provided it is specified that the resolution becomes effective only after annexation is granted by the Minnesota Municipal Board. Mayor Fyle then opened the public hearing. Councilmember Herbst questioned why the district boundaries as outlined included the entire 72 acres rather than only the gravel pit area, and he also noted that he is opposed to the use of tax increment financing for this project. It was the view of Herbst and Councilmember Blonigen that the cost of correcting the gravel pit site should be borne by the owner or the buyer and should not be financed by TIF as proposed. Rick Murray of Residential Development, Inc., stated that Braun Intertec performed a soils investigation of the 72 -acre Bite, which found that unusual soil conditions exist throughout the entire site. It was also noted that it would take longer to recover the TIF money from a smaller area and that the district can be decertified quicker if it covers a larger area. James Casserly, economic development consultant representing the developer, added that the long-term impact of the development will be dramatic, as current taxes on the site are approximately $2,000 but should exceed $300,000 in the future, with $50,000+ to the City. Councilmember Herbst noted his concern with the design of the proposed twinhomes in the development. It was his view that building design should be varied throughout the site. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that since the R-2 zoning and TIF were last discussed, the developer and staff have met to discuss building designs, landscaping, and building elevations that can be implemented via the developers agreement. Rick Murray went on to outline building and site design criteria that he has agreed to follow in conjunction with development of the site. Rick Murray added that the 21 twinhome buildings proposed in phase II would be designed as rambler walkouts and not split levels as proposed with phase I. He noted that he has met with City staff and the City Planner to design a landscape plan which will provide a better separation between the freeway exit ramp and the homes adjoining the freeway. Page 4 D Council Minutes - 11/28/94 There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Fyle closed the public hearing. Councilmember Smith stated that using tax increment financing seems to be the best way to develop this area as a unit, as the City will gain significant park land and eliminate the gravel pit. He also noted that the developers have shown they are willing to work with the City in meeting development concerns, and it was Smith's hope that the building design, landscaping, and covenants will be worked out through the developers agreement. Councilmember Anderson questioned how residents can deal with covenant violations. The City Attorney explained that for the most part, they are private covenants. Any item of a covenant that is also included in the city ordinance can be enforced by the City; however, it was Weingarden's suggestion that violations of private covenants be left as a civil matter. After further discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt the resolution adopting the TIF Plan for TIF District N1-18 (River Mill) with Uie w►derst+u►ding that the resolution will not take effect until annexation is granted by the Minnesota Municipal Board. Voting in favor: Brad Fyle, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. SEE RESOLUTION 94-37. Consideration of resolgtions suaoortine annexation of the Robert Krautbauer and Joe Abbot oronerties_in coniunction with final plat of the River Mill subdivision. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that at the previous Council meeting, Joe Abbot reinstated his petition for annexation of his property along with the Krauthauer property. Because the Council vote on the annexation matter was 2.2, the petitioners requested that this item again be considered by the full Council. O'Neill also noted that annexation is contingent on the final plat and developers agreement being approved, in addition to approval of annexation by the Minnesota Municipal Board. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to adopt the resolutions supporting annexation of the Robert Krauthauer and Joe Abbot properties subject to final plat approval, execution of the developers agreement, and approval of annexation by the Minnesota Municipal Board. Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. SEE RESOLUTIONS 94-38 AND 94-39. Page 5 Council Minutes - 11/28/94 Consideration of recommendations from reevcline committee in reeard to earbaee containers. Public Works Director John Simola reported that the recycling committee recently discussed the possibility of rainwater continuing to enter our garbage since there are many garbage containers in the city without lids and not all residents bag their garbage. In order to help lessen the amount of rainwater entering the garbage, it is the recommendation of the recycling committee that the City require all new homes constructed in Monticello to use the garbage cart program, with either a 65 -gallon or 95 -gallon roll - around cart, effective December 1, 1994. In addition, Simola noted that the recycling committee also recommends that, effective April 1, 1995, all garbage cans be required to have lids or require garbage to be bagged. Notice of this new policy on garbage can lids can be printed in the December recycling newsletter. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren Smith to adopt a policy effective December 1, 1994, that requires all new homes in Monticello to use the cart program, and to also adopt a policy effective April 1, 1995, requiring all garbage cans to have lids unless the garbage is securely placed in plastic bags. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of adontine an ordinance reeWatine skateboardine/ rollerbladine in certain areas of the city. City Administrator Wolfateller reported that the Police Commission has recently reviewed ordinances from other cities pertaining to regulation of skateboarding and rollerblading within each community. He noted that although city hall has not received many complaints directly from business owners, the City is aware that rollerblading and skateboarding within business parking lots has been increasing and becoming a problem for some business owners. Because these activities are not governed by the same rules as bicycles, etc., technically, the Sheriffs Department cannot issue citations when it becomes a problem. Adopting an ordinance regulating these activities would allow the Sheriffs Department to use the ordinance as a tool if the activity becomes a problem. Wolfsteller explained that the ordinance as proposed primarily regulates rollerblading and skateboarding as follows: Eliminates skateboarding and similar activities from any B-3 (highway business) or B-4 (regional business) zoning area. This would primarily encompass the downtown area and also along Highway 25, out to the Mall, and south of I-94 along Highway 25. Page 6 Council Minutes - 11/28/94 The ordinance would also prohibit skateboarding, etc., on private property without the express permission of the property owner. The ordinance would also prohibit skateboarding, etc., on Highway 25. Wolfsteller went on to note that the Parks Commission also reviewed the ordinance and recommended that the City not prohibit rollerblading and skateboarding on the new pathway system at this time since this may be an appropriate area for these activities. Assistant Administrator O'Neill stated that the ordinance as proposed may be a little too strict, as many people use rollerblades as a form of transportation. He noted that perhaps it could be softened a little by removing language prohibiting rollerblading in the B-3 and B-4 areas and adding language stating that citations would be issued to people rollerblading or skateboarding in a reckless manner. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to adopt the ordinance amendment after deleting language pruhibiting rollerblading and skateboarding on any public sidewalk, street, or any public parking lot situated in the Central Business District, and by adding language making it an offense to rollerblade or skateboard in any area of the city in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner. Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 263. 10. Consideration of fundine a portion of a comprehensive sewer study. Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that the City has been contacted by Orrin Thompson Homes regarding potential development of 80-120 acres in an area near the Oak Ridge development. In addition, Tony Emmerich has indicated a strong interest in development of a 40 -acre site directly east of the Oak Ridge development. O'Neill noted that although most of the area proposed for development is within the Orderly Annexation Area, it is outside the sanitary sewer service area; therefore, it is proposed that a comprehensive sanitary sewer study be performed to review the existing in&astructure and determine the best method and cost for providing sewer service to the proposed development area as well as other desirable development areas. O'Neill went to state that the total cost of the study is $20,000, and it is proposed that the cost of the study be divided as follows: Orrin Thompson Homes, $8,000; Tony Emmerich, $7,000; and the City of Monticello, $5,000. Both Tony Emmerich and Orrin Thompson Homes have agreed to pay their proposed share prior to initiation of the study. Page 7 0 Council Minutes - 11/28/94 Councilmember Anderson questioned whether the City will be able to recover the $5,000 paid by the City for the study. The City Engineer noted that the cost of the study could be funded through the sanitary sewer access fees. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to authorize a comprehensive sanitary sewer study at a cost of $20,000 to be initiated contingent on Orrin Thompson Homes and Tony Emmerich paying their portions of the study equaling $15,000. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Consideration of bills for the month of November. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to approve the bills for the month of November as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned Karen Doty Office Manager Page 8 02. MINUM SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, December 7, 1994 - 7 pm. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: Clint Herbst 2. Public hearine on 1995 oronosed budeet. Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that in addition to the budget changes made at the workshop session held on September 6, 1994, final valuations have also been received from the County Assessor that resulted in revisions to the original tax levy increase. He noted that 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 department and a reduction of $750 from the community education/summer recreation budget. This increase was accomplished by lowering the capital outlay fund by an equal amount. Wolfsteller went on to Hutu U,at in the capital uutlay fund, the expenditures proposed for the Meadow Oak Park improvements were lowered from the original $89,000 to $45,000. The $44,000 reduction remains in the capital outlay fund but was added to the $137,098 reserve for future wastewater treatment plant expansion for a total of $181,098. In addition, Wolfsteller reported that the final valuations figures received from the County Assessor lowered our tax capacity value slightly from $15,651,553 to $15,586,930, which resulted in the proposed 1995 tax levy increasing by 4.43% rather than the 4% the Council had originally anticipated. Wolfsteller noted that if Council wants to keep the tax levy increase at 4%, the levy would need to be reduced by $11,780, which could be deducted from the wastewater treatment plant expansion reserve, for a total tax levy of $2,841,185. Councilmember Blonigen noted that he would like to see the levy increase remain at 4%. but it was his view that the reserve amount for the wastewater treatment plant should remain as proposed at $181,098 and the $11,780 should be deducted from other areas in the budget. Administrator Wolfsteller suggested that the $11,780 could be deducted from the future city hall expansion fLnd. Page 1 0 Special Council Minutes - 12/7/94 Jerry Clement, 112 East 4th Street, questioned how the property valuations are calculated, as one of his statements showed a 108.6% increase, and the other a 10.5% increase. Administrator Wolfsteller explained how the tax statements are computed and noted that Mr. Clement could contact the City Assessor for a detailed explanation. Mayor Fyle then closed the public hearing. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to deduct $11,780 from the city hall expansion fund in order to keep the tax levy at the 4% increase. The 1995 budget will be considered for adoption at the December 12 Council meeting. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned Karen Doty Office Manager Page 2 0 Council Agenda - 12/12/94 3A. Consideration of authorizing the City Engineer to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) associated with the Slein Farms development, (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Due to the magnitude of the Mein Farms subdivision, it is necessary to complete an environmental assessment worksheet which identifies environmental impacts resulting from the development. The EAW process requires that notice of the development be published in the Environmental Quality Board publication (EQB Monitor), and the worksheet must be sent to numerous agencies interested in environmental issues. After completion of a comment period, the City Council will be asked to consider making a "negative declaration" meaning that the Council does not see a need to complete an environmental impact statement. Also, final plat approval is contingent on completion of an EAW. The City Engineer proposes to split the expense of the EAW with the developer because the extension of the trunk sewer line by the City creates the need for an EAW. On the other hand, it could be argued that the trunk sewer line would not be extended if the residential development was not occurring; therefore, the developer should pay the full share of the expensp of the study. If the City pays auy aumwrt, it is suggested that the City portion of the coat be funded via the trunk sewer fund. Please see the letter from the City Engineer outlining the proposed scope of the EAW. Motion to authorize completion of EAW as requested contingent on the developer providing a deposit in an amount equal to one-half of the estimated cost of the project, with the remainder funded via the trunk sewer fund. Motion to authorize completion of the EAW as requested but require that the developer pay the Bill amount of the study contingent on developer deposit. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City pay for the portion that the City Council believes is equal to the benefit provided to the City. Please note that the City has never in the past paid any portion of an EAW required as a result of a development proposal. In the case of Cardinal Hills, the developers paid the full cost of the EAW; however, in this case, no trunk line was extended. Bret Weiss will be available to provide additional information. Letter (from City Engineer outlining scope of EAW. Ab DEC 08 '94 14:07 OSM rPLS. M P.2 Dear Jeff: OSM is pleased to, this letter proposal to the City of Momioetlo for the preparation: of an 1:'„ •,,.,—.—tal Assessment Wor_ktheat (EAW) for the, proposed Mein Farms residendal development and associated sew euemsioa Noto*bOSM .,, the.,,..,,, .,, ,i„• of EAW s, but we are himiliar with this area and the projeu sped8a OSM has recently prepared PAW& for tae Cb y of Rmoklyn Park the City of Shrimper, and Ooodbtte Courcy. We are famt w with applicable local and rate smadardi and rego>atiom and understand how these usua need to be addressed in an EAW. We are proposing to con&= the .,, .,, —,J raview proem for the City on this project which will $:$chide preparation of the EAW. the abstract for publication In the FSS hjQa m the public "oticad the FhMin s of Fact sad Draft Resolution for presentation i to the City Council for action on the EAW. Our wrAc& to complete this process are estimated to cost between 510,000 and $15,000. The range is neces&ary due .to the unimowns associated wits the project, such eu data availability, number of meetingand the creat of public comment Been the EAW Is triggered byboth the terror Menslcn and the residendal detrolopn=4 it is proposed that the City share in the cost of this work with the developer. It is anticipated that the process could be completed within approximately 3 mocha. We have erdoyed our relwion&bip with the City of Monticello and would welcome the opporamity to work with you and yaw staff on this project. Please let u& know if yon would Me any additional information or if you would Mw to meet with us to discup the project in greater detail. Slnoaely. 01 N A ASSOCIAMU6 INC. Bret A. Weiss Auodm oho M. Mentor vice President 30 - A Off . December $ 1994 SoorR awyaM ea SM aa iaWara MhX*Oft re+ S5GWi2n • Mr. Jeff Owen 61sd96dr76 City of MOmie0II0 • FAX s9esrt e P.O. Bca 1147 2SO East StoadwW Moatfcello, mbnesota S53aam ' Dear Jeff: OSM is pleased to, this letter proposal to the City of Momioetlo for the preparation: of an 1:'„ •,,.,—.—tal Assessment Wor_ktheat (EAW) for the, proposed Mein Farms residendal development and associated sew euemsioa Noto*bOSM .,, the.,,..,,, .,, ,i„• of EAW s, but we are himiliar with this area and the projeu sped8a OSM has recently prepared PAW& for tae Cb y of Rmoklyn Park the City of Shrimper, and Ooodbtte Courcy. We are famt w with applicable local and rate smadardi and rego>atiom and understand how these usua need to be addressed in an EAW. We are proposing to con&= the .,, .,, —,J raview proem for the City on this project which will $:$chide preparation of the EAW. the abstract for publication In the FSS hjQa m the public "oticad the FhMin s of Fact sad Draft Resolution for presentation i to the City Council for action on the EAW. Our wrAc& to complete this process are estimated to cost between 510,000 and $15,000. The range is neces&ary due .to the unimowns associated wits the project, such eu data availability, number of meetingand the creat of public comment Been the EAW Is triggered byboth the terror Menslcn and the residendal detrolopn=4 it is proposed that the City share in the cost of this work with the developer. It is anticipated that the process could be completed within approximately 3 mocha. We have erdoyed our relwion&bip with the City of Monticello and would welcome the opporamity to work with you and yaw staff on this project. Please let u& know if yon would Me any additional information or if you would Mw to meet with us to discup the project in greater detail. Slnoaely. 01 N A ASSOCIAMU6 INC. Bret A. Weiss Auodm oho M. Mentor vice President 30 - A Council Agenda - 12/12/94 Consideration of authorhdng feasibility studv for public improyements associated with the Rlein Farms subdivision and School Boulevard. (J.OJ A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Council is asked to consider authorizing the City Engineer to complete a feasibility study which would outline the design and cost of public improvements supporting the Klein Farms subdivision. The study would also include an analysis of the cost to complete School Boulevard. Tony Emmerich requests the feasibility study in anticipation of completing the project as a City improvement project rather than a private project. Emmerich has agreed to place funds on deposit with the City in an amount equal to the cost of the feasibility study. Residential development projects recently completed on a public improvement process include all four phases of the Cardinal Hills development. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to authorize preparation of feasibility study for public improvements associated with the Klein Farms subdivision and School Boulevard contingent on developer deposit. Under this alternative, the City Engineer will proceed on completion of the feasibility study, which is the first phase of a public improvement project. The deposit will be available to the City to pay the Engineer in the event the project does not proceed past the feasibility stage. The public improvement project provides the City with better control over the installation of utilities because the construction company installing the utilities is under direct contract with the City. Under this alternative, the cost of the project would be assessed directly against the lots developed. A guarantee of at least 605 of the project cost is provided as collateral to assure the City that assessments are paid. Council Agenda - 12/12/94 Motion to deny authorization to complete feasibility study. Council should select this option if it prefers that the project be completed on a private basis with the City Engineer and public works department inspecting improvements completed by the developer's contractor. This is the process that was used with the Oak Ridge development. Under this alternative, the full coat of development is paid directly by the developer. The City is not involved in financing the project via the special assessment process. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City has had a history of allowing the developer to choose whether or not to complete construction of city improvements on a public or private basis. Although private projects have been completed successfully, staff prefers the public improvement process over the private process because it affords better control over the contractor installing the utilities; therefore, staff recommends alternative #2. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Council Agenda - 12/12/94 3c. Consideration of reviewing aunllcation of trunk water main fee reauirement. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On November 14, 1994, the City Council authorized preparation of plans and specifications for the sanitary sewer and water main extension to the Gould Brothers Chevrolet, and Council approved a finance plan that included a trunk water main requirement of $625/acre. A major reason for initiating the trunk water fee in this case was to develop a fund to help pay for the eventual extension of a water main under the freeway at a future cost of about $120,000. Council is asked to determine if it was the intent of Council to apply this fee city-wide and under what circumstances. A better understanding of Council position on this matter is necessary in order to complete financial planning and development agreements associated with residential plats now in process. Up until the Gould Brothers project, the City has not implemented the trunk water main fee requirement due to the fact there have been no significant City trunk water main expenses incurred by the City in conjunction with recent projects. By in large, expenses associated with looping, oversizing, or extending water main across undevelopable areas have been incorporated into each construction project and paid directly by the developer. Again, the Gould Brothers project was somewhat unique in that it will result in a very large trunk expense associated with extending water main across the freeway, which brought to light the need for the trunk water main fee. Council is asked to review the attached table which suggests certain trunk water fee criteria and to consider making modifications to the table as necessary. In addition, Council is asked to determine if it is appropriate to apply the trunk water main fee requirement for projects such as River Mill and Eastwood Knoll where significant financial planning has occurred without the weight of the additional fee. REASONS SUPPORTING A TRUNK WATER FEE PROGRAM: Trunk water main fees also defray expenses associated with well and water tower development which all developments should share equally. The trunk water fee program is simple to implement. Regardless of the trunk water main expense associated with a project, the developer pays a flat rate for access to the water system. It's a fee based on an average cost to develop trunk water main systems on a city-wide basis. Also, the trunk sewer fee operates on this same Council Agenda - 12/12/94 principal. The logic supporting trunk sewer fees is very similar to the logic supporting the trunk water. If you support a trunk sewer fee, it should follow that you support a trunk water fee. TRUNK WATER SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION TIMING In addition to discussing the application of the trunk water main fee, Council is asked to consider issues associated with the timing of the initiation of the fee. As you know, certain projects are deep in process, and the trunk water main fee represents an unforeseen expense that could impact project viability. Following is a review of each project in process. Please review each project and determine if the trunk fee should be implemented at this time. According to the criteria proposed for applying the fee as noted in the attached table, Eastwood Knoll, Cardinal Hills, and the River Mill area now within the city would not pay the trunk water fee because an assessment for service has been levied against the property already. F"twood Knoll Eastwood Knoll plat has been under development for some time. I do not believe there are any extraordinary trunk water expenses associated with development of the site. Implementation of the trunk water fee in this case would cost the general fund $12,600, which amounts to about $430/lot. Cardinal Phase V Although Cardinal Hills Phase V has received preliminary plat approval, no plans have been submitted for development of phase V. As far as I know, there are no city trunk water main expenses associated with this phase. The cost of trunk water with this phase is approximately $18,760 or $60011ot. It is not known if this additional fee will impact project viability. River Mill River Mill plans are being finalized as we speak. Stag' will be meeting with the developer soon to discuss the details of the development agreement. Whether or not the trunk water main fee will be charged must be known prior to entering this discussion. In the case of River Mill, there are no new city trunk water expenses associated with development of the plat. The developer will be paying for all on-site costs associated with oversixing or looping the water main system. The cost to the development if the trunk water main fee is applied against all 72 acres is $46,000. If the trunk water fee is applied against the township property only, the trunk fee would amount to $22,600. Council Agenda - 12/12/94 The developer is aware that the trunk sewer fee will be required in conjunction with the development of the township property ($43,000). The trunk sewer fee is applied only to the township property because this property paid none of the cost associated with development of the East 39 sewer/water project, whereas the city property was assessed for a share of the cost. As noted during the discussion of the use of TIF, the project needed TIF to be viable. Adding an additional $22,500 - $45,000 to the project may sink it. Perhaps the project would remain viable if the additional trunk expense was funded as a surcharge on each building permit. Klein Farms The design and cost analysis of the water main system for the Iflein Farms project is not completed at this time. It is likely, however, that there will be some significant trunk water main expenses associated with development of the site. Potential revenue from the site for trunk water main could amount to $50,000. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: DECISION ONE - APPLICATION OF TRUNK WATER MAIN FEE 1. Motion to adopt criteria for defining which properties pay the trunk water fee as noted on the attached table. 2. Motion to charge all new developments regardless of whether or not the development has paid all or a portion of the cost to obtain water service. Under this alternative, Council believes that the City should "catch up" by having existing approved developments pay for earlier oversizing that had been previously paid by the City when it was the City's policy to use general funds to pay for oversizing. 3. Motion to table the matter pending further study. This agenda item was prepared at relatively late notion without the benefit of organized input from the City Engineer or City Attorney. Perhaps it is an item that needs further review and discussion. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends using the approach as outlined in the table. Council Agenda - 12/12/94 DECISION TWO • APPLICATION OF TRUNK WATER MAIN FEE AS IT APPLIES TO RIVER MILL:- The ILL: The developers are at the final stages of assembling financing needed to complete the project. Direction on this aspect of the project may be needed before the project can proceed. Please note that decisions made in this matter will be incorporated into the development agreement, which will not be finalized until after the new Council is seated. It is not known to what extent the decision on this matter today, by this Council, commits the future Council. Motion to require payment of trunk water main fee for the township and/or the city properties developed in conjunction with the River Mill subdivision. Under this alternative, Council would determine that it is appropriate for the River Mill subdivision to pay a trunk water main fee. If Council limits the fee to the township property, it would cost $22,250. If Council includes the city property, the fee would increase to $45,000. Due to the fact that there ane no new direct city expenses associated with development of trunk water main at this site, perhaps it is appropriate that the fee be collected via a surcharge on the building permit. Under the $45,000 option, the surcharge would amount to approximately $450/lot. In support of charging the fee for the city property that has already paid a water main assessment, it could be argued that although no new oversizing expenses will be experienced with the new development, the fee is necessary to pay for oversizing expenses that the City has absorbed to provide water main access to the site in the first place. It is not known what this added cost will do to the viability of the project. It could be argued that project viability is not relevant. What is more important is obtaining funds necessary to pay for oversizing is the overriding goal. Motion to withhold application of the trunk water main fee due to the fact that the City will experience no new trunk water expenses associated with development of the River Mill site. Under this alternative, Council recognizes that there are no expenses relating to extending trunk water main in conjunction with the River Mill site, and significant planning and project development occurred without this fee in place. Adding this fee at this time to the project could reduce the viability of the project and associated gravel pit reclamation. The increase in the water system hookup fees will be Council Agenda - 12/12/94 used to offset general expenses associated with well and water tower development, and the additional taxes from the site will also contribute toward payment of existing City debt associated with development of wells, water towers, etc. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Trunk water main application table; Meeting minutes of November 14, 1994. TRUNK WATER W APPLICATION TABLE 0 Development areas " Oakes I � Naas ml- fm I � I E^EM � Cuav DBw Obm Everson Cdwna 101 prynrrrl • d a arvdapmnn arete eq of Or mlrrle b@W. trunk water las dub be pdd. Loodad lnft wwt%* • w- radon rapulad x x x x x for davoopmwo te ocar. Extombn d Maar ws mein to Witmer upsbaam wvu" ru*ked In adn for to alte to to daxroepetl x x x x x x x w1olm to r1b or not Buskma brand outWb of d4' • amuntlon c x raputred • no taxes avr ped b ot0•. U • Oevebpmna meeb o ry d me com . .. -p V molow won Mbnol repdred. RoMly tun abeedy pad an ansatrrrant fa a mom panbn at M cod at to system x x x x used Of has kny furl I M Coo tD sxterl0 water envloe to M sal. Exbrp OubdbV ant wd In plam • x no a^^_emeor Le4Arm0_dM Osmate ITrmk Faea Oerwatatl (sawrrae) I 00 I $0 10 81/.7W W MGM I SIMAM 101,M g0.= t117.Q0p U.125 83.1281 W 87,123 / 1M10r &unk war Intro PWM. CIO' My for N mMvArsthVsutpwraae. Now aevdoVrrerd rltsafrrl aft sow. P" IN Insrn/ axprusa pbo a bunk MMOM a Ne uNd b pay br upabaon 0 -MMM. Tnnk lane cwmft d us" devokpme lasape Wnos'M. Ibtw Clow -- to naloomm, 1 T R N K W AT. W K4: 12/09/94 Council Minutes - 11/14/94 10. Consideration of a resolution accenting feasibility stgdv. ordering Public hearing. and ordering orenaration of plans and specification for sewer and water utilitv extensions to the southwest area. Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that a feasibility study was prepared by the City Engineer in 1992 at the request of Stuart Hoglund and John Michaelis for a project that proposes development of a lift station and other trunk sanitary sewer improvements necessary to provide sanitary sewer access to a large area referred to as the Southwest Area. The study proposed two preliminary alternatives for providing sewer and water service to this area. Subsequent to completion of the study, a third alternative was proposed which allows lateral extension of sewer and water to be run on property lines rather than on the Oakwood Drive right-of-way. O'Neill stated that the area benefited directly by the project includes parcels owned by Gehardt Everson, Milton Olson, Stuart Hoglund, Dean Carlson, and John Michaelis. The general area that the lift station will be capable of serving is bounded on the north by 1.94, on the east by Sandberg Road and Highway 26, on the south by iliellberg West Mobile Home Park, and on the west by Oakwood Drive as it turns south. The John Michaelis, Stuart Hoglund, and Dean Carlson properties are located in Monticello Township. Petitions for the improvement have not yet been received from Stuart Hoglund and Milton Olson; however, they have expressed an interest in obtaining access to city sewer and water. O'Neill went on to report that Gould Brothers Chevrolet has received approval from the OAA to expand their facility; however, John Michaelis has indicated that he prefers to develop his facility with access to city water and sewer. He has also stated, however, that in the event the city project does not proceed, he will build a private sewer and water system to serve his needs. O'Neill also noted that D & D Bus has also indicated a need to access city utilities in order to be in compliance with EPA regulations. O'Neill then reviewed the preliminary finance plan for the project and noted that the figures are subject to the assessment hearing process. He noted the lift station and force main cost is $101,000 and is proposed to be paid tlu•ough the trunk sanitary sewer fee. It is proposed that the trunk sanitary sewer fee be assessed at the time of development, which results in a higher upfront cost for the City but will be recovered over time as the Southwest Area develops. The total proposed trunk fee assessment from the five parcels amounts to $64,626, with the City's share at $46,376. O'Neill went on to review the lateral sewer expense at a total of $28,600. This cost is proposed to be divided evenly among the five properties. O'Neill noted that access to city water is immediately available to the area; however, in the future, it will be necessary to construct a trunk water main to serve the area at a cost of $120,000. 3C��9 Council Minutes • 11/14/94 Council went on to discuss trunk water fees. Public Works Director John Simola noted that in the past, the City has picked up some looping and oversizing cost. He noted that this project is small enough that it may be easier for the City to absorb the cost of the trunk water expense. It was noted that the City has an established trunk sewer fee and trunk water fee of $1,250 per acre; however, the trunk water fee has not been charged in the past due to the fact that many developers have been paying the entire cost of extending water service to their development. Simola also stated that the City has used excess funds from water access fees to fund oversizing in the past. Councilmember Herbst expressed his concerns regarding the City paying for utility extensions to new developments. It was his view that the developers should be paying their share of the coat associated with obtaining services. He also noted that there are unique circumstances in this case that may justify a reduction in the trunk water main charge. Perhaps the fee should be lowered to half of the present $1,250 per acre charge. The City Engineer suggested that the trunk water fee be charged to the property owners at the time they tie into the trunk water service in order to build up funds necessary for future projects, as it would be very difficult to collect the fees once properties are tied in to the system. He also s"gested that the trunk water fee be lowered to approximately $625 per acre, and Council could review and raise the fee in the future as needed. Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested guidance from Council on establishing a policy for charging the trunk water fee for developed and undeveloped township parcels that petition to be annexed, and also for developed parcels currently located in the city and now requesting access to services. He suggested that the trunk water fee charged could be phased in with phase I of this project. Council could consider increasing the fee at such time that new development occurs. Atter discussion, it was the consensus of Council that the Milton Olson property should not be charged the trunk water fee, as he has been paying city taxes for many years and yet has no access to utility services. Lastly, O'Neill noted that the lateral water expense estimated at $30,000 is also proposed to be split evenly between the five property owners. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that it is his understanding that John Michaelis is agreeable to paying a deposit of $10,000 for the plana and specifications in anticipation of the project moving forward; however, O'Neill noted that he will need to verify this with Michaelis. 3t - C. Council Minutes - 11/14/94 After further discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst to adopt a resolution accepting the feasibility study, ordering a public hearing, and ordering preparation of plans and specifications for sewer and water utility extensions to the southwest area, with City staff implementing a trunk water fee of $626, excluding the Milton Olson property. Motion is contingent upon receipt of a $10,000 deposit from Michaelis to cover the coat of preparation of plans and specifications. Motion was seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried, with Shirley Anderson absent. SEE RESOLUTION 9436. Council Agenda - 12/12/94 Public Hearing—Adoption of 1998 budget and consideration of a g resolution settinthe 1995 tax levy. (R.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the Truth in Taxation requirements, the City Council is required to hold a second public hearing on the adoption of the 1995 budget and the resulting tax levy. While the second meeting will technically be an additional public hearing, the purpose of the new requirement delaying the actual adoption of the budget and tax levy is to provide the Council and the public with more time to digest the budget requirements proposed in case additional changes are warranted. Our original Truth in Taxation hearing was held Wednesday evening, December 7, at 7 p.m. It was the Council's decision at that time to reduce our original proposed tax levy by $11,780 to get us back to the 4% increase that had originally been anticipated. The Council also recommended that the $11,780 reduction occur from the proposed funds that were to be set aside for a future city hall expansion project, thus reducing the original budgeted reserve amount of $90,660 to $78,770. The reduction in the city hall future expansion fund would allow the wastewater treatment plant reserve account to remain as originally intended. To briefly summarize, the original proposed tax levy that was adopted in September proposed a maximum dollar amount of $2,852,966. The preliminary tax levy would have amounted to an increase in our dollars collected by $200,438. The Council's action at the public hearing Wednesday evening reduced the total tax levy to $2,841,185, which is a $188,668 increase over 1994's tax levy, or a 4% increase. At Monday night's meeting, the Council will have one final time to consider any changes that you may want to make to this budget and tax levy before adoption. As a reminder, we would not be allowed to increase the tax levy over the preliminary amount established in September, but you still would have the latitude to lower it if you so choose. The resolution enclosed for adoption is prepared under the assumption of the 4% increase with a total levy of $2,841,186 as discussed at the public hearing Wednesday evening. H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: After the close of the public hearing, and assuming no additional changes have been made to the budget, the Council could adopt the resolution setting the tax levy requirements for next year at $2,841,185, a 4% increase over the 1994 level. Council Agenda - 12/12194 The Council could adopt a final tax levy that is less than the amount proposed, but in no case can it be higher than the $2,852,965 amount established in September 1994. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the resolution be adopted as proposed using the 4% increase for a total of $2,841,185. D. SUPPORTING DATA:- Tax ATA:Tax levy summary; Revised 1995 budget summary; Resolution for adoption. Revised 10/6/94 - Based on a 48 levy increase with updated tax capacity values from County. ALTERNATIVE O1 TAX LEVY SUMMARY 1995 BUDGET ALL FUNDS • 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 40, the preliminary levy adopted in September would need to be reduced by $11,780. Net Payable** Adjusted Levy Before 1995 Adjusted Levy HACA Adj. Levy After Fund Payable 1994 Payable 1995 Deducting RACA General $1,726,851 $1,884,015 $1,696,139 Library 29,510 30,735 30,735 Transportation 15,024 16,816 15,178 Shade Tree 18,004 25,960 23,425 OAA 26,401 29,450 26,544 HRA 15,255 17,850 16,088 Debt Service 600,863 706,400 637,098 Capital Imp. Revolving 220,619 439,068 395,978 TOTAL $2,652,527 $3,150,294 $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 Eat. Payable 1995 Tax Capacity Rate. 18.228 (4.0• increase) Tax Tax Capacity Value Capacity Rate Tax Levy '88/Payable 1989 $ 15,405,139 14.283 $2,198,008 189/Payable 1990 15,873,242 16.187 2,568,106 190/Payable 1991 16,161,043 15.511 2,506,132 191/Payable 1992 15,513,574 16.492 2,558,554 192/Payable 1993 15,490,500 16.308 2,526,216 193/Payable 1994 15,154,786 17.527 2,652,527 194/Payable 1995 15,586,930 18.228 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 40, the preliminary levy adopted in September would need to be reduced by $11,780. 1995 BUDGET SUMiI4ARY (Based on 4.0% increase) • includes $367,750 Depreciation --contributed assets •• includes $165,930 Depreciation --contributed assets 1994 1995 FUND REVENUE EXPENDITURES REVENUE EXPENDITURES General $2,402,985 $2,402,985 $2,456,785 $2,456,785 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 CM1F -0- -0- 13,320 13,320 Debt Sorvico 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. 278,190 282,195 493,468 493,468 Water Access 15,550 26,000 24,400 -0- Sewer Access 14,675 35,000 33,550 -0- TOTAL $6,844,162 $7,311,402 $7,287,157 $7,859,850 • includes $367,750 Depreciation --contributed assets •• includes $165,930 Depreciation --contributed assets RESOLUTION 94- RESOLUTION 4 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1995 BUDGET AND SETTING THE TAX LEVY WHEREAS, the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the same and has made such changes therein as appear to be in the best interest of the City of Monticello; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO that the budget so submitted by the City Administrator, together with the changes made therein by the City Council, be and same hereby is adopted as a budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1995; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Monticello that there be and hereby is levied for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1995, and the following sums for the respective purposes indicated therein upon the taxable property of the City of Monticello, to wit: The above resolution was introduced by Councilmember , was duly seconded by Councilmember , with the following voting in favor thereof: The following voting in the opposition: The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota. Adopted this 12th day of December, 1994. Mayor City Administrator S- G NET CERTIFIED REVENUE I EVSC HACA LEY General $1,884,015 $187,876 $1,698,139 Library 30,735 -0• 30,735 OAA 29,450 2,906 26,544 HRA 17,850 1,782 18,088 Tree 25,960 2,535 23,425 Transportation 18,816 1,838 15,178 BEBT RETIREMENT Debt Service Fund $ 706,400 $ 89,302 $ 637,098 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Capital Improvement Revolving $ 439.068 8 43.090 $ 395.978 TOTAL TAX LEVY $3,150,294 $309,109 $2,841,185 The above resolution was introduced by Councilmember , was duly seconded by Councilmember , with the following voting in favor thereof: The following voting in the opposition: The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota. Adopted this 12th day of December, 1994. Mayor City Administrator S- G Council Agenda - 12/12/94 Consideration of simple subdiyision allowing the subdivision of the Tom Brennan orooerty located lust north of 1-84 between Minnesota and Elm Streets- Aonlicant. Tom do Elraine Brennan. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Tom and Elraine Brennan request permission from Planning Commission and City Council to allow their single 25 -acre parcel to be subdivided into two parcels. According to the subdivision ordinance, this request represents a simple subdivision which can occur without formal platting. Brennan proposes that the new property line be placed along the alignment line previously approved by the City Council as the proposed alignment of 7th Street as located between Minnesota Street and Elm Street. In accordance with the general policy governing simple subdivisions, it will be required that the City be provided a 12 -ft utility easement around three sides of both properties, and a 12 -ft roadway and utility easement on both properties along the 7th Street property line. At such time that the property is platted, the City will obtain the balance of the area needed for the road alignment. City staff is not suggesting that the City obtain the full right-of- way for 7th Street at this time hemiise hoth Properties created have access to a right-of-way at another location. Therefore, the City does not have the authority to obtain the full right-of-way at this time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve simple subdivision request. Motion is contingent on Brennan providing roadway and utility easements as requested. 2. Motion to deny the simple subdivision request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of City staff that the simple subdivision be approved as requested. Subdivision of the land matches the proposed alignment of the 7th Street right-of-way, and the lots created will meet City standards. At such time as the property is further subdivided and platted, the City will obtain necessary drainage pond easement areas and full 60 -ft road right-of-way. Also, if the PZM area develops for residential uses, a park dedication fee will be required. D. SUPPORTING DAM - Copy Tom: Copy of area map and survey showing location and roadway alignment. W,9,7rN, A i ' o i/we�iii,, I SECTION 11) i I •7 1 It— '3F.-,C 1'(ON 1'1 1' •. • .•� .: y irw•r ■ psr..l CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR TOM BRENNAN LOT ,.\ NE 114 0.90 Ams NW 114 \ .•` \ .�\ OF THE! _,«..« ».,., ire's.' OF THE i Sw il�r CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR TOM BRENNAN 11-1-5: CONDITIONS FOR RECORDING: No plat of any subdivision shall be entitled to record in the Wright County Register of Deeds Office or have any validity until the plat thereof has been prepared, approved, and acknowledged in the manner prescribed by this ordinance. 11-1-6: BUILDING PERMITS: No building permits will be considered for Issuance by the City of Monticello for the construction of any building, structure, or improvement to the land or to any lot in e subdivision as defined herein until all requirements of this ordinance have been fully complied with. //-(,- f . 'Po/k_ T?1d. 4&.fnqS 11-1-71 EXCEPTIONS: en requesting a subdivision, if either of the follo/hrough conditions exist, the subdivider is required to present a certof survey, have the subdivision reviewed by the Planning Commiseviewed and approved by the City Council, and adhere to the park on requirements spelled out in the ordinance, Section 11-6-1 11-6-5, and all other subdivision requirements shall be waive_ "p -i, A-+ Ar_Oi. -1 P2M Asea 0.. /p (A) In the case of a request tW divide a lot which is part of an existing lot of record where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot or to create two lots and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this ordinance or the zoning ordinance, except that no such division of a lot or parcel shall be permitted when said division shall create a lot or parcel that is in violation of Chapter 8, Subdivision 11-8-1, of this ordinance. (9/9/85, •148) (B) Such division results in parcels having an area of five (5) acres or more with frontage on a public right-of-way measuring three hundred (300) feet or more and when such division does not necessitate the dedication of a public right-of-way; or if a lot which is part of a plat recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Wright County is to be divided and such division will not cause any structure on the lot to be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance or said new portions of lots to be in violation of City Ordinance. (7/17/77, #33) 11-1-81 SEPARABILITY$ If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. 11-1-91 CONFLICT: Whenever there is a difference between minimum standards or dimensions specified herein and those contained in other official regulations, resolutions, or ordinances of the City, the highest standards shall apply. MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TITLE XI/Chet 1/Page 1 G - C✓ Council Agenda - 12/12/94 7. Consideration of a tonin¢ man Amendment which would rezone the Elegnor Malone prooerty from R.2 (single and two-family residential) to PS (oublic and semi.nubHe uses). Aunticant- Eleanor Malone/St. Henrv's Church. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the sake of efficiency, staff provides the supplement provided to the Planning Commission on this matter. Please note that the Planning Commission selected alternative #1 with the reasons stated therein. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Planning Commission agenda supplement of 1216/94 regarding request to rezone from R-2 to PS; Planning Commission agenda supplement of 10/4/94 regarding establishment of PS zoning district; September 29 memo from Steve Grittman regarding establishment of PS zone; Planning Commission agenda supplement of 10/4/94 regarding St. Henry's previous rezoning request to rezone from 1-1 to PS; September 1 memo from City Planner regarding St. Henry's rezoning request from I.1 to PS; Copy of public hearing notice; Excerpt from comprehensive plan; Maps depicting area of proposed rezoning request; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment for adoption. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/94 S. Public Hearine—Consideration of a zoning man amendment which would rezone the Eleanor Malone property from R•2 (single and two-family residential)�o PS (nubile and semi-public uses.L Aonlicant. Eleanor Malone/St. Henrv's Church. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The proposed zoning map amendment is submitted subsequent to a recent associated request to rezone 30 acres of the Gladys Hoglund property from industrial uses to public and semi-public uses in conjunction with the relocation and expansion of St. Henry's Catholic Church. During the discussion of the Hoglund rezoning, it was noted that the Church had also established a purchase agreement with Eleanor Malone for acquisition of an 8 -acre parcel, which is located directly north of the Hoglund property and south of the little Mountain Settlement/Rand Mansion area. When the approval of the Hoglund rezoning from I-1 to P -S was granted, it was noted to St. Henry's Church that if they intended to use the Malone property for church uses, then they would need to get a separate conditional use permit under the R-2 zoning district designation. Under the ordinance amendment as proposed, the Malone property would be designated specifically for public and semi-public uses, which further limits the uses allowed at this location. Under the proposed ordinance, public parks, public buildings, cemeteries, and government administrative offices are allowed as permitted uses. The list of conditional uses in this zoning district include public and private educational institutions, religious institutions, and storage of vehicles and equipment accessory to the allowable uses in that district. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to amend the zoning ordinance based on the finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the geography of the area, consistent with the character of the area, will not result in a depreciation of adjoining land values, there is a demonstrated need for the use, and the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Under a motion to approve the rezoning, Planning Commission could make a finding similar to the finding used to support the rezoning of the Hoglund property from I.1 to PS uses. A complete copy of the staff report relating to the Hoglund rezoning request is attached for your review. Information contained therein can become a basis for the finding relating to the Malone rezoning request. 7_4 Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6A.4 The land use guide plan identifies multiple family uses for the area Designating the area on the zoning map specifically for PS uses in anticipation of church development could be deemed to be consistent with the comprehensive plan because church uses are allowed residential uses. Also, the request could be deemed to be consistent with the comprehensive plan due to consistency with item 6 of the Community Facility Plan which states, "Churches should have an ample site for building, landscaping, potential expansion, and off- street parking. Parking should be provided on the maximum design capacity. Churches should be located adjacent to a thoroughfare or collector street and have easy access to the area served. They should not be located on minor residential streets and in the midst of residential neighborhoods." Under this alternative, the Malone property would no longer be eligible for single and two-family residential development. A conditional use permit process would continue to be in place providing the City some control over site dedevelopment. Under the conditional use permit process, the site development conditions can be employed to ensure compatibility between the proposed church uses to the south with PZM/Uttle Mountain/Rand Mansion uses to the north and west. Motion to deny the proposed rezoning request. This alternative should be selected if the proposal is inconsistent with the geography or character of the area. Perhaps there is a view that development of a church facility next to the Little Mountain Settlement and Rand Mansion area will be a problem as compared to the existing zoning. It is the view of City staff that the zoning ordinance amendment should be approved as proposed. It is our view that PS uses at this location are preferred to R•2 uses. Under the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, the City retains control over development of the site through the conditional use permit process. As a result of the change, the zoning map will more accurately reflect the intended land use for the area. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/94 D. SUPPORTING DATA: Excerpts from previous Planning Commission agenda items relating to the establishment of the PS zoning district and relating to the rezoning of the Hoglund property from I-1 to PS uses; Copy of public hearing notice; Copy of site plan showing land purchase by St. Henry's Church including Malone property; Excerpt from comprehensive plan. —co a Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94 Public Hearing—Consideration of amendments to the zoning Qrdin"noe eslablishina zoning district dpsiffatign gatithjd "Public and Semi•Publig Uses (PS)". Aonlicant. Monticello Planninq Commission. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE ANi) BACKGROUND: As you recall, the Planning Commission authorized preparation of an ordinance amendment that would establish a zoning district. specifically designed to regulate institutional land uses which were previously allowed as a conditional use in the residential zoning districts (R-1 through R-3). One of the reasons for establishing this zoning district is to allow a property to be zoned specifically for an institutional use without the risk of the property being used for residential uses. The zoning ordinance amendment proposed would allow a church to be located at the Hoglund site but would not allow the residential uses under the "R" district designation. At this time, it is proposed that the PS zoning district designation be established in conjunction with the St. Henry's Church/Gladys Hoglund rezoning application. At some point in the future, it may be necessary to review other existing institutional uses currently in operation and consider making a zoning map amendment that would place such institutional uses in the PS zoning district designation. Of course, such uses could include the Little Mountain/Middle School area, Pinewood School, Hospital District, and other church uses. Please note that institutional uses now operating in residential districts under existing conditional use permits would remain as conforming uses. Establishment of the new zoning district regulations regulating institutional uses will have no effect on existing schools, churches, etc. All existing Hiles governing such uses as located remain in effect. Please review the memorandum from the City Planner regarding this topic and study the draft ordinance carefully. R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve establishment of the PS (publiclsetri-public) zoning district based on consistency with one or more of the five factors below: 7-0 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94 Relationship to comprehensive plan Geographic area involved in the request Tendency of proposal to depreciate the area Character of the surrounding area A demonstrated need for the use 2. Motion to deny establishment of the PS (publiclsemi-public) zoning district. Motion to deny the proposal should be based on one or more of the five factors to consider when analyzing a zoning amendment request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: According to the City Planner and according to my experience with other communities, it is very common for cities to have a special zoning district regulating public and semi-public uses. As noted in Steve Grittman's memo, institutional uses which are now allowed in a variety of zoning districts should be regulated separate from other district designations which have operational characteristics that are distinct from either residential or commercial land uses. It is our view that it makes sense to establish this new zoning district designation not solely for the purpose of addressing the Hoglund/St. Henry's Church situation. Therefore, there is a demonstrated need to establish this zoning district designation for the benefit of the community as a whole. Memo from Steve Grittman; Draft ordinance. 7—C Nr 08:25 NAC 612 595 9857 P.10i16 rN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Cj UASA M ►L A MM I Ma • DESIGN • MARK 8T A Ae K A AC M MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill FRAM: Stephen Grittman DATE: 29 September 1994 RE: Monticello - •P -S•, Public/Semi-Public Zoning District PILE NO: 191.06 - 94.13 This memorandum forwards a draft of a new zoning district entitled •P-80, Public/Semi-Public District. This district is proposed to be established in those areas where institutional land uses are proposed which were previously addressed by Single Family Zoning. This district is designed to accommodate the unique needs of institutional uses which have operational characteristics which are distinct from either residential or commercial land uses. Only a few uses were placed in the Permitted Use section of the new district, reserving moat of the primary uses for the Conditional Use section. This to to permit the City to consider obucific sites for institutional uses which seem to be appropriate, t which may not have strict land use plan support. Zn many cases, the •P -S" District will appear as a •spot sones on the Zoning bap. However, if the City considers the required factors for zoning amendments, and the particular conditions for the proposed use, such 'spot zoning* should not be considered negatively. The five factors which the zoning Ordinance lists for Planning Commission consideration in amendments are summarized as zollows: 1. Relationship to the Camprehansive Plan. 2. Geographic area involved in the request. 3. Tendency of the proposal to depreciate the area. 4. Character of the surrounding area. 5. Demonstrated need for the use. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55418 • (812) 595.9838 -Fax. 595.9837 SEP -29-1994 08:25 NFIC 612 595 98.37 P.11i16 in consideration of the Public/Semi-Public District, we believe that it permits more effective implementation of the Campreheaaive Plan Goals and objectives by avoiding the location of institutional uses in areae vhich are ill suited for the intensity of activity which such uses can generate. As a result, the Planning Commission should be able to make a finding of fact that through the adoption and application of the P-6 Zoning District, each of the five amendment factors will result in more effective land use regulation and compatibility. 7,6 C`_ Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94 b. Public Hearina—Consideration of amendments to the jofficial z4ninq map of the city of Monticello. Proposed is a change from I -i (light industrial) to PS (public and semi-public uses). Aaplicant. St. Henrds Church/Gladva Hoglund). (10.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, a public hearing was held at which time a request was made to rezone 35 acres of the western portion of the Gladys Hoglund property from I-1 uses to a residential district designation which would allow future development of a church campus. As a result of the discussion, it was determined that perhaps it is not appropriate to rezone the property for residential uses, thereby opening the door for the possibility that residential uses rather than a church use would ultimately develop at this location. In an effort to block this possibility, it was determined that the Planning Commission would look at establishing a public and semi-public use district and consider zoning the area under consideration accordingly. Subsequent to the meeting in September, it is my understanding that St. Henry's Church was contacted by the Malone family regarding the potential sale of the Malone property to the church. This is significant because the Malone property is located directly to the northwest of the Hoglund property. The Malones own approximately 7.5 acres of land zoned under the R-2 designation. Purchase of the Malone property by the church reduces the church's need for industrial land and results in a reduction of land converted fi-om industrial uses to PS uses from 35 acres to 30 acres. Please see the map information for detail. For your information, I have included a copy of Steve Grittman's report relating to the issue from the previous agenda supplement. As always, review Grittman's document; and in your motion for approval or denial of the zoning map amendment, relate your decision to: Relationship to the comprehensive plan Geographic area involved Tendency of proposal to depreciate the area Character of the surrounding area Demonstrated need for the use Motion to approve request to rezone the 30 -acre Gladys Hoglund site from 1.1 to public and semi-public uses. Assuming that the Planning Commission amended the comprehensive plan accordingly as part of the previous agenda item, the Planning Commission could make its finding of approval of the rezoning ` 7o14 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94 request based on consistency with the comprehensive plan. In terms of geographic area involved and character of the surrounding area, the church use would be consistent with the Little Mountain Settlement area, the Rand Mansion, and would not result in severe conflicts with the industrial area if the site and internal roadway systems are configured properly. In terms of the demonstrated need for the use, as you know, the City has an abundant supply of industrial land to satisfy development needs for the next I5-20 years; therefore, the proposed rezoning should not have a short-term impact on industrial land inventory. At the same time, however, the City should not remove land from the industrial land supply without recommitment to the goal of finding a suitable industrial area at a new location at an isolated location west of Highway 25. As you recall, the goal of finding an alternative industrial site was established in conjunction with the decision to maintain the comprehensive plan as designated with regard to the Klein farms development. Motion to deny request to rezone the 30 -acre Gladys Hoglund site from I-1 to public and semi-public uses. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a finding that it is not appropriate to rezone the area for PS uses due to the fact that the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Arguments could be made that although the proposal is consistent with the geography and character of the surrounding area, a demonstrated need for the use has not been established. It could be argued that there is sufficient residential land inventory throughout the community that would allow for space necessary for the church use. Why remove revenue-producing industrial land from the city inventory when other residential land for church uses is available. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is our view that a good case can be made for each side. From a land use standpoint, the request is reasonable and workable. From a narrow economi*Uz base standpoint, it would appear that We best to leave the property industrial. From a "community development" standpoint, the development will provide subjective societal benefits that could exceed the concrete economic benefits that the higher tax base would provide. It's your call. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of previous report Eom City Planner, Copy of church site plan; Copy of public hearing notice. qy ' O O rN SE08:53 MqC 612 595 9657 P.02iO3 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Cj URBAN PLANN1 NO • 0151 ON • MARKET RES E A RCN MEMORA IM TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: 1 September 1994 RE: Monticello - St. Henry's Church Zoning Amendments FILE NO: 191.07 - 94.07 This memorandum is intended to summarize our comments regarding the St. Henry's Church proposal for the rest portion of the Hoglund property. The reTiest is to rezone a certain portion of the Industrial acreage to R-1 to accommodate the institutional land use. 1. One concern relates to the possibility that the property may be rezoned, but never utilized as a church facility, after which a developer may attempt to plat a single family subdivision in accord with the new R -i zoning. It would be possible for the City to rezone the land back to I-1 if it believed that the church development were not likely to take place. in addition, the underlying Comprehensive Plan land use would not support single family, a possible reason to deny any single family plat proposal, although the courts have been trouble for cities whose zoning is too far at odds with the land use plan. A second option would be to rezone the land to Planned Unit Development, rather than R-1. Under PGD zoning, the City could permit a church facility/codex, but not give up control to a potential single family plat. in this way, the underlying land use plan and policies would control any plat proposal more positively. 2. cep■i teaav milk co�raheaeiw Pia". Another concern relates to the use of the property by the church facility when the Comprehensive Plan calls for Industrial. Since the land use plan does not specifically identify areas for new institutional use location, it is often left to the policy 5775 Wayzata Blvd - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595.9837 7"Y SEP -2-199a 08:53 NFC 612 595 9837 P.b.340j section of the plan to determine when a church proposal is consistent with the plan. Just as when a church develops on &-1 land guided in the plan for single family, the permit for the church should identify Comprehensive Plan policies which support the decision. 3. industrial/Institutional Land Qsg Comgatibility. The utilisation of existing industrial land supply for non- industrial uses is an issue which was discussed as -a part of the Klein -Emmerich proposal. It is our opinion that the eastern area of the community is of much higher value as non- industrial land use, particularly where the transportation system does not support the truck traffic to be generated. on the property in question, the eastern portion could reasonably develop industrially, due to its potential access to the area of the intersection with County 117 and County 75. However, the westerly portion is adjacent to residential neighborhoods, through which some truck traffic may be encouraged to travel. The location of the church facility on the west end of the property may mitigate this concern somewhat. To be recognized is the fact that churches, particularly large ones, can generate significant levels of traffic throughout the week. 4. Industrial Laced Uses. Penerally. This proposal again raises the issue of industrial land supply on a community wide basis. As we had advocated in the previous Me= rich/Klein proposal, and as supported in the Chelsea Corridor study, the City would be well served to proceed to establish an alternative location for industrial land uses which will not conflict with existing commercial and residential traffic or land uses. Since the location of the School complex is a fact, residential development will continue to follow the school, and the 25/94 interchange area in already congested with commercial traffic, our recommended location for future industrial expansion is to the west of the City. The St. Henry's proposal would fit well with these plana. If this is not the intent of the City, and industrial uses are desired for the easterly and southerly portions of the community, the City should iamlediately seek alternative areas for commercial and (especially) residential growth. The current growth areas will rapidly lose their attractiveness for residential development as industrial land uses expand in the current locations. 7-� TOTFI P.O. NOTICE or PUBLIC ILFARINO, Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission on nJamahm=6rh , 1994 , at 7 p.m., in the Monticello City stall to consider the following matterst al zoning p to rezone PUBLIC HEARING: R°districtotoof amendment to the PS. Applicants: ELeanoriL. Malone ann d St. Henry's Catholic Church Location: See soap below 0 1 ha Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting. NOTEt Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval or denial of the City Council and will be heard on Monday, DeG mber 1A 19JA, at 7 p.m., at the Monticello City 11all. tGW R�n;�oonliWAdmin etre o !R!lNRNR#!!ii#NliRNlN/H!R!!!!#!i!#!#!!!R NlNlH!{R!!ls4asasaaaa. -70L COMMUNITY FACILITIES POLICY 1. Presently, the development of land for public facilities such as parks and playgrounds is considered more important than the acquisition of such land. However, with respect to acquisition, land must be purchased before proper sites are usurped by private developments or high land prices make acquisition unfeasible. It is a desirable goal of the City to balance acquisition and development efforts. 2. A11 public facilities are to be developed according to generally accepted standards and the results of thorough study. 3. Where feasible, private developers will be required to set aside a portion of their land for public user where this is not feasible or desirable, developers will be required to contribute cash in lieu of land, with such money to be utilised for the purchase and development of recreational facilities. 4. School facilities should be fully utilised by making building and land available to the public for use when such does not conflict with normal function of the school facilities. S. Private developers will not be required to donate land for school sites. 6. Churches should have an ample site for building, landscaping, potential expansion, and off -Street parking. Parking should be provided on the maximum design capacity. Churches should be located adjacent to a thoroughfare or collector street and have easy access to the area served. They should not be located on �d pl t s minor residential streets and in the midst of residential .�- neighborhoods. 7. The City should not accept substandard lands such as swamps, power line easements, etc., for the development of park lands. This shall include lands laid out in subdivision plans. Ogen Space Policies I Before delineating open space policies, a definition of the term is i necessary. Traditionally, open apace has been primarily defined as that area which in retained in or restored to a condition where natural oyotems predominate and which may be used for recreation, or preservation purposes. Open space was often regarded as a separate and contained entity usually under the ownership of a governmental jurisdiction. Recent trends indicate that open space, like the people it serves, is becoming more directly integrated with its surroundings. Becoming more a part of the total urban fabric, open space is being more closely integrated into the urban living and working environment. Because of this integrating phenomenon, many of the advantages and responsibilities of open space are equally applicable to public and private lands. I'M . 1%2 OF SECTION 12 fii ' F.:A,i - Rezoning from R2 to Pg die may'+ f OT 9 LOT Moremr am 100 awo.0. 1 I �` '\ AUDITOR: i S LOT 0 L— — — der ash" u•ai_eas _ — C L — PARCEL A — — — — — A \'I — ninw neap u•�ere ell MM W1to1 I` :�_,.t ::,,• h i'':, T� OT 10 \.�`30 AC.�.. PARCEL 0 GOMM cow. s,. 25.0' ACRES DIVISION �i'� �,j•���,:,.�; , ''.�. tip_ ` r \ ��'°� �' � � e F:'t:.• �.?y \ / 04 LOT 11 06 .94 211 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN • T a EXCERP 4 bingle..Fa -------- Church uses are allowed as a CUP in residental zones, therefore, the hfultiple Y1 mily rezoning to PS for a church u Be in7 consistent with this designation. Commercial - i. ,/thdustrial �PubllcfOuasi—Public Proposed Perk — --------- 36 .ILL! . . . . . . . . . . . i........... 7"' ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: Rezone approximately 7.5 acres as indicated on map below from R-2 (single and two-family) zoning designation to PS (public and semi-public uses) zoning designation. Adopted this 12th day of December, 1894. Mayor City Administrator 7-P Council Agenda - 12/12/94 e. Consideration of River Mill TIF IlLnd use Dian consistencv pvith comprehensive nlan (resolution establishine TIF District 1.18). (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The enclosed resolution is substantially the same as Resolution No. 94-37 approved by the City Council on November 28, 1994, with the changes as outlined in a letter dated December 6, 1994, from HRA Attorney Steve Bubul to Jeff O'Neill. The City Council is requested to adopt the revised resolution, which is essentially a house -keeping matter intended to correct technical deficiencies in the record. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. A motion adopting the revised resolution relating to the modification by the HRA of the Redevelopment Plan relating to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of TIF Plans relating to TIF Districts No. 1.1 through 1-17, and the establishment of TIF District No. 1-18, all located with Redevelopment Project Plan No. 1, and the approval and adoption of TIF Plan relating to. 2. A motion to deny adoption of the revised resolution. 3. A motion to table any action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative N1, as this is a house -keeping matter. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the revised resolution for adoption; Letter 6&om Steve Bubul; Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission. CouncitMember introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 94- A REVISED RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-17, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-18, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO. BE 1T RESOLVED, by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. It has boon proposed and adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") in and for the City that the Authority modify, by increased Project coats and enlarged geographic area, Redevelopment Project No. 1, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 489.001 to 489.047, inclusive, as amended. It has been Turther proposed and adopted by the Authority that the Authority modify the Tax 11.croment Financing Plane for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17, and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and approve the Tax Increment Financing Plans rotating thereto, pursuant to and In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 489.174 to 489.179, inclusive, as amended. 1.07. The Authority has caused to be prepared and this Council has Investigated the facts with respect thereto, a proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan (the "Modified Redevelopment Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1. defining more precisely the Increased Project costs and enlarged geographic area to be made to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plane for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17, and the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Tax Increment Financing Plan") for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 (collectively referred to as the "Plane"). 1.09. The Authority and the City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, tho modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 and the adoption of the Plane rotating thereto, including, but not limited to, notification to Wright County, om9ou4 101/0.4/ 9-40 Independent, School District No. 882 and the Monticeno-Big Lake Community Hospital, having jurisdiction over the property to be included In Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 and the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law. 1.04. By Resolution No. 94-37 approved on November 28, 1994, this Council approved the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-17 and the creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, contingent upon certain events. The City hereby determines that it is necessary and in the beat interest of the City at this time to clarify that the actions approved by Resolution No. 94-37 are consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, and to ratify Resolution No. 94-37 with certain modifications. Section 2. Findings for Modification of Redevelonment Prefect No. 1. Modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through I -f7. and the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18. 2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, Is intended and, in the judgement of the Council, Its effect will be, to further provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development, increase employment and otherwise promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plane for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-18. 2.02. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 moots the requirements of a Soils Condition District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 489.174, Subd. 19 In that it consists of any project, or any portions of a project which the Authority and City finds to be in the public interest because: (a) Unusual terrain, the presence of hazardous substances, pollution or contaminants, or sell deficiencies for 80 percent of the acreage in the district require substantial filling, grading, removal, or remedial action, or other physical preparation for use; and (b) The estimated cost of the physical preparation under clause (1), but excluding costa directly related to roads as definod in section 180.01 and local improvements as described In sections 429.021, subdivision 1, clauses (1) to (7) , (11) , and (12). and 430. 01, exceeds the fair market value of the land before completion of the preparation. 2.03. The Council finds, determines and declares that the development proposed in the modified Redevelopment Project No. 1, Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 and the Plans, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private Investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax Increment financing 1s doomed necessary. 2.04. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the modified Redevelopment Projoct No. 1, the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 and the Plana will afford maximum opportunity and be consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. I by private enterprise. anwu� 2 9-8 2. 05. The Council finds that the modified Redevelopment Project No. 1, the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18and thi Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. 2.08. The Council further finds, determines and declares that the City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2.07. The Council determines and declares that Redevelopment Project No. 1 is hereby modified, that Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17, are hereby modified and that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 Is hereby adopted, contingent upon the final approval by the Municipal Board of annexation of the area within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 into the City, and upon the execution of a Redevelopment Agreement by and between the Authority and Residential Development, Inc. Section 9. Adoption of Respective Plans. 5.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this date are hereby approved, contingent upon final approval by the Municipal Board of annexation of the area within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 into the City, and uyon the execution of a Redevelopment Agreement by and between the Authority and Residential Development, Inc., and the Plans shall be placed on file in the office of the City Administrator. Section 4. Implementation of the Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified Tax Increment Finandna Plans. 4.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial advisor, underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond counsel are authorised and directed to proceed with the implementation of the respective Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plane, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary to accomplish this purpose. aruwr4 MIM -46 8-C The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duty seconded by Councllmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duty passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Dated: December _, 1994 Mayor Attest: City Administrator (SEAL) us000: NNIOD•�� 8.D WMIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 94 - The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the establishment of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 as required, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 489.175, Subd. 3, are as follows: Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 to a "Solis Condition District" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 489.174, , Subd. 19. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 consists of two parcels which do not meet the requirements of a redevelopment district, mined underground space development district, housing district or economic development district. The Authority and the City find Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 to be in the public interest because: (a) Unusual terrain, the presenceofhazardous substances, pollution or contaminants, or soil deficiencies for 80 percent of the acreage in the district require substantial filling, grading, removal, or remedial action, or other physical preparation for use; and (b) The estimated cost of the physical preparation under clause (1) , but excluding costs directly related to roads as defined in section 180.01 and local Improvements as described in sections 429.071, subdivision 1, clauses (1) to (7), (11), and (12), and 430.01, exceeds the fair market value of the land before completion of the preparation. Facts supporting these findings can be found in A Geotechnical Evaluation Report for Residential Development, Inc., Dated August 3, 1994, prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation, on file in City Hall. Finding that the proposed development, In the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing Is deemed necessary. City staff has reviewed the costs for this dovelopment. Duo to the high cost of sell correction and site preparation, the project would not be financially feasible without the City's assistance. Soo the Braun Intortec report, cited above. 3) Findinngg that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Finandng District No. 1-18 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The project to be developed, which will be located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, consists of the development of 83 sin to family homes, 98 twin -family homes and, 2 commercial lots. This prop is expected to begin in 1998 and be substantially completed by January 2, 1999. en6ou4 W ISD -40 g -E 4) Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18. The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 will be twelve (12) years from the orlginal approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 489.177, Subd. S, the City requests 100 percent of�vailable captured tax capacity for current expenditures. S) Finding that the modified Redevelopment Project and the Plans are consistent with the City general plan: The Council has on this date received a written comment from the Monticello Planning Commission, finding that the modified Redevelopment Project and the Plane are consistent with the City comprehensive plan. Further, the Planning Commission previously determined that the preliminary plat for the development within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 was consistent with the comprehensive plan. u»ou4 8190.1# (-F HOLMES & GRAVEN CHAR7IRED STEPHEN J. BusuL PA vMAM c. W, wm Dim Dial (617) 73747E December 6, 1994 Jeff O'Neill Assistant City Administrator City of Monticello P.O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 RE: Residential Development, Inc. TIF Dear Jeff: Idwh— (613)1174= Panora. aw an4316 As we discussed, enclosed is a revised resolution approving modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, modifying the existing TIF Plans, and creating TIF District No. 1-18. This resolution is substantially the same as Resolution No. 9437 approved November 28, 1994, with the following changes: • New Section 1.04 describes this resolution as a corrective action. • In Section 2.02, the findings for a soils district are revised to indicate that both clauses (a) grrd (b) aro present, as required by Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.174, Subd. 19. (IU original resolution presented these clauses as an "either- or" finding.) • New Section 2.04 makes the finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan, as required by Section 469.028, subd. 2 and Section 469.175, Subd. 3. • Sections 2.07 and 3.01 clarify that the Plans are approved contingent upon final approval of the annexation And upon execution of the HRA contract with Residential Development, Inc. • In Exhibit A. item (1) has been expanded to include a reference to the Braun Intertec soils report, and item (5) has been added to explain that the City has received the planning commission's comment. Also, the original item (4) has been eliminated. as it does not apply outside the metropolitan area. LLIDoJH6 Mul�r 66 $- G Jeff O'Neill December 6, 1994 Page 2 1 undastattd that this resolution will be considered by the Council at its next meeting. The resolution is essentially a house -keeping matter, intended to correct technical deficiencies in the record. Let me know if you have questions or comments. Very truly yours, 6 Step J. Bubul cc: -"011ie Koropchak L ainie Kirscht nms_u. Cl , IV- 16 d-l� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. I THROUGH 18, LOCATED WrMN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City's Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the Modified Taut Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1 through 18 (the "Plans"), located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, have been submitted to the Monticello Planning Commission, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.027; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said Plan to determine the consistency of said Plan to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION, that the Plan is consistent with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and the Commission recommends approval of the Plan to the Monticello City Council. Adopt; A2 A11911 Chairman Attest: Alw«�.,�� 9-7. Council Agenda - 12/12/94 9. Consideration of amendment tq Section 9-8 (E) of the Monticello Zonigp Ordinance reaulatina sians by allowing one nremise Identification wall Sian Der street f1rontaee s_nd one premise identification Dvlon sign. ADnlicanL Arrow Sian Comoawv,. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Council is asked to review a proposal to amend the sign ordinance in a manner which would allow a premise identification wall sign for each street frontage that a business has exposure to and allow a pylon sign. The current ordinance allows one premise identification sign per street frontage, including the pylon sign. A premise identification sign identifies the business name and does not identify a product or service. The request is submitted by Arrow Sign Company on behalf of the Coast to Coast store. The present sign system at Coast to Coast includes a pylon sign and a wall sign, both of which are displayed on the 3rd Street side of the building. It is requested that an additional wall sign be allowed to be displayed in the rear of the property facing 4th Street. Under the present ordinance, this additional sign is not allowed unless either the pylon sign ie removed or the wall sign in the front is removed. In reviewing the request, Council should review the purpose of the sign ordinance and determine whether or not the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the general goals outlined in the purpose statement. As noted in this statement, the sign ordinance is intended to ensure the opportunity for effective, orderly communication by reducing confusion and hazards resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communication facilities. City Council needs to consider whether or not allowing both a pylon sign and a wall sign on one street frontage and an additional sign on another street frontage represents an enhancement to the sign ordinance by providing improved communication, or will it result in additional unnecessary signs, thereby adding confusion and hazards resulting from unnecessary signage. In terms of sign size controls, the total sign area of both signs cannot exceed the total sign area allowed for the sign in the front; therefore, although an additional sign is allowed under the amendment, the total sign area may not exceed the sign area for one sign allowed under the original ordinance. In support of the amendment, it could be argued that allowing an additional sign along the street frontage to the rear of a structure, such as in the case of Coast to Coast, would allow improved communication of the presence of the store from the street, thereby reducing confusion through improved use of signage. Presently, when traveling down 4th Street, it is impossible to tell that the building across from Sunny Fresh Foods is a Coast to Coast 14 Council Agenda - 12/12/94 store; therefore, perhaps it makes sense to allow signage at this location so as to make the traveling public aware of the presence of this business at this location. On the other hand, it could be argued that allowing a wall and pylon in the front and a single wall sign in the rear results in unnecessary duplication of the signs in front and, therefore, adds to clutter and confusion. This is a fairly weak argument against the amendment because the ordinance already allows two premise identification signs including the pylon sign for buildings with a single street frontage. As you recall some months ago, as a result of the request by Holiday Stationstores, the City amended the sign ordinance to allow a premise identification wall sign for each street frontage. It was noted at that time that Holiday Stationstores, having three sides exposed to a right-of-way, would be allowed to have three premise identification signs and that the pylon sign would be counted as one of the premise identification signs. Unfortunately, Holiday Stationstores installed three wall signs and one pylon sign, which is one sign in excess of the requirement. Apparently when the site was developed and when all final site inspections were completed, staff missed the fact that an extra wall sign had been added to the approved sign system. In the event that the ordinance is not changed allow this additional sign, then staff will have to contact Holiday Stationstores about removing one of the surplus wall signs. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to approve the ordinance amendment as proposed, which results in an additional wall sign for businesses with multiple street frontage but limits JAW sign area for all signs to 10% of the gross silhouette of the front wall or 100 sq ft, whichever is less. This is the alternative recommended by the Planning Commission based on the finding that the additional sign will enhance identification of businesses from the street without undue clutter. Under this alternative, City Council should review the request in terms of its impact on the character of the areae in which the sign ordinance amendment will be effected. If the Council believes that the additional sign allowed under the proposed ordinance will reduce confusion and enhance the ability of the public to better identify businesses from the public street, then this alternative should be selected. Council Agenda - 12/12/94 Motion to deny approval of the ordinance amendment. If the City Council feels that allowing the additional sign will result in additional signs that are not necessary, then this alternative should be selected. In some respects, this alternative does not seem to make sense because under the present ordinance, a minimum of two signs, including the pylon sign, are allowed. The proposed ordinance would simply allow another sign to be displayed on an opposing side of a structure exposed to a street frontage. If this alternative is selected, it should be noted that Coast to Coast does have the opportunity to install an informational/directional sign that can be no larger than 10 sq ft. Informational/directional signs can be installed without a sign permit and are intended to give information to employees, visitors, or delivery vehicles. As noted in the ordinance, an informational/directional sign may include the name of a business but must predominantly represent a directional or informational message. In the Coast to Coast situation, a 10 sq ft directional sign could be placed on the rear wall of the structure stating "Coast to Coast Parking in Front." This type of sign, though relatively small, could possibly accomplish the goal of identifying the use of the structure from 4th Street. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is our view that the current ordinance allows two premise identification signs at a minimum for each business, which includes a pylon sign and a wall sign. Allowing an additional wall sign along a wall exposed to a separate street frontage does not, in our minds, represent a proliferation of signago but rather represents an amendment necessary to provide businesses the ability to identify their structure from streets from which they gain exposure. In the case of the Coast to Coast store, by allowing placement of a premise identification sign in the rear of the facility, the users of 4th Street are benefited by having information regarding the business use of the structure, thereby improving communication from the street without adding excessive clutter. D. SUPPORTING D,A: Excerpt from ordinance relating to signage; Table showing number of allowed signs; Proposed zoning ordinance amendment will be presented at Monday evening's meeting. one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of floor area, one (1) loading berth; for each addit'.onal one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of floor area or fraction thereof, one (1) additional loading berth. 3-7: LAND RECLAMATION: Under this ordinance, land reclamation is the reclaiming of land by depositing of materials so as to elevate the grade. Land reclamation shall be permitted only by conditional use permit in all districts. Any lot or parcel upon which four hundred (400) cubic yards or more of fill is to be deposited shall come under the controls of land reclamation. The permit shall include as a condition thereof a finished grade plan which will not adversely affect the adjacent land, and as conditions thereof shall regulate the type of fill permitted, program for rodent control, plan for fire control and general maintenance of the site, controls for vehicular ingress and egress, and for control of material disbursed from wind or hauling of material to or from the site. 3-8: MINING: The extraction of sand, gravel, or other material from the land in the amount of four hundred (400) cubic yards or more and removal thereof from the site without processing shall be defined as mining. In all districts, the conduct of mining shall be permitted only upon issuance of a conditional use permit. Such permit shall include as a condition thereof a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding land or the development of the site on which the mining is being conducted, and route of trucks moving to and from the site. 3-9: SIGNS: JA) PURPOSE: This subdivision is established to protect and promote health, safety, general welfare, and order within the city of Monticello through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations, and procedures governing the type, numbers, size structure, location, height, lighting, erection, use and/or display of devices, signs, or symbols serving as a visual communication media to persons situated within or upon public right-of-ways or properties. The provisions of this subdivision are intended to encourage opportunity for effective, orderly communication by reducing confusion and hazards resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communication facilities. (B) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS: PERMITTED SIGNS: The following signs are allowed without a permit but shall comply with all other applicable provisions of this subdivision: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/37 14 (a) Public signs (b) Identification signs: There may be one (1) per premise not to exceed two (2) square feet in area. If the sign is freestanding, the total height may not exceed five (5) feet. (c) Inteural signs (d) Political campaign signs: Shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in all other zoning districts. Every campaign sign must contain the name and address of persons responsible for such sign, and that person Shall be responsible for its removal. Signs shall remain in place for no longer than five (5) days after the election for which they are intended. All signs shall be confined to private property. The City shall have the right to remove and destroy unsightly signs or remove signs after the five (5) day limit and assess a fee of five dollars ($5.00) per sign for removal. (e) Holiday Signs: Displayed for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days. (f) Construction Signs+ Such signs shall be confined to the Site of the construction, alteration, or repair, and shall be removed within two (2) years of the date of issuance of the first building permit or when the particular project is completed, whichever is sooner as determined by the City Building Inspector or his agent. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each major street the project abuts. No Sign may exceed fifty (50) square feet. (g) Individual Property Sale or Rental Signs: Signs must be removed within fourteen (14) days after sale or rental of property. Signs may not measure more than four (4) square feet In "R" districts, nor more than twenty (20) square feet in all other districts. There shall be only one (1) sign per premise. Corner properties, however, may contain two (2) signs, one (1) per frontage. (h) Information/Directional Signs: Shall not be larger then ten (10) square feet and shall conform to the location provisions of the specific district. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/38 Option A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall be allowed. The maximum number of signs on any principal building shall be six sign boards or placards, no more than four (4) of which may be product identification signs, with only two walls allowed for the display of the signs. Each wall shall contain no more than two product identification signs and two business identification signs. The total maximum size of wall signs shall be determined by taking twenty percent (20%) of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building, up to three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. If a principal building is on a corner lot, the largest side of the building may be used to determine the gross silhouette area. For purposes of determining the gross area of the silhouette of the principal building, the silhouette shall be defined as that area within an outline drawing of the principal building as viewed from the front lot line or from the related public street(s). ii. Option H. Under Option B, either wall signs or pylon signs may be utilized, or a combination of both. The total number of business identification signs allowed (whether wall or pylon) shall be at least two (2), or equal to the number of streets upon which the property has legal frontage, whichever is greater. In no case, however, shall more than one pylon sign be allowed. Only two product identification signs are allowed, and these wall signs may be only an one wall. The total maximum allowable sign area for any wall shall be determined by taking ten percent (10%) of the groes silhouette area of the front building up to one hundred (100) square feet, Whichever is lose. The method for determining the groes silhouette area for wall signs is as indicated in Option A. (1247, 3/11/94) 3. Conditional Uses in Commercial and Industrial Districts: The purpose of this section is to provide aesthetic control to signage and to prevent a proliferation of individual signs an buildings MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/46 9- r"' NUMBER OF PREMISE IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ALLOWED STREET FRONTAGES PRESENT ORDINANCE PROPOSED ORDINANCE 1 1 pylon sign 1 wall sign 2 1 pylon sign 1 wall sign 3 1 pylon sign 2 wall signs 4 1 pylon sign 3 wall signs SIGN.TAB: 1212194 1 pylon sign 1 wall sign 1 pylon sign 2 wall signs 1 pylon sign 3 wall signs 1 pylon sign 4 wall signs Council Agenda - 12/12/94 10. Consideration of salary schedule adiustments for 1995. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the ongoing main'enance of our current salary system in use for all non-union employees, the City Council should anr•:Zlly review the salary schedule and make adjustments when warranted in order to retain the City's pay relationship to the market. With this being the last meeting before 1996, any adjustments to the salary schedule should be adopted by the Council at this meeting in order to allow for implementation by January 1. As a brief refresher, the City Council adopted in December of 1991 a new salary administration program to comply with the comparable worth law. Our new program includes 22 grades with 6 potential steps within each grade that all City employees fall within. Since our current system already allows for step increases by employees who may not have yet reached their maximum step of their grade, the Council does not have to be concerned with individual merit/performance adjustments per se, but only needs to address what percentage increase should be considered for the entire salary pay schedules in general. In preparation of the 1995 budget, I included a 6% cost of living adjustment to all salary categories to provide sufficient dollars within our budget While it was origin ally assumed that a 5% adjustment would be more than sufficient to cover expected adjustments, this does not obligate the Council to a 5% increase. It is recommended that the ineraase, as in the past, be reflective of the cost of living increases that are occurring in our area in an attempt to keep our system competitive with the market. As a starting point, the Minneapolia/St. Paul consumer price index indicates that the current inflation rate is between 2.9% and 3.1% on an annual basis. The most recent information available for the Minneapolia/St. Paul area covers the second half of 1993 and the first half of 1994 in determining the percentages noted. In addition, I also had a brief salary survey conducted from various communities surrounding Monticello including the cities of Buffalo, Big Lake, Maple Grove, Plymouth, and Elk River. These are the same communities we have surveyed in the past and can be useful for the Council to see what is happening in other areas around us. While some of the survey information is still proposals by some communities, it appears the general percentage raise will likely be in the 2% to 3% range. Council Agenda - 17/12/94 As some of you may recall, the two-year union contract that was approved in April 1994 for the seven union employees calls for the second year of their contract to be adjusted by the same percentage increase that is granted by the Council to non-union employees for 1995. Their effective date of any increase would be from April 1, 1995, to April 1, 1996. While this should not necessarily have any bearing on the eventual percentage established by the Council for the salary schedule adjustments, it is a noteworthy item in that this will allow us to continue to be in compliance with the comparable worth law by ensuring that the union personnel do not receive raises that exceed the non-union adjustments, which could put us out of compliance. I believe the following factors should be considered by the Council in reviewing and discussing the COLA adjustments for non-union personnel in 1995. When our original comparable worth study was adopted in 1991, our consultant (League of Minnesota Cities) recommended that the step and grade system be adopted that included seven steps in each grade. This was based on average metro/rural steps used by other communities with similar pay systems. At the time of adoption, the Council made the decision to drop off the seventh step, which in effect, reduced the potential salary structure of the City by a little over 4%. The original salary schedule with the seventh step was intended to be consistent with the market for our area, and by the elimination of the seventh step, the Council in effect had immediately made a reduction in our market study by approximately 4%. While the use of the Minneapolia/St. Paul consumer price index may not be perfect, it is a basis that has been used by the City Council in the past in an attempt to keep our pay structure in line with inflation. With the latest information indicating that the Minneapolis/St. Paul inflation factor to be between 2.9% and 3.1%, it seems appropriate for the City Council to use this as a basis for their consideration. Due to the fact that a large number of our employees have been with the City for more than five years, most of the positions are now at or will be nearing the top of their step within their present grade. As a result, many of our employees will be relying on cost of living adjustments as Cho only increase in their salary unless their job descriptions change sufficiently to warrant a move to a different step and grade. While this present comparable worth system does not Council Agenda - 12112/94 technically provide for performance or merit pay adjustments, this only means that more importance is placed on providing an adequate cost of living adjustment to at least keep the employee in pace with inflation. For the past few years, the employees have agreed to a reduction in our health insurance package coverage in an attempt to keep the monthly health insurance premiums at a reasonable level. With the Council technically freezing the amount of contribution for health insurance at the level that was established in 1989, the employees' share of the health insurance had increased to a level where it was decided, as a group, that a reduction in the level of benefits would be necessary to keep the cost affordable. As a result, the City in general has not had to increase the amount of monthly contribution for employees' health insurance coverage over what may have been expected had the City been responsible for all of the health cost increases. Overall, I think that you have to agree that the City employees are doing a good job and deserve to be treated fairly in terms of cost of living adjustments. The work load and pressures continue to increase with our community experiencing housing demands and development pressures. I believe the City has a good, experienced, productive staff that is deserving of an appropriate cost of living adjustment. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Council could establish a cost of living adjustment that would apply to the entire non-union pay system which equals the current Minneapolis/SL Paul CPIU or CPIW. According to my current information, this percentage increase is between 2.9% and 3.1% annually. The CPIU is 2.9%, which indicates the consumer price index for all urban consumers, and the 3.1% is the figure for the consumer price index for all urban wage earners. Council could adjust the COLA based on some other factor other than the St. Paul or Minneapolis CPI index. C. STAFF ECOMMENDATIO19: As 1 previously noted, the 1998 budget included a 696 allowance for increases within our salary schedules, which should allow the Council sufficient latitude in adjusting the pay scales. While the actual or proposed 19 Council Agenda - 12/12/94 adjustments from surrounding communities varies between 2% to 3%, it does seem appropriate that any cost of living adjustment should continue to reflect the MinneapoliaSt. Paul consumer price index, as this is the area we are affected by. This has been the past practice of the Council to utilize this index when considering increases; therefore, it is my recommendation that alternative 01 be considered. Again, as a reminder, any adjustment that is considered for the non-union personnel will also become effective April 1, 1995, for the union individuals. At a minimum, the union contract calls for a minimum of 1.5%; so if the Council did adjust the non-union schedules by less than 1.5%, we would immediately be out of compliance with the comparable worth law. D. SUPPORTING DAJA: Salary survey from surrounding communities. 20 SURVEY OF SURROUNDING CITIES 1895 PROPOSED SALARY ADJUSTNZE M Big Lake: 1995: 2% 122k. 2% Buffalo: 1995: 2% +.5% merit 1994: 2.5% total package 1 2% COLA + .5% merit/health ins. Elk River. 1995-.2.5% - 3% 1994: 3% Maple Grove: 12L5: 3% is proposed 122J. 2.5% Plymouth: 1995: 2.8% 10&: 2.75% + $15/month ins. Council Agenda - 12/12/94 >>• Consideration of fund biumfers for 1994. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the end of the year approaching, a few housekeeping items should be approved by the Council concerning fund transfers to dose out unneeded construction funds and/or other transfers to correspond with our budget. In addition to closing out completed construction fund balances, some of the transfers recommended will cover deficiencies in specific construction funds that have occurred during the projects. In most of the deficiency cases, funds were anticipated to be used from the capital outlay fund but have not yet been transferred. Rather than specifically listing a brief explanation for each transfer recommended, you are asked to review the enclosed supplement summary that outlines each proposed transfer, dollar amount, and purpose for the transfer. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the transfers as recommended, C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I recommend for accounting purposes that the above transfers be approved prior to the end of 1994. Technically, without official action, some of the construction funds would show deficit cash balances while other construction funds will be kept open unnecessarily. The transfers are basically housekeeping items to more accurately reflect current year-end financial statements. D. SUPPORTING DATA: List of proposed transfers. SUMMARY OF TRANSFERS PROPOSED December 1994 FROM TO AMOUNT PURPOSE 92.02 School Blvd. 92(A) Bond Fund $60,038.00 To close out completed coast. Const. Fund fund to debt service fund 92-06 Public Works Big. 93-04C PW $303.93 To close out phase I const. Const. Fund Big. Phase H fund to phase II const. fund Const. Fund 92-07 Cardinal Hills II 93-060 Hart Blvd. $32,849.62 To close out completed project Const. Fund Const. Fund balance to similar fund 91-2 Briar Oakes 93-10C Briar $470.89 To cover deficiency in 93 -IOC y Const. Fund Oakes/Meadow project costs Oak Storm Sew. Const. C 91.2 Briar Oakes 91(A) Bond Fund $3,078.89 To close out remaining balance Const. Fund to debt service fund Capital Outlay Fund 93 -OIC County $908.64 To cover deficiencies in const. Road 78 Impr. project fund Const. Fund Capital Outlay Fund 93-13C Monti. $37,864.47 To cover deficiencies in const. Ford Storm Sew. project fund Project Capital Outlay Fund 93 -OW Hart Blvd. $138,283.38 To cover deficiencies in const. Storm Sewer -1- 55,7. Y. , project fund Const. Fund f g o p o u 3Y Capital Outlay Fund 93-08C Pathway $80,000.00 To cover deficiencies in const. Const. Fund project fund Liquor Fund 93.04C PW Big. $38,000.00 To cover deficiency in const. Phase Il Const. account Fund Sewer Access Fund 93-14C WWTP $38,000.00 To cover deficiency in fund to Expansion date for facility plan report Const. Fund HRA (7) various TIF $223,828.00 To transfer TIF revenue from debt service HRA to debt service fund for funds bond payments General Fund Debt Services $91,300.00 To transfer Kmart TIF Fund revenue to debt service fund //-A SUMMARY OF TRANSFERS PROPOSED December 1984 page PROM TO MOUNT PURPOSE Capital Outlay Fund General Fund $32,254.48 To cover remodeling of deputy registrar office not originally budgeted for Capital Outlay Fund General Fund $27,184.20 To cover remodeling of sr. citizens building not originally budgeted for Council Agenda - 12/12/94 12• Considergtion of purchase agreement to acauire land for drainage basin for Meadow Oak oond outlet oroiect. W.S. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Project 93-12C, the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet to the Mississippi River, passes through the Lois and Gene Bauer property between 1.94 and Gillard Avenue. City staff has met with the Bauers to discuss the acquisition or easements on 4 acres of existing wetlands on the east/ southeast side of their property. The Bauers have questioned their continued use of the additional acreage on the very southeastern corner of their site, which is essentially landlocked by the wetland. This property is elevated slightly above the wetland and has one small knoll on it and also has a pair of Northern Natural Gas lines running through it diagonally. After meetings earlier this summer, the Bauers and City staff decided it would be best to have the property appraised before we could look at easements, purchase, and/or trade-offs for the property. An appraisal was completed on September 6, 1994, by Mr. Rodney Dragsten, who appraised the wetland property at $3,600/acre. With us needing a minimum of 4 acres, the cost would be $14,000. The Bauers requested that we purchase or obtain enough easement rights to keep the water within our property or the easements under all reasonable conditions. This would probably require more than the 4 acres. After further discussions with the Bauers, they decided to look at how they could possibly utilize the remaining portions of their property prior to discussing a land We and/or exchange. They returned in early December with a concept plan which included developing a 25 -lot subdivision on approximately 10.9 acres of their 20.4 -acre total. The remaining 9.6 acres, which included the existing wetland, the natural gasline easement area, and that remote parcel of property to the very southeast along the freeway, would be deeded to the City. They requested that the City exchange park dedication fees and storm sewer assessments against their 10.9 -acre proposed development for the land and, in addition, develop a purchase agreement or development agreement centered around the following requests: The parcel proposed to be developed and the City's drainage area be annexed into the city. The City approve preparation of a preliminary plat based upon the concept or sketch plan. Approval would require the Bauers to meet all the requirements of the ordinance in regard to the preliminary plat and/or final plat. 22 Council Agenda - 12/12/94 3. Once the preliminary plat is approved by the City Council, it could be automatically renewed each year without additional fees or public hearings, etc. This is currently the way our ordinance is set up and does not appear to be a problem. 4. During the grading of the drainage basin and the possible creation of additional wetlands or drainage area in the southeast corner of the property, some of that fill material be placed on Lots 3, 4, b, and 6 of Block 2 at no cost to the Bauers. It is very possible that some of this material may also be able to be moved along I-94 for creation of a berm in the future. This would result in lower costs to develop more extensive wetlands and/or a larger drainage area. b. If the City ever fenced the wetland, it would screen the fence with pine trees. We informed the Bauers that typically we mark wetlands and/or park properties with short sections of split cedar rail fence at noticeable changes of directions of property lines around our parks or wetlands and, thus, would not fence the parcel. 6. The Bauers currently have a storage barn located on Lot 1, Block 1, which is in the proposed roadway. They would like the right to be able to relocate that storage barn on Lot 1, Block 1, to the proper setbacks as required in that zone prior to development. We are currently checking on the size of the barn to see if it meets the requirements for city ordinance. 7. The last thing they requested was that the purchase agreement or developers agreement be completed by the City and sent to the Bauers for review by them and their counsel. The 10.9 acres of land proposed to be developed by the Bauers would generate a storm sewer area assessment of $16,895 based on $1,660/acre. Assuming the 10.9 acres has at least a raw land value of $3,500/acre would indicate a park dedication fee of 10%, or $3,815. This, and the dollar amount needed to place some of the material ftnm the southeast corner of the property to Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 2 (probably $2,000 to $3,000), would be the approximate value of the exchange ($23,710). B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to approve the concept plan and annexation of the entire parcel into the city and enter into a C developers agreement/purchaso agreement as previously outlined. Annexation would require approval from the Township prior to it 23 Council Agenda - 12/12/94 occurring. Jeff ONeill informed the Township at their last meeting that this item may be on one of their future agendas. It is believed they would be very cooperative because of the ditch 33 impact. The second alternative would be to enter into a developers agreement/ purchase agreement with the Bauers based upon all of the requisites but leave the property in the township for the time being until the Bauers are ready to develop. The deed would be prepared on a metes and bounds basis, and we would actually own a piece of property outside of the city limits. The third alternative would be to do nothing. This does not appear to be in our best interest, as we feel a very fair offer has been made by the Bauers for us to obtain this property, and it is needed prior to us completing our Meadow Oak drainage outlet. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works Director that we pursue alterative #1, that the property can come into the city, and the simple subdivision can take place once the property is in the city. Alternative #2 would be our second choice. The Bauers are in no immediate hurry to plat and/or develop their property. Either method may be appropriate for them. Copy of concept plan and topographic plan. 24 Council Agenda - 12/12/84 Consideration of authorization to atJgmot entering into option for purchase of land and/or obtaining right of entry. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the operation of our wastewater treatment plant, bio -solids (sludge) is generated at our facility that must be disposed of. The City of Monticello currently has a handshake agreement with an area farmer, Mr. Robert Shierts, allowing us to land -apply bio -solids as fertilizer to his agricultural property. We are maximizing this property and are in need of additional sites soon. The sites have been permitted by the PCA. As some of you may recall, a few years ago Monticello Township adopted an ordinance which regulated the application of sludge materials to farm land within the township and transporting sludge over township roads. This ordinance had effectively cut off the City from new sites and eliminated renewal of our existing sites. In light of this action by the Township, which has been recently amended to exclude the City of Monticello from their prohibition, efforts were undertaken by the City staff to look at the feasibility of the City acquiring its own property on a state or county highway within a reasonable distance from the wastewater treatment plant to be used for bio -solids applications. It was felt that in the long run, it is extremely important for the City to actually own and control a site to ensure that we always have access for bio -solids application and can control the types of crops that should be planted to ensure proper use of the land and bio -solids. The Council previously gave authorization for the Public Works Director, in cooperation with PSG, Inc., to search out farm land to lease or purchase within a reasonable distance of Monticello that could be possibly used as a site for bio -solids application. Ideally, we determined the property should contain between 120 and 160 acres to provide a sufficient area for crop rotation and buffering from adjacent uses. Also, the property must contain the right soil configuration uud depth to ground water to meet PCA requirements and be reasonably flat. Since our cost would ultimately be lower if we could find one contiguous parcel rather than separate smaller parcels, we have been focusing on areas within 6 miles of the city meeting our criteria. About a month ago, the Council gave approval for obtaining an appraisal on one or two parcels that the City had tentatively selected as potential sites, and we have recently received one appraisal for a 145 -acre parcel located south of Monticello on County Road 106 west of Highway 25. This parcel, in 25 Council Agenda - 12/12/94 our estimation, appears to be suited for our intended use in that it's one large 145 -acre parcel, fairly flat, and situated on a county road. In order to do further research on whether this property would be appropriate for our needs, a soil test will need to be conducted by a testing firm. In order to do so, we will need to obtain permission from the landowner for right of entry. The City has had indirect contact with the owner through PSG and a land consultant. At that time, the owner was not interested in selling at $225,000 or $1,552/acre. At this time, we are seeking authorization to directly propose an offer to the property owner contingent on the property meeting our needs; and if this is not successful in obtaining an option, attempting to gain right of access for soil sampling. At this time, we do not feel that the property owner would be willing to sell the property at the appraised value, so further negotiations are expected. According to our City Attorney, Paul Weingarden, the City does have the right to acquire land by eminent domain proceedings if we feel this is the best site for the City's needs. Naturally, City staff feels it would be most beneficial to negotiate a purchase price with the property owner rather than using the eminent domain orecess. If all else fails, it appears condemning the property is a possibility. The present owner of this parcel in question is an absentee landowner residing in another state. If the Council authorizes, stats' would like to present an option agreement for their consideration using the appraised value as a starting point. Normally an option agreement to purchase the property at a set price contains an option fee. We could propose anything from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars as an option fee with one of the conditions being that the City be allowed to conduct soil testing to determine whether the property is suitable for our purposes. If the property owner is not at all interested in selling at this time, we can request the right of entry; but in all likelihood, we may have to begin other legal proceedings if we want to continue pursuing this site. B. ALTERNATIVE ,ACTIONS Council could authorize a purchase agreement option being presented to the property owner for the 145 -acre parcel at the appraised value noted in the appraisal. Conditions attached to the option agreement would request right of entry for testing purposes. This alternative would allow the City to begin contacts with the property owner regarding the City's interest in purchasing the property. 26 Council Agenda - 12/12/94 Do not authorize a purchase option at this time but direct staff to continue searching for other sites to be considered. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the criteria we had established in-house of trying to find a contiguous piece of property of approximately 120 to 160 acres with it being fairly flat, on a county or state highway, and within a reasonable distance from Monticello, we think this site may be an excellent location for the City's use. Although it is certainly too early to confirm the soil conditions, etc., we have had preliminary contact with the MPCA regarding this property, and it appears that it may be a suitable site for bio -solids applications. With the appraisal being completed and the value estimated at $140,000 to $150,000, it appears to be an economical option the City should consider. The only problem is, naturally, we do not have any commitment or interest at this time from the property owner to sell. As a result:, it is our opinion we will have to raise our offer substantially above the appraised value to even have the property owner consider selling it. Rather than raising our offer too high, we may find it more beneficial to proceed with eminent domain proceedings and let the Court system establish the value. It is my understanding that the appraisal firm, A.A. Fields & Associates, is a recognized appraiser in this area and should have credibility if we do need to proceed through legal action. Our City Attorney may have more advice on the procedures we should be considering in the future if negotiations do not pan out. D. SUPPORTING DIM: None. 27 I R. A. Field & Associates Federally Certified Appraisers 520 Northeast 218th Avenue 1 Cedar, Minnesota 55011 StU91AR2 REPORT OF A LIMITED APPRAISAL ASSIOIETT 1 November 30, 1994 Mr. Rick Wolfateller, City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55762 Y REQ Susan A. Nanaford Property V Cahill Avenue NE and County Road #106 Monticello Township, Minnesota Dear Mr. Wolfetellers Pursuant to your requset, we have made a careful inspection of the captioned property, which is more particularly described as that part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 121 North, Range 25 Weat lying east Of Cahill Avenue Northeast in Wright County, Minnesota, and have made a study of the conditions affecting its value. The estimate of value as stated in this report is predicated upon the definition of market value containod horoin. ey virtue of our investigation we have formed the opinion that the present value of the subject property, as of November 16, 1994, lies within the following ranges 11 0 140,000 to 0150,000 1� This appraisal is made subject to certain limiting conditions and assumptions as hereinafter expressed. Such facts and information contained herein were obtained from sources that we considered reliable and are true to the beet of our knowledge. ' The following report describes our method of approach, contains data gathered in our investigation, and demonstrates our analysis in arriving at the estimation of market value for the subject property. IRespectfully submitted, R. A. Feld i %seociatee ICertified Genera Real Property Appraiser License Number 4000115 2 13 -/¢ all v A x MA Q e0.7,tip lu. X cc 4CC.-ss LLO �O MON7rLL tS,OoAes, Elam 14116J :::Cf: 4f4ae .60 (4 ... .... .. % At JfVjrd,?,q ♦ W./hot= o,, 17 Koch Oo mii, 04 QIJ4 AAM34re, ml If 4K- Aeor—A U I A-1 --s 073 ACC/7 Holl - Do • /20 05 ASO GG *W# SMALL.' C.7 ar /Sam m Cg. _q, F SrL F rvW Raql"C 7a� P VIIS 4 40 • 00 00`0 Inq �r Af IL. �r v A x MA Q e0.7,tip lu. X cc 4CC.-ss LLO �O MON7rLL tS,OoAes, Elam 14116J :::Cf: 4f4ae .60 (4 ... .... .. % At JfVjrd,?,q ♦ W./hot= o,, 17 Koch Oo mii, 04 QIJ4 AAM34re, ml If 4K- Aeor—A U I A-1 --s 073 ACC/7 Holl - Do • /20 05 ASO GG *W# SMALL.' C.7 ar /Sam Council Agenda - 12/12/94 Consideration of rebid of phase II of the public works facility expansion. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Phase II of the public works expansion consists of a masonry salt/sand storage building addition on the north side of the vehicle storage building, a connection between the existing vehicle storage building and the shop building to serve as an oil storage and wash/periodic paint bay, and an addition to the front of the building consisting of a break room, handicapped accessible restrooms for both male and female, and a meeting/training room. Original project estimates for phase II were done by the firm of TKDA in February of 1992 and were estimated at $380,000. Phase II, however, was changed from the original concept due to the ADA requirements. The addition to the front of the building was originally a meeting and training room and storage for small vehicles. Portions of phase III, which included the restrooms and shower facilities, were moved into phase II. In April of 1993, OSM prepared a feasibility report for the revised second phase of the public works expansion. The estimated cost of the project at that time was $413,100. The Council requested that we delay phase II bidding until we had determined the cost of repairing the digester cover at the wastewater treatment plant. It was also suggested by the City Council and members of the building committee that we look at downsizing the sand/salt storage addition. In January of 1994, the City Council authorized preparation of plans and specs based upon a downsized salt storage facility at an estimated revised project cost of $379,700. This was based on an estimated construction cost of $338,000, excluding engineering work, inspection, and other work to be done by the City. Bids were received May 19, 1994, at city hall. The lowest construction bid received was $486,000. This was $148,000 over our estimated construction cost. The difference between construction cost and project cost is the design, construction, engineering, and testing work to be done by the City, which is estimated at about $42,200; therefore, the project cost would be $828,200. The City Council reviewed the bids and looked at the possibility of rebidding in August or waiting until the winter of 1994/1995. Council selected the option of bidding in the winter for an early spring start and asked staff and the building committee to look at ways to modify the design to exclude items that could be added or expanded later and to look at other cost,saving alternatives. 28 Council Agenda - 12/12/94 Over the summer and fall of this year, OSM and staff looked at various alternatives. The sand/salt storage building was again reduced in size but with the flexibility to add on in the future. The roof of the structure was changed to wood, and the lighting system was reduced, as well as the windows being omitted. This saved approximately $27,500. The sand/salt building may need to be expanded in the next five or six years depending upon the growth of the city, or the City will need to replenish its supply of sand/salt in mid -winter. Changes to the shop area included the deletion of the lube rack and power washer from the contract. These could be purchased at a later date without the general contractor markup and would put off an expenditure of $18,500. Electrical modifications were made based upon recommendations from a local electrician, and much of the existing lighting in the old shop was saved. Some of the work such as relocating an air compressor and changing windows at the shop building was deleted from the contract to he performed by local contractors or in-house. Many of the floor coverings and finishes were changed or deleted from the addition to the front of the building. Half of the ceramic tile was deleted in the bathrooms, floor the was deleted from the hallways, and vinyl wall coverings were deleted from hallways and the meetng/training room. All in all, these savings were expected to be about $47,000 in addition to the sand/salt building savings. The new estimated construction cost based upon the low bid received in May is now $400,449. Adding a $20,000 contingency fund brings us up to about $420,500. Adding back in our design, construction, engineering, testing, and soil correction costs brings the total project cost up to about $462,672. This does not include any parking or paving work on the site other than the sidewalks and curbing around the building itself. Funds available for the project can come from several sources but predominantly from the liquor store flmd. The expected amount available in the liquor store fund through the end of October 1995 is $820,000. This is separate from the $100,000 act aside for the EDA revolving loan fund. Of this money, $400,000 has been earmarked for the project based upon the 1995 budget. In addition, there is $20,300 in the shop and garage fund for 1993 and 1994 that was not spent. This money was budgeted for exterior paving, a field computer, and a floor -mounted truck hoist. In addition, the sealcont project for 1994, estimated at $20,000, was deleted and rescheduled for next year due to the limited size of the 1994 and 1995 sealcoating projects. Lastly, there is $40,000 in state aid maintenance funds that can be used for this purpose and any other City needs without strings from the State. 29 Council Agenda - 12/12/94 In summary, the project has now been reduced in scope to the bare minimum. All expansions or equipment that can be put off or deleted has been done. Any further reductions would be a deletion in quality of construction and would be offset by long-term maintenance increases, or we would have to downsize again. There are sufficient funds to complete this project as proposed without any increase in levy or taxpayer dollars. There is also one further option that we may explore to further reduce costs, and that is the use of a construction manager. As you may recall, the City became the construction manager for the Bridge Park warming house/ restroom building. This was the only way that we could bring the cost in line with the budget allowed by City Council. For the phase Il public works project, however, we would not propose that the City become the construction manager due to current work load and the size of the project. Doug Wild, the architect from OSM, has proposed that he and OSM become the construction manager of this particular project to bring it closer in line with the expected budget. To my knowledge, OSM has not done construction management projects in the past, but Doug Wild has considerable experience with this technique with his previous employment and will present a proposal for being the construction manager at Monday evening's meeting. During the construction management process, OSM will change the plans and specs so each trade can bid on portions of the project, hopefully using more local contractors. Since Doug would be able to pick the lowest price in each one of the trades based upon their ability to do the work, considerable savings should be able to be realized. A portion of these savings go to OSM to pay the construction management fee. The Hospital District has had success using this technique in the past, while the County, using the same construction manager as the Hospital District, has had considerable problems. B. ALTERNATIVE -ACTIONS: The first alternative is to authorize advertisement for rebid based upon the changes, modifications, and deletions as previously listed using the standard general contractor approach. The second alternative would be to select Doug Wild and OSM as the construction manager for the project and revise the plans and specs accordingly and authorize advertisement for bids for the various portions of the project. 30 Council Agenda - 12/12/94 The third alternative would be to go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and again reduce the scope of the project, and at a later date determine whether or not a general contractor or a construction manager should be used. 4. The fourth alternative would be to do nothing but to continue with the existing facilities. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the staff and building committee, consisting of John Simola, Roger Mack, Mayor Brad Fyle, and Councilmember Clint Herbst, that we proceed with the project based upon the estimated cost and that the Council review the proposal from OSM for being the construction manager. Depending upon the proposal from OSM, this may be the project for us to try the construction management technique. Also, if there are some additional savings to be realized, we may be able to look at the possibility of adding back in some of the finishes and/or delayed portions of the project. p. SUPPORTING Dom: Copy of May 23, 1894, memo from OSM regarding bids received May 19, 1984; Copy of December 5, 1894, memo from OSM regarding changes to the scope of the project; Building layout. C Orr 0ASS& br. ton Park Ptxc Cema ' 5775 waynda Ivtkwrd Minrcaim3K MN 55916-1 22 8 612.595.5775 I-8OP757.5775 PA% 595.5771 Engineers December 12, 1994 Architects Planners Surwrws Mr. John Simola Public Works Director City of Monticello 250 Gast Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245 Re: Public Works Department Expansion and Renovation OSM Proposal 0406.94 John: Our proposal for AM services to complete the Revisions, Rebidding, and Construction Management (CM) for the above referenced project is noted within the following. REVISE AND REDID OSM will revise the drawings to incorporate the project reductions agreed as per our report dated December 2, 1994. We propose the following fees per department: Architcctund $3.000 Structuml $1,000 Mechanical $500 Electrical $2,000 Total Additional Compcnmtion for Basic Services: $6,500 t� rypm,wn7 rmt+� II. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1. In response to your request to proceed with a Construction Management approach, we propose the following fees: Effort to Revise Drawings and Specifications to Delineate Bid Packages and Assign Divisions of Work, Add: $3,600 (This work is in addition to the previously noted.) Additional Effort During Project Bid Period to Clarify Process to Bidders, Add: $500 For Construction Management Service through the Construction Phase of the Project, Add: $22.000 (Predicated on a 20 week construction period with OSM representation on-site 18 hours per week) Total Construction Management Services $26,100 John, our previous reports have identified n potential savings of $20,000 possible through the CM approach. If we consider a total construction cost of $420,000 and a • 10% savings of 542,000, the breakdown is as follows: Savings from CM bid process $42,000 - less CM Services ($26,100) Total Savings from CM $15,900 *Analysis of the breakdowns furnished by two of the bidders indicate a savings of $32,300 immediately available in the project. We note that these breakdowns are incomplete in that they ideniVy approximately half of all the divisions of work - thus a savings of $42,000 may be reasonably expected if all divisions of work were available for review. Please review the above and call me with any questions. Thank you for your time. Singe ly, Dougl s D. Wild, AIA Architecture cc: John Simola/r-ile/BAW/WJ7JJAT Schdal SOD PWk Phe Center 612.5954775 61 6776 B=ar' 1-daa-763- 5 � m� �i664161225 t=nua96-67n Project Report Date: May 23, 1994 Re: Public Works Department Expansion and Renovation City of Monticello, MN OSM Project No. 5088.10 Items: 1. Bid opening: 10:00 a.m., May 19, 1994 at Monticello City Hall. 2. As is evident by the attached bid tab, base bids range from $486,000 to $544.500 and are higher than the prebid estimated construction cost of $338,000. The recommendation to City Council shall be the rejection of all bids and the re -bidding of the project at a later date. 3. Please refer to the attached for OSM cubic foot cost development 4. We have reviewed the project with all prig bidders and a few of the subcontractors to determine the cause of high bids: a. The bidding climate is currently very busy as is indicated by the relatively few bidders on the project despite extensive efforts to generate bids. Most bidders indicated that a re- bid in early August may reveal a 10% - 15% deduction in construction costs. b. Bidders expressed difficulty in obtaining bids for many portions of wont. Some noted trades include earthwork, concrete, masonry, roofing, casework. aluminum entrances. and glazing. General contractors, in many instances, were forced to estimate subcontract costs. Of these, masonry bids were noted as the most difficult to obtain - this lack of competitiveness is reflected in the subcontract sums for this trade. rq..tq 5. Although it appears possible to reduce the cost of the project 10%-15% simply by re- bidding the work, it is evident additional deductions or alternates will need to be considered. Candidate modifications and total cost savings include (per=tages are calculated from the mid-range base bid sum of $511,000): Rebid the project in August $50,000 (save 10% - 15%) Investigate Construction Management approach; $22,500 (save 5% - 10%) Remove Lube Rack from construction contract; $17,000 Reduce quality of floor finish at wash bay; TBD* Investigate alternate masonry coating systems; TBD Utilize full height CMU veneer in lieu of half height TBD Remove selected finishes and accessories; $5,000 Utilize 45 mil. roofing system in lieu of 60 mil.; $2,000 Reduce lighting at Salt/Sand storage; $400 Delete modifications to lighting at maintenance building; $2,500 Delete modifications to windows at maintenance building; $600 Remove new metal railing at mezzanine from contract; $500 Consider new metal stair as alternate bid; $1,500 Delete refinishing of existing OH doors; TBD Include skylights as alternate bid; $20,000 Delete the eau portion of Salt/Sand $12,000 Utilize wood fiberboard at deck of Salt/Sand �QQ (in lieu of polyisocyanurate) Estimated total savings to date - to be verified $134,500 ('To Be Determined) c: WJ7JBAW File - OSM Project 05088.10 j: %Am hWvheportttmontrprAdw Iq �3 OAIS)OLOrr me 300 Pad; sLace amu 5775 Wayzata BMW aN Mmtrapdd, MN 55116.1328 612395-5775 Memorandum F, -80D-753-5775 Mats FROM: Douglas D. Wild ( 612) 595-5644 TO: John Simola DATE: December 5, 1994 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Expansion and Renovation OSM Project # 5088.10 John: 1. Per our last phone conversation and a discussion with Brct Weis, please rind enclosed a revised project estimate reflecting construction cost deductions taken from the low bidder - GEH Construction. 2. Note that we had initially deducted costs from the mid-range bidder (Gopher State) to provide a safety margin since the recent bidding climate has been so vnlatile. By using the low range bids, please be aware that risks are incurred since we are relying more heavily on effective competition between bidders. 3. I've applied a few revised numbers within the body of the estimate to reflect the breakdown provided by GEH. The most significant revision is the deduction for the downsizing of the Salt/Sand shed ($13,000 in lieu of $10,000). GEH's number for this addition was higher than Gopher States bid - thus the SF cost of dto building is higher. What I have done to arrive at $13,000 is to calculate this higher SF value, develop it into a savings for the downsizing, and then use 75% of this to account for the mobilization and set-up efforts necessary regardless of building size. Please review and call with any questions - thanks. rmwolv.M."rr•a— /y . 6 Public Works Department Expansion and Renovation City of Monticello, MN Ropowa Rwhbns and Cost 3avhfgc Reposed cost KNWV revhbrn from In -frame ravlow and conventions with bidden Robld the pro)oct h August or Septornba Downstze Sall/Sond to occomd oato 500 CY (too attochod) hope petrrtlf fees by owner ROOM Q=W nardonor/toolot a fbp of Wahboy h tau of Opoxy E6rvrato bolads at OI Stoogo OH Door Masorvy tle0 (LLA hfthl r:kplI in lou of half-tYgh [M* -,Oto AUIOCsavo roqutomont to "ovo cornpotltlon Pravda 4'14 wah of storage roan - oflnbrulu J-A:d Modify footkfgs at oast wal of Malnt. (at'nvnoto apron rovWons) M660b Uw woad ktruatwo arra dock of Sati/Sad Mftnl7o nlofel 6KWV EM*xdo replacement of mouan ine raj Wood and Plastics DoWto chat cal nw nco and Moblw" haiwoon Uinta 45 ml. momdano in sou of 60 nd. EYNrato Pdylso of SM/Sad dock Novsdo droo tow of {.—oa of roof I Ekr*x to nanoucont pants at Solt/Sora (Irfckdhp Masarvy modllfcatlons) OSM Amoclwos Inc.: IM/94 Pogo I Project Report flow Ifld: AR. I WS SIM.) En%*onrnent has not eased $13.000.00 (dwoo3e Iength nam 55' to 44) ' 13,000.00 61,00D.OD $1,700.00 6500 00 SS000.00 sae std. grey uNls 51,000.00 31.500.00 01,000.00 6SOM.00 6500.00 3500.00 5600A0 6500,00 111600.00 6500.00 115000 Pogo I Pull,_: Works Department Project R*.fort Expansion and Renovation City of Monticello, MN OSM Associates Inc.: 12/2/W PaOo 7 1 eaw silt AN. 1 (ve slog.) Doors aria wWOM Delete moallkatbru to wkxk ws at Maht. Rldp, 81,�0D.o0 Staff entry to be Hollow Metal . ROW Usf ate finlsh of deck and structure in Soil/Sand (al kertber treated) $250000 E6rNnote vwC SMOD EWnksafe corarNc wall No at bortoorns (partially) 01,600.00 Rovkse VCT in You or Quarry too $1,600.00 Delete r6ftrrdh i g of MOInt. Boy OH doors MOO Eflrrynote Darting at Interior of Info portion (except woshboy) - $76000 (mt. fn r- by ASM) speciatism EbrdnWo lo0orf from contract for owner to puchase 81,$00.00 MischaniCal ElmInoto kt)e rock and power washer hom contract � blQfi00.00 (deduCt In[kIdOi labor) Owner to rawcoro consprossof. 660).00 Ekrrynate cabinet hoofer of &oak Room. 8660.00 Itrical EemInato rov4bns to Iphtfrg 1n Matnl. Bay s4mo 00 Rovho from 00saso to skgloVoorse 81.500.00 Reduce fhtuo counts of Tfak*V and San/Sand addition 81.600.00 VOTAL 8AVW.5 VU DEDUCTIOWAITERFLATEs: "7r66000 821.600.00 OSM Associates Inc.: 12/2/W PaOo 7 1 Public Works Department Expansion and Renovation City of Monticello, MN Project Report RMsed holed Esltmab: TWO AU bid cosh takon from low bidder - GEH Construction with bid tot the 7wse' project at 538ZOM and the Satt/$oftd Addthon at $90.00O. Trok*V ACJdltlon Mohtem nce Rarwvotlon W3 Constructor. SM460.00 Now Stat. Sky5ghts SUBTOTAL 034,450.00; 5% ConttKponcy Fund: S16,77 M' TOTAL BASE BID: {.761,17260 ADD ALT. 1 Saft/Sond Storage Shed (44'X 38' open erd/n0 hons. paneh) Sa500 OD SUBTOTAL: 641 &672.60.' 6% Corttponcy Fund AdclIton: S& 126.00 TOTAL BASE BID AND ALTERNATE NO. 1: 6416,707.50 ADD ALT. 2 16 h. Total Systema RoofkV Warranty (may hctudo 60 mE. rrornarana) 5&606.00 SUBTOTAL: SQU207.5U 6% Cotnpency Fun] Addltbn: 8176.00 TOTAL BASE BID AND ALTERNATE NO.s 1 & I $M47250, The loeow"g Items oro not Included In the abovo: 1. UlWting CM opptoach - approx. 520.0!]0 savhgs. 2. EUtnato to*V for woof wood construction for Trolnhg Room Addilon • opprox. $10000 • S 16.00o sWhgs. 3. Etllmatod KwdXp to oerr*wtlon of mosorwy vorgot and roploco with oxtorlo tgJotbn systom - approxi 514,000 to 01MO00Iwvtngs. i OSM Assoclotol Inc.: 12nm Pago 3 0E 1.DING w•I•.ct S•n[ a cwt r�r CIT. -C-3 0" 1 to OIL SIM.Ca 7--1 1 OMIT t VEHICLE STORAGE ruf/wIt a.lc[(aulgrl[rr r.n:`TES. lioC • tT •ISr I.0 3•0 fr°r•U SVILCI.0 TO BE SE—E0 �K• r.,l.o I. Is •.E• PHASE 2A •s•Lr frol•c[ [•cLosu•[ M Gars •tOwlto a1 /arcs Ex[ Stn -C- LJ.[ refs lilt 10.014 CIRLVL•TIa. .o, :LE M•w[I Cimt ruTpt vtw, C11 sTWICE Err•sf101 OTIL1:1 [::SSfI G VTW1"C Srt.•CI •ALL AS AKf[r[a•TIOY — PHASE 28 •r•L./r•I.T NAT -KI YEYQTL .•IYTE•••C[ MEL` -OIL STeI•q r CO.C.l Ot t• Sr•VCTV[� ru NrE [TI[•1°r :.Su•IICI ON STs I tY i0 tE YR mI• •ELOO. valnLIN I. a[It•.1Ri•OD sarL I W r/ •r01i•ALt rf•I0.[ MOlfr IT C.Q. I•ar Kra I[tz. sr•n I 1[t cwt a n..il.c ..[• Kr r•rirw 1+ sYls aa[•, r+ET' IN tort Cluct' I 1 I-1 1-1 I-1 [f IST 1.6 NOW KIIMIrt MATER OFi'IICE :VEHICLE PAINT. 1[turLlwrt BLDG. I 1 I— J !_ J PHASE 2C —j� IPt, --•2 •yru[ .nolrla. - S .Cts .s S -O" r •0. CO.a•L I.•I aCctss. •ISISO0u1....11G. C•! Y[[f1.W t. .• tqM 1 •tivltl r•a•1 W. I.rOSCui•4 •s S.0- Ir[a.l Ta•I.1.6 •III alA •{UL•110Y YR I[0 40 rY•!tE It aY° 1�.Sr1. a•rt. I•" -----r--- i--�•---- PARKING I PARKING ' SITE PLAt1�SCHEIIATIG DESIGN 'A2' Y..Y . I.b. e S 10 10 .0 t0 Dote Comm. No ! Orr Orowing Title Seltalen VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY Meyeron DESIGN 'Al' -MAY 93 5088.00 OAK— Associates, Inc. SCHEMATIC � PHASE 2 [a[Intrrr . ArtalttOtt • ►Itnn... . $ur•tran We ►.TS ►1... a.t.r . trft Iy As �rd..ua ■I..•. rYll.... t5411•1t7.rll•ttS ans MONTICELLO, MN. Sheet no. Council Agenda - 12112J94 rs. CJonsiderntion of scbedalin¢ a special meeting for Planninq Commission interviews. (J.OJ A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This is to inform Council that the Planning Commission conducted interviews for filling the two vacant positions on the Planning Commission. The interviews were conducted at the end of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission in December. Applicants interviewed included Steve Andrews, Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Earl Smith, Jerry Wells, and Bob Grieman. The Planning Commission was very impressed with the applicants. The competition for the two positions was excellent. Unfortunately, the first meeting of the Planning Commission in 1995 falls on Tuesday, January 3, which is the first day of work after the New Year's holiday; therefore, the only way that the two new members of the Planning Commission can be interviewed and appointed to their new position in time for the meeting on Tuesday is for Council to conduct a special meeting of the City Council sometime during the day on Tuesday, the 3rd. In the event that two members of the Planning Commission cannot be appointed on that day, it is possible to conduct business with only three members of the Planning Commission available. If you feel that it is important that the two positions be filled prior to the Planning Commission's meeting at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, January 3, I would suggest that you schedule a special meeting of the City Council for 5 p.m., Tuesday, January 3. Prior to the special meeting, staff will send you a reminder notice along with a copy of the applications and the Planning Commission's recommendation. 32 Council Agenda - 12(12/94 16. Consideration of vacating a uortion of a upthwav easement. location is Lots T and 8, Block 2. Cardinal Hills 4th Addition. Anulieant. Value Plus Homes. Inc.. W.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Detail regarding this request was not summarized in time for printing of the agenda material. Staff will provide a verbal report at the meeting on Monday. 33 RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/01/94 09:37:47 Disbursement Journal `WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL GENERAL CHECKING 37657 11/29/94 ALLISON OPAY .90373 RECYCLING PRIZE 20.00 37658 11/29/94 MELANIE OPAY .90374 RECYCLING PRIZE 20.00 37659 11/29/94 VANGI TINGELSTAD .90375 RECYCLING PRIZE 20.00 37660 11/29/94 SARA WALLIN .90376 RECYCLING PRIZE 20.00 37661 11/29/94 LORI MAKI .90377 RECYCLING PRIZE PO.00 37662 11/29/94 ALEXIS FRISCHMON .90378 RECYCLING PRIZE 40.00 37663 11/29/94 BO, CALEB, & KIM NEL .90379 RECYCLING PRIZE 20.00 37664 11/29/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 25.00 37665 11/29/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATER & SNOW REG 465.00 37666 11/29/94 RYAN CONTRACTING INC 750 CONST COSTS/C HILL 44,145.14 3166'/ 11/29/94 MONIICELLO SCHOOL 01 855 PARK DED1CA11UN FEL 9,400.00 37666 11/29/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 46.00 37609 11/29/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 1,107.00 37670 11/29/94 COAST TO COAST 35 MISC SUPPLIES/C HALL 3.93 2/670 11/29/94 COAST TO COAST 35 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 10.61 '37070 11/29/94 COAST TO COAST 35 CLEANING SUP/LIBRARY 20.63 77670 11/29/94 COAST TO COAST 35 MISC SUPPLIES/WATER DEP 5.08 37670 11/29/94 COAST TO COAST 35 MISC SLIP/OEP REG OFF 11.05 37670 11/29/94 COAS1 TO COAST 35 MISC SUP/PARKS DEPT 21.12 7707U 11/29/94 COAST TO COAST 35 MISC SUP/SEWER DEPT 0.36 37670 11/29/94 COAST TO COAST 35 REPAIR SUP/STREET: nEPT 7.22 37670 11/29/94 COAST TO COAST 35 MISC SUP/STREL•T DEPT 33.99 37670 11/29/94 COAST TO COAST 35 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 0.06 37610 11/29/94 COAST TO COA5'r 35 BLU RCP tiUP/PARKS DEPT 13.81 J/670 11/29/94 COAST TO COACT 35 MTC OF EQUIP/FIFE OL'P1 21.00 376/0 11/29/94 COAST 1'U COAST 35 MISC SUP/C HILLS IV PR 15.17 177.43 SC1 37671 11/29/94 NORTHWEST MINNC90TA 156 REG FEE/GARY ANDERON 10.OU 37671 11/29/94 NORIHWE;T MINNESOIA 156 MEMBERSHIP DUE;; 10.00 0.00 •CI ^767? 11/29/94 MN BUILDING OFFICIAL 729 REG FEE/GARY ANDERSON 15.00 .37673 11/29/94 II.S. POfITMASTER 210 POSTAL; E/NEW1A.LTTE R ML 309.50 GENERAL (HFCKING TOTAL 55,070.07 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/02/94 10:28:26 Disbursement .Journal (,WARRANT WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL. GENERAL CHECKING 37674 12/01/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 1,868.00 37675 12/04/94 ADVANTAGE PAPER 833 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 17.65 37676 12/04/94 AMERICAN TEST CENTER 856 TESTING/FIRE TRUCK 941.00 37677 12/04/94 ANOKA HENNEPIN TECH .90321 FIRE DEPT TRAINING 800.00 37678 12/04/94 ARAMARK 848 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 114.00 37679 12/04/94 ASSOCIATED VETF.RINAR 683 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE 31.79 37680 12/04/94 BIG LAKE MACHINE 495 STEEL/STREET DEPT21.83 37681 12/04/94 BRAUN INTERTEC CNVIO 636 ENG FEES/C HILLS TV 501.50 37682 12/04/94 C J BROWN BUSINESS S 597 CITY NEWSLETTERS 310.87 31683 12/04/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 794 MOBIL PHONE CHGS/WATER 9.34 ,7683 12/04/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ;;T 794 MOGIL PHONE CHGS/FIRE 0.14 37083 12/04/94 CELLULAR 2000 VE bl 184 MUE11L PHONE CHCS/C DE 168.09 .17603 12/04/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 794 MOBIL PHONE CHGS/PW IN 51.17 228.74 *CH 17684 12/04/94 CENTRAL MINN 1NITIAT 822 CMIF GRANT PAYMENT 1,100.21 37685 12/04/94 OINO10 DELI .90219 ELECTION JUDGES STIP 90.53 37606 12/04/04 EMERGENCY APPARATUS 400 FIRE DEPT VEHICLE M 1,018.00 )1607 12/04/94 FRONTLINE PL.U9 FIRE 510 CLOTHING/FIRE DFPT 501.45 37608 12/04/94 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE 64 METAL BLADE/STREET DEP 44.05 37660 17./04/94 GCNERAL RENTAL CENTE 04 TOWABLE SIGN/FIRE DEPT 15.90 60.03 ACH 31689 12/04/1)4 GULLING',. LXC. 624 DIRT MINING/DUNDAS RD 305.00 J7G90 17/04/94 H G L MEf�AfIY 050 LILAD[ S/BOLTf,/SNOW 0 2,724.42 3'1091 12/04/04 HF.RML5/JhkRY B1 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 7.27.:x0 9lG02 1Y/04/04 HOLIDAY CkEDIT OFFIC O5 GA;/FIRE DEPT 142.25 )'1(j03 12/04/04 INf)U4Tk1AL MAINZ . OU 514 :,NOP & GAR SUPPLIES 115.37 J7694 12/04/94 J M OIL COMPANY 95 OIL/STRECT DEPT 230.40 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/02/94 10:28:28 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37695 12/04/94 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU 37696 12/04/94 MID—CON SYSTEMS, INC 37697 12/04/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 37697 12/04/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 37898 12/04/94 MONTICELLO SENIOR CI 37699 12/04/94 O'NEILL/JEFF 37700 12/04/94 PETERSEN'S MONT FORD 37701 12/04/94 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 37702 12/04/94 RUFF AUTO PARTS 37702 12/04/94 RUFF AUTO PARTS 37703 12/04/94 SHIERTS/ROBERT 37704 12/04/94 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO 37704 12/04/94 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO 37705 12/04/94 STATE OF MINNESOTA 37706 12/04/94 TECHNICAL REPRODUCTI 37707 12/04/94 TRUEMAN—WELTERS. INC 37708 12/04/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37706 12/04/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37709 12/04/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37708 12/04/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37709 12/04/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37708 12/04/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37709 12/04/94 UNIVERSITY OF MINNES 37710 12/04/94 VIKING COCA COLA 37711 12/04/94 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY 37712 12/04/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT t 106 OFFICE SUPPLIES/C HALL 86.39 857 GEL LUB/STREET DEPT 91.60 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 185 REIMB/DOG FOOD & SUP 103.93 1,203.93 139 MONTHLY CONTRACT PV 2,833.33 161 MILEAGE REIMS 119.84 185 VEHICLE REPAIRS/STR£E 558.47 227 TIRE REPAIR/STREET DEPT 6.50 268 FUEL TANK/STREET DEPT 85.00 268 FRONT BRAKES/SEWER COL 20.00 105.00 881 SLUDE APPLICATION C 1,433.41 498 CLEANING SUP/SHOP & G 131.04 498 GLOVES/STREET DEPT 94.99 216.03 461 1994 MINN STATUTE 800 191.70 854 ENG FEES/PW INSPEC 282.04 207 LINK/SNOW 9 ICE 13.86 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 13.84 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 27.28 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 12.80 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 12.80 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 71.06 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 35.52 173.10 212 REG FEE/G ANDERSON 145.00 770 POP/PARKS/CONCESSIONS 111.80 408 STREET LIGHT BULBS 201.82 219 SCERG GRANT REIMB 2.780.51 37713 ,12/04/04 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP 512 STREET UTILITIES 8.00 GENERAL CHECKING TOTAL 22.057.77 is *L *c * is ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/08/94 08:57:55 CARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37655 12/00/94 WRIGHT WAY SHOPPER 37679 12/08/94 ASSOCIATED VETERINAR 37679 12/06/94 ASSOCIATED VETERINAR 37709 12/08/94 UNIVERSITY OF MINNES 37714 12/08/94 MAROUETTE BANK MONTI 37714 12/08/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 37715 12/09/94 A.E. MICHAELS 37716 12/09/94 ANDERSON/GARY 37717 12/09/94 9 & D PLUMBING & HLA 37718 12/09/94 BIG LAKE LUMBER 37719 12/09/94 BUSINF.SG RECORDS COR 37719 12/09/94 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 97720 12/09/94 COMMONTCATION AUDITO 37721 12/09/94 COPY DUPLCATING PROD SY722 12/09/94 CULLIGAN 97?13 1?/09/94 OYNA SYSTEMS 37724 12/00/94 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY, ;Y7' ?5 12/09/94 FEDERAL E%PRC63 CARP :i7726 12/09/94 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I 37738 12./U9/94 FEEDNITE CONTROLS. T 1(17 1I/09/94 FLICKCR" T.V. & AFP 11741 1�1/O9/94 PLIC9Ct,'S T.V. A AVP -i1?0 12/00/94 GLASS NUT/THE 12/09/74 tiI.A3'1 Htil/7HC A Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CI 711 CHECK VOIDED 87.75CR 683 CORRECT CODING 31.79 683 CORRECT CODING 31.79CR 0.00 *C1 212 CHECK VOIDED 145.000R 221 WIRE TO 4M FUND 935,529.37 221 WIRE CHARGES 15.00 935,544.37 *f` 338 PAINT/VEH MTC/STREET 5.99 11 REIMB/MEMBERSHIP DUES 5.00 609 FURNACE REPAIR/:3F.N CI 300.34 316 MTC REPAIR/SEWER COLL 77.45 27 W'2 FORMS & ENVELOPES 92.86 21 LLEL.TIUN bUPPLILS 85-,.95 945.83 *C' 30 PAGER REPAIRS/FIRE DEP 89.61 41 COPY MCH MTC/LIBRARY 54.40 7b3 WATER SOFTNER CHGS 23.11 50 SHOP & GAR MISC OPV 265.55 053 SPOT F1UICC/STREET DEPT 91.14 394 PO,TAGC/RFCY SCANNER) 12.50 tib MISC CNG/HATER DEPT 72.6U 56 CF.HMICAI.S/WATFR 'IF.P 3,139.17 9,211.17 1'1- 'cGO 60 VEH RLPAIR PARTO/9TRCFl 6.00 00 EQUIP REPAIR/CIRC ULi'l 41.47 47.4! oC 66 VEHICLE MTt/PARK`1 DEPT 29.94 (,G 1-0f)R ki.PAIR/GF:NIOR LIT D.'i9 JO.t�i ar ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/08/94 08:57:55 cARRANT DATE VENDOR. GENERAL CHECKING 37729 12/09/94 GOULD BROS. CHEV-OLD 37730 12/09/94 GRANITE CITY IRON WO 37731 12/09/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37731 12/09/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37731 12/09/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37731 12/09/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37731 12/09/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37731 12/09/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37731 12/09/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37731 12/09/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37731 12/09/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37732 12/09/94 HERMES/JERRY 37733 11/09/94 HOGLUND BUS COMPANY 3/733 12/09/94 HOGLUND BUS COMPANY 3Y733 12/09/94 HOGLUNU BUS COMPANY 37734 12/09/94 HOLMEF & GRAVEN 3771'.. 17/09/94 INFOPAC SYSTEMS, INC 37730 1?/09/94 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN 77737 12/OC/04 KkAMBER Ct ASt= IATE9 37730 12/09/94 LUKACH/JOHN 97730 12/09/04 LUKACH/JOHN 37700 12./09/94 LUKACH/JOHN ,11/30 1?,IU9/94 LUKACH/JOHN )7'):,tl12/00/74 MAkTTF "; FAkM SERVIC 077411 1?/09/94 MAID, VOOUIf 91141 12/01/94 MAUS FGO'1G 1140 1 • /09/04 MA11 , F001:4 '•1 'I I10lI 1^/`l 9/94 MA118 FOOE'C x/740 12/09/94 MA119 r00fi`, 774 1 1.'; !1')/94 MINNLI,AL'la) "l 141 1 ,09/94 MINNI6A�CCI C 174 1 1 : /09/04 MINNLGA:)60 114 1 12/00/94 k1INNE1,A'-( 0 31741 1:?!1i')/')4 MINNEGA" Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION A14OUNT C' 70 VEHICLE REPAIRS/FIRE D 35.75 659 AUGER REPAIR/SNOW & I 160.30 78 CORRECT COOING 20.20CR 78 VEH MTC/3TREEET DEPT 47.80 78 MISC SUP/SHOP & GAR 51.20 78 OIL/SEWER COLL 12.65 78 MISC SUP/STREET DEPT 26.57 78 VEH REP PARTS/STREETS 102.63 78 OIL/STREET DEPT 17.00 78 VEH MTC/FIRE DEPT 14.86 78 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 79.13 341.64 91 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50 82 CREOIT/RETURN 59.86CR 82 FIRE DEPT VEH MTC 29.G2 82 VEH REPAIR PARTS/SIRE 209.61 179.37 86 HRA LEGAL FEES 106.00 062 COMPUTER PAGER/CITY H 100.00 697 ANIMAL CONTROL UEP.VTCE 80.95 080 ASSESSING CONTRACT 1,245.83 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 19.15 327 MILEAGE EXPFNSE 1o.11, 327 MILEAGE: EXPEN:iC 19.15 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 19.15 70.60 107 SUPPLIEG/PW INSPFCTIRN 11.10 100 ' HOP 8 GARAGE SUPPI. Y :; 16.01 100 ELECTION f�UPPLIE6 25.06 100 SHOP !i00PLIF,3/WATfk 0(_ Si.1`3 100 CITY HAI L C-Ut Pt 1E;1 24 .00 100 L�,,kAWY rUPPLIC:; 124.04 112 UTILITIES 111L.4: 772 :ITIt ITIF;; 110.21 771 1)iILITIt,3 47.3(? II? UTILITILG ';.�5 771 Ul it i m 700.01rCk wC +c a. BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/08/94 08:57:55 .ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37741 12/09/94 MINNEGASCO 37741 12/09/94 MINNEGASCO 37741 12/09/94 MINNEGASCO 37742 12/09/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 37743 12/09/94 MONTICELLO PRINTING 37744 12/09/94 MOON MOTOR. SALES. IN 37745 12/09/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37745 12/09/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37745 12/09/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37745 12/09/94 NATIONAL BASHING PAR 37745 12/09/94 NATIONAI BUSHING PAR 37745 12/08/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37745 12/09/94 NATIONAL BUGHING PAR 37740 12/09/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 3774G 12/08/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE C 37746 12/OH/94 NORTHERN ;TATES POWE 17746 1?/09/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37i4G 12/09/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37746 12/09/94 NORTHERN ''TATES POWE 3 174 U 12/09/94 NORTHEkN STATES POWE 3774G 12/09/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37746 1?./09/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE �774G 12/09/94 NORTHERN GTATES POWE ;7747 12/07/94 NTC RE:TORATION 17143 12./07/94 0(..3ON & SONS E,LECTRI 17/40 121/09/04 OLGON & CONE ELFCTRI 37740 12/07/94 OL,,QN , :•t)N:; ELEC'iRI 77740 12/00/04 OLSON C, 0ON', IL6CTRI 37140 12/03/94 01.: ,1N h :3ON.'l ELf.CTkT :7'1140 12/09/94 OL50N b GONG E'LECIRI 11140 1?/00/94 PLUML)EGY Fl1RCELL': P .3171,13 12/09/94 PkFUd"E '1', CLE'AN1N(, 'i ';71,50 1?/00/04 PRF(':;GE'C CLEANTN6 1• I Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C 772 UTILITIES 260.24 772 UTILITIES 1,416.68 772 UTILITIES 28.08 1.367.26 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 137 BUSINESS CAROS/OLLIE K 47.93 142 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARKS 21.08 144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STRE 455.19 144 MISC SUP/SNOW & ICE 2.61 144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/GTR 44.78 144 EQUIP REP PAkTS/SNOW& 103.17 144 MISC SUP/SHOP & GAR 47.93 144 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GA 309.91 144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/SEWER 54.95 1,018.54 148 UTILITIES 2,609.73 148 UTILITIES 206.97 11,8 UTILITIES 4,552.90 140 UTILITIES 707.76 148 UTILITIEG 14.14 140 UTILITIES 412.84 148 UTILITIES 210.75 140 UT'ILIIIES 300.42 14e UTILITIES 677.17 140 RELOCATE TRANSFORMER/ 500.00 10,282.76 052 LAKE TRAILO/C HILLS 1,440.14 IGO WIRING.CTC/DCP REG OF 015.40 160 MTC OF DLO/FIRE DEP 1,401.95 160 DOL110ARK:; 17F.PT 131.02 160 FU;F./5TRETT LIGHTING ')7.40 160 CORD/LIFT t)YATION 7.43 160 6LD REP f,UP/SHOP 6 GAR ;7.12 •1,bO2.00 :". 1 1 LIKNACE (%EP/WWTP RENTA 'Ib.00 173 I'Il.f' HALL CLt ANING CON 50.00 179 CIIY IIAIL CLEANING GO 400.00 450.00 •C kCl xC1 4 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/08/94 08:57:55 .ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37751 12/09/04 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 37752 12/09/94 RIVERSIDE OIL 37753 12/09/94 SCHARBER & SONS, INC 37754 12/09/94 SCHLUENDER CONSTRUCT 37754 12/09/94 SCHLUENDER CONSTRUCT 37755 12/09%94 SENSIBLE LAND USE CO 37756 12/09/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP )7756 1?/09/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 37756 12/09/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 37756 12/09/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP )7757 12/09/94 UNIVERSITY OF MINNES 31758 12/09/94 UNOCAL 3,7759 12/00/04 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 37759 12/09/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 37759 12/09/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 37760 12/00/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 37761 1?/09/04 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPT 0 37702 12/09/134 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP 37763 1?/09/94 Y.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO GENERAL CHECKING c Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C 175 WWTP CONTRACT PYMT 31,840.50 496 GAS/STREET DEPT 986.42 229 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARKS 36.86 167 GRADING CHGS/TOWNHOUS 500.00 187 DIG WATERLINE/RAMSEY 180.00 680.00 863 MEMBERSHIP DUES/JEFF 125.00 193 SUPPLIES/PW INSPECTION 18.11 193 MTC OF BLP/SEWER COLL 275.66 193 VEH REP PARTS/STREETS 60.46 193 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 44.62 398.05 212 REG FEE/SEMINAR/GARY 120.00 213 GAS/FIRE DEPT 7.02 524 GARBAGF CONTRACT 8,722.64 524 SALES TA%/GARBAGE• CON 561.10 524 LEAF PICK/OCT 29 000.00 10,083.74 210 95 TAX LISTING CHG 197.95 275 W C MAPS FOR RESALE 79.30 S12 ALARM SYSTEM/DEP REG 373.n4 224 CONTRACT PAYMENT 625.00 TOTAL 1,007,125.79 aC VC 4C1 ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/01/94 09:38:29 Disbursement Journal CwARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL LIQUOR FUND 17825 11/30/94 LIEFERT TRUCKING 800025 FREIGHT CHARGES 805.66 17826 11/30/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 WINE CREDIT 6.11CR 17826 11/30/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 308.80 302.69 *Cf 17927 11/30/94 U S WEST COMMUNICATI 800093 ADVERTISING 26.10 17826 11/30/94 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,071.41 17828 11/30/94 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 WINE PURCHASE 463.45 1,534.86 17829 11/30/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 800032 ADVERTISING 323.10 17830 11/30/94 QUALITY LAWN MAINTEN 000070 MOWING CHARGES 35.00 17831 11/30/94 DISCOUNT PAPER PRODU 800177 MISC SUPPLIES 151.70 17832 11/30/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2,529.,82 17933 11/30/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 600012 WINE PURCHASE 1.241.16 17834 11/30/94 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1 000019 DEER PURCHASE 7,001.40 1/835 11/30/84 NORTHWEST CARPET & U 800179 CARPET CLEANING 138.45 17836 11/30/94 HAMILTON/MICHAEL 800089 PAINT LIQUOR STORE SI 700.00 17837 11/30/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLEGA 800022 LIQUOR CREDIT 25.96CR 17837 11/30/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 900022 WINE PURCHASE 4.194.61 4,158.65 17838 11/30/94 PHILLIPS WIVE & SPIR 800180 WINE PURCHASE 1,700.60 17038 11/30/94 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 LIQUOR PURCHASE 3,346.26 5,046.86 17039 11/30/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 2,300.93 17839 11/30/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MIXES FOR RESALE 46.39 2,347.32 17040 11/30/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRT 800040 MIXES FOR RI;SALE 30.75 11040 11/30/g4 QUALITY WINE & ,PIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 003.70 17040 11/30/94 QUALITY WINE 8 SPIRT 000040 WINE PURCHASE 330.11 1,164.56 11041 11/30/94 GRIGUS, COOPER 8 COM 600010 LIQUOR PURCHASE 4,925.OG 17041 11/30/04 GRIGGS. COOPER 8 COM 000010 MIXES FOR RESALE 163.12 5,009.00 LIUIIUR FUND TOTAL 32,390.41 *Cr 2,137.24 17853 12/05/94 JUDE CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 CIGS & CIGARS FOR RES 106.00 17053 12/05/94 JUDE, CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 80.90 257.50 17954 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM MINNEGACCO 800160 UTILITIES 01.04 12/05/94 10:50:32 17/05/94 Disbursement. Journal OFFICE SUPPLIES 43.29 17856 12/05/94 NGkTHEkN GfATES POWE 800035 UTILITIEC 0130.09 WARRANT DATE VENDOR 000101 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 17058 12/05/94 LIQUOR FUND 800040 WINE PURCHASE 651.05 17998 17842 12/05/94 BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA 800001 POP PURCHASE 323.49 17843 12/05/94 COAST TO COAST 800004 BLD MTC SUPPLIES 13.58 kON'0 ICE COMPANY 17844 12/05/94 CONSOLIDATED COMM DI 600163 ADVERTISING 39.25 17845 12/05/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 BEER PURCHASE 2,625.50 17845 12/05/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 36.48 2,661.98 *CH 17846 12/05/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHAS 606.50 11847 12/05/94 FLESCH'S PAPER SERVI 800116 PAPER BAGS 215.42 17848 12/05/94 G & K SERVICE 800129 RUGS/MTC OF BLD 77.40 17849 12/05/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2.501.15 17850 12/05/94 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1 800019 BEER PURCHASE 10,927.90 17850 12/05/94 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1800019 MUGS FOR RESALE 66.00 10,993.90 *CF 17851 12/05/94 HOME JUICE 800136 JUICE PURCHA;;E 49.35 17852 12/05/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 786.51 178'';2 12/05/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 1,350.73 2,137.24 17853 12/05/94 JUDE CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 CIGS & CIGARS FOR RES 106.00 17053 12/05/94 JUDE, CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 80.90 257.50 17954 12/05/94 MINNEGACCO 800160 UTILITIES 01.04 17855 17/05/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 800031 OFFICE SUPPLIES 43.29 17856 12/05/94 NGkTHEkN GfATES POWE 800035 UTILITIEC 0130.09 17097 1?./05/94 PAUGTIS A `il`%:1 000101 WINE P0RCHA5E J70.1? 17058 12/05/94 CIUALITV WINE & bPIRI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 651.05 17998 12/011/06 LIUALITV WINL & OPIRI 800040 LIQUOR POkCHA'i. 2.355.34 3.000.39 170'.'1 12/05/14 kON'0 ICE COMPANY 000041 11.E PURCHAOC 150.00 1'/OGD 12/05/94 ST. CLOUO PE'iTAURANI 000045 LIQUOR STORE bUPPIIF-,, 142.17 17060 1?/0 /14 OT. 01000 GF^TAURANT 000045 PAPFk BAG,/-�UPPLII'O 14. i!) .1060 1?/0`,/!)4 '•1'. CLOUD RESTAURANT 000045 Ml',(' 1TIMO FOR RECALL ?20.20 377. )?. *CF o r� [m ►,'I BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/05/94 10:50:32 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAY LIQUOR FUND 17061 12/05/94 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 613.05 17861 12/05/94 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 BEER PURCHASE 27,118.80 27,731.85 *CHEC 17862 12/05/94 TOTAL REGISTER SYSTE 800112 LABELS, ETC/SUPPLIES 29.63 17863 12/05/94 TWIN CITIES FLAG SOU 800040 REPAIR FLAG 37.10 17864 12/05/94 VIKING COCA-COLA BOT 800051 POP PURCHASE 426.95 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL $3,003.33 e COUNCIL UPDATE December 9, 1994 Comprehensive storm water studv - Trunk Hiehwav 25 & Dundas Road. (J.O.) Please review the following proposal for completing a comprehensive storm water study for the area in the vicinity of Trunk Highway 25 and Dundas Road. Council will be asked to consider authorizing completion of the study when it is determined what portion of the cost will be funded up -front by benefiting property owners. If this information is available by Monday, Council may be asked to act on this matter. The information developed by this study will enable the City to determine the proper design and coat of storm water systems serving the 120 -acre Emmerich industrial/commercial area and adjoining areas. See attached information for detail. DEC 88 '94 1622 OSM NPLS, MPI December g., 19% Mr. Jeff O'NeM City of Mandcallo P: 0. Baa 1147 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 53362.9245 P.2 7m lrlR�oonev trnr�u�mvd renq� �w �r.ob •ususin wturassar 1101 W. ebk-AM mom.. aim II&MIAM iaadnsers ructis�wA � . NmMO oe.�. Re C. ,,,� Stornswater Manainmeat Plan for Area in the Vicinity of T.H. 25 and Dtmdas Road OSM Proposai No. 0395.94 Dear Mr. O'Ner7L- Outlined below please find a Scope of Wo{k associated with completing a C.omprebewive Stormwater Management Plan for an area generally South of I44, west of Oakwood Drive, north of gSth Street, and east of a line n due north ftom the intersection of 85th Sonet and TIL 2S. This Stormwater Management Plan is needed to address water resauee management issum associated with the amlapated platting of the Monticello Maine Center Property. Thh study area had previously been proposed to ditebarge to the wast. while maintaining large areas of land for ponding purposes. In addition, with the extension of Sanitary seSKr and watermain facilities to the Stuart Hagtaad property. located west of TIL 2S. development of that property Is imminent This area would aha benefit from the study. This work plan has been developed to eddies~ a -mber of water resource management issues. and concerns that have been •ideatiSed within the SU* area. 'These is= and oomemS deal with providing an adequate outlet for the study area, idetidtling the axed cad eaten: for rate control and treatatent fbr stortowater tnaeff generated tkom this, area, and addressing a variety of wetland management Wu s that may be related to Mmm development in this area. Specific tasks atsoelated with this work plan are oudined below: •IIQVPMItY BAC1CCMLTND II4PORMATION Badtgrotmd hydrologic inflorumdaa iodudim topographic mapping, as built lnb=tion, land development plans, ad wetland invamory iafatmatlon will be gathered as part of this aetivtty. PreQminaty cmuscb will be made with property owners within the study area if necessary to clearly 4efiae their needs regarding stormwater management It is andtlpated a ojeating Sill be bell with City Staff and any other interested parties to 4tity dd im the issues that need to be addressed in this Comprehensive Stormwater Man -mine m Play DEC BB '94 1623 OSM IRS, Mui P.3 IL. daENF.RA'IE BASE MAP A base map will be generated for the study area .that ' .. , r bac rolmd hydrologic information such as the location of esisdag drainage systetm within the study area, the location of stormwater storage areas and wetland areal v ubin the study area, and the location of am flood problem areas that are known at the III.. 00bG sTE HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FOR STUDY AREA As part of this task subwauraheds will be delineated around all dgntScant swrmwater storage areas within the study area. Stap4torage rektionsbips for all depressions and wetlands will be datermlod and a bydrologic model will be developed to Paft peak dMwp rates, amp rapircments and outlet capacities necessary to accommodate stormwster runoff generated from this study area is a reasonable meaner. IV. DEVELOP DRAB"GE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES As part of thft task outlet altanadves will be Identified and briefly anabud to develop a clear piean of the outlet altemadves that are available for this study area V. HOLD PRELEANARY REVIEW MBiwMNO The information and findings generated based on the activities to date will be reviewed with the City Staff sad/or other interested parties At this meeting, preliminary recommendations will be provided to the City' concerning which are the most effective feasible alternadvaa for maoold stormwatnr eunofi from this study arca. VI.. FINALIZE DRAFT 00bO SIMENSM SMRMWATER MANAOEMDM PLAN Based on a review of the b 6otmadon completed up to tbii task a final draft coscoaa� aoramur managemM pbm.will be prepared that will provide A.• ' A bass map delineating all eliding ad Urate depressions within the study ars that will be utilized tor aormwater' L Subwatershed dellaeattoos im each of the deskgoated aormw caw storage meas. C Information an the design of esis ft -and well n proposed, trunk drainage system components within the tidy area DEC OB 194 16:23 OSM PPLS, MN PA Mr. Jeff 074em December 9. IM Pap 3 A A delineationof wetlands within the study arca'based an wristing information such as the DNR Wcdmd Inventory at the National. Walaid Imen=tw Detailed bydroIC& an each subwamrsbed will be included In the Appendix which will inch Information on peak discharge runoff voh=4 stage amp mWW=b4i% stop discharge and 100 year flood elevations for depressions within the study area. F. Proposed storzowater —jement policies that will regulate development within the so* area. Theseipolicies will address how developers within the study area will need to accommodate stormwam runoff an site in terms of providing "equate me control and treatment for Ownwater nma It is a1mcipated• that the work effort associated with the completion of Tab I through V could be completed by February 4. 119K and 12 copies of this- foal nody Crask VI) could be provided within 10 dap of the due final commum are received. The atimated con to complete this =* is $IZ7AI U you have any questions concerning this saw of wori6 the sdodde or fee, please do not bedsats to emstm either Bret or mWff a 595 ORR-SCHE2 EN-b&AYOLON & ASSOCIAM INC Peter R. Willenbring PYL Brat wean, NEI, M-u-steir. water Resource Department City Edward L DdAForeK P.B. Vice President C John Si -Ma, city of Moutice Rick WOMUller. City of Moodoello CITY OF MONMCELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT Montt) of November. 1984 PERMITS $ USES _ This tame mom Low Yew mts Yew PERMITS ISSUED Monti Nov Last Year TO Date TO Date RESIDENTIAL Number 23 14 172 738 Val uatim $1,138200.00 $1,811,800.00 $8,487300.00 $8,433,800.00 Fees {7,299.23 $11.212.92 $48,214.97 $61,22821 Sunt-- $588.10 $755.80 $3228.30 $4,188.19 COMMERCIAL Number 7 1 35 34 Vaiuetlan $1.577,500.00 $80.1300.00 $1,780,20000 62,388,800.00 Fees {9,727.81 $988.92 $13.837.65 $17,917.84 Surauum $78885 $40.00 $883.10 {120255 INDUSTRIAL Number 2 0 7 18 Valuatbn 138,800.00 $1,111,763.00 {1,804,800.00 Fees $403.50 $8,911.82 $13.323.14 Suravves $19.40 $558.88 {902.15 PLUTAS 0 Number 18 13 81 126 Fees $52800 }695.00 {2,398.00 {3,329.00 Surctlarpoe $9.00 $8.50 {40M $63.00 OTHERS Number 0 0 4 5 Valuation $58.800.00 $IAO Fees $759.02 {50.00 Surcbaraae 82920 $2.50 TOTAL 0 PERMITS 50 28 299 417 TOTAL VALUATION $2,764,600.00 $1,891,800.00 $9,436,163.00$12,877,000.00 V TOTAL FEES {17,899.34 612,71MIS4 $74,121.66 $96,846.99 TOTAL SURCHARGES $1,985.25 6802.30 $4,738,08 $6.388.39 CURRENT MONTH I FEES I NUMBER TO DATE 1 PERMIT NATURE Number Perms Sur_r VMWk) t Yii6 ooef lass Yaw Simple Fe" /6 {7,877,1 $547.5 {1,086.400,0 166 89 Oupbs 0 0 MINI-FamBr 2 5 Commercial 1 4 aldu strlal 4 3 Ree. Gwapaa 9 4 Swe 0 0 ALTERATIONIREPAIR Dwool ps 8 643B 20 120.40 $42,80000 99 M Commercial 7 $9,717.61 $788.76 {1,677,5013.00 32 31 bldusuiw 2 MAO 619.40 $36.800,00 12 4 PLUMBING Aa Types 18 {629013 $9.00 126 $1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SW4 0 Wig Pude Dods {110,00 22 22 TEMPORARY PERNIT DEMOLITION I 8 �- TOTALS 50 {18,77674 {1,38526 61,764,60p.00 417 999 MICROFILM TITLE PAGE CITY OF MONTICELLO City Council Agenda Books 1995 1mnl�hy N'afJlsdbxxN� ub qa MICROFILM TITLE PAGE CITY OF MONTICELLO City Council Updates 1995 4wo�ol�Wn'.M WJlkidlw�Kmfb ANY pp Y. 13'.9601011 15:41 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P.001 Jb OLSON, USSET & WEINGARDEN P.L.L.P. ArrOP44M AT LAW evnz 310 asap MRL maa ROAD PAUL A. WED9GMIDEW UDOMOPUBM. wx IM16 LEGAL ASMANIS DAVID 1. US= DEBRA L RAS TFW11A6 a. O{iO\W TELEPB= (612) 92MM PATSY NRSLAND DENM L DALE1 FAX (612) 9254M Ex FORTTN +IDA On66 kd hom %.bft Boom TROWNES 'KBIA QUI&S 0,6 Thd r..Mu. ROCGS1m OFFICE TWAFE M (6i2) 4n4o10 TELECO21ER TRnNSMITTAL 1FTTER Date of Transmittal: May 13, 1996 PLFn�B DELIVffii THE ACCOMPANYING MA IAT. TO: NAMES: Mawr and City Council Members FIRM OR COMPANY: City of Monticello CITY: Monticello. Minnaaote TELECOPIER NUMBER: SENDER'S NAME: Paul A. Weiaaarden TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (Including this page): OUR FILE NUMBER: 7975(911 - Richler FOR PROBLEMS OR QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL: 995-6868 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMIILE M8SSA08 18 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDiA►L OR ENTITY NAMED. ANY DISSEMINATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION BY ANYONE ELSE BESIDES THE NAMED RECIPIENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY as TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE To US BY MAIL AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. THANK YOU. t1A'f. 15'96010\i 155:41 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 002 r, MEL �. J PEENING LAW OFFICES 1 iL JAS S. FLO04G L, ATTORNEY AT UW U uVuU ULiL el l W"Ur BTREET, 8WF 3 �- P.O. BOX 1613 MON MMLO. MWNMTA SMU TFLF3 "ONE (m2( Zsa2m rACWAU (012) 2Hdl@ J" A. NAROPIO IMLLY Z9" L40 AWWIb April 26, 1896 Paul A Weingarden, Esq. Olson, Uaset & Weingarden 4500 Park Glen Road. Ste. 310 Minneapolis, MN SUi6t,., •.. ', � •;, 1, Re: John Biehlei City f Monticepo ' �� lea► Mr. Welnlsr en: ' I have n retain by Mr. John to he and h• a in an action again the City of cello, see compel city to Issue building permit for on of a sl le family r+tdonee on downed by the lora in the Eastwood II Subdhdslon cf llo.l I �fiom received Information the 8khier have examined COrasQ LI l B le) your"X and reprsser atives af:ayrdy. s¢d upon my eimndnadaN it,app" that the drys baa)e for dental•ot Ihe'-Bidtlar'a �pptleaUon for�abulldlnp�porml��the determination tRIT11ie' assn employed fdcttle home would vWTMe& provisions of a restrictive covenant relating to rosf_,pj%okMa)n�-eonstruction. My Investigation thwdardndicabsJpst1id clloi>ts�tww dompUW with all requirements for the Issuance of a pemii3 I(la io rr>d�catsi'{haf the dsnlad was based upon a finding by the 'Architectural Control Committee of Eastwood Kroll SubdMolon' that a lesser roof pitch was not a'ardtltacWrally significant design fasture'. This was apparently determined despite the fact that the architect for the home deU mhwd titer requiring a greater roof pitch would create a design imbalance in fhe resulting structure. It also appearo that there Is no specific definition of this phrase found in the covenant or in any otter documentation rslled upon In this decision meting process. It is also my understanding that various other homes have been allowed In this subdivision despite the fact that they violate the controlling covenants in one fashion or another. MAY.-I5'•96IMOY1 13:42 OLSOY/OSSET ?.A. TEL:612 92S 5879 P. 003 April 26, 1996 Paul A Weingardon. Esp. 1 have reviewed the 111brttlurello Ordinances, together with all aoss-refereneed materials. Inducting the Mtrnt m to Rules and the Uniform Building Code. I have also spent time revlewb V the law governing the operation of mmielpalldas. 1 do not find any evidence of authority for the proposition that city building Inspection oIN Iials may deny an admvMse proper building pemilt on the basis of a potential violation of a private restrtWve oovement In fact, nurnerous case aLdhorttles have held that such a denial constitutes an arbitrary and capricious word" of po My clients have mlered elgnl cwd economic W*sry as a result of this of which Is the added brterast they vWU be forced to pay as a result obtainbtg construction flnanang. Shoe repeated efforts to resolve this ma proven unsuacesuttul, I have been requested to Institute o I a 1 Compel Iha Ctpnaf lllo to Issue ffte building reth alt otttsi 10041"Actim, be pursued to ownpeneats ffw B for their U you are lapel authorky would juaw taken by city 1 atfic" in this I Id be happy to rty condus M at this point Iarn offi�laware of legal for have far been bys to the of , 1 not rem a satisfactory nee r ' oRbe 10 days of ffro of this ww, I vd ng the ,4 svallable relief for clients. Enclosure cc Jahn Bidder Charles Btohler, EW X1.41'. -1Y -96(N081 15:42 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL�612 925 5879_ _P.004 OLSON, USSET & WONGARDEN P.L.L.P. ArrOME" AT LAW SW7l S 10 4900PAAK G EA1 AOAO /ALL A. W RAGAADFN' AdA011lArOLLi AM 66818 LEGAL ASSISTANTS DA VW J. LIM" Of"A GKKB 1000AI48 O. OLSON•' rafiPP OW 1812)S2b9882 AMTSYFOAUAA4) DOW" L OALEN FAX 1Q 121 920-"79 940 FORM `MSG Can~ AAtr AWMy AYW — BCAMPT raamws --ACG Cr1AW CW rAr So dw AOCKMW OARCE T9U9WOW lits) 477.6010 DURRLSNO. 7975 (91) May 13, 1996 Via Facsimile ATTOMMY / CLIEWT Honorable Mayor and COIat=C&TION / PRIVZLEM Members of City Council City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Biehler vs. City of Monticello Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We have been contacted by an attorney for John Eichler demanding that we issue a building permit and asserting we have no authority to deny the same (see enclosed letter). We have undertaken legal research and have reviewed relevant City ordinances. We advise as follows: At this point in time, it strikes me that there are two separate issues at work here. They are, A. The Propriety of denying a building permit- and B. The City a action with respect to the architectural review board. 1. Denial of Permit. with respect to the building permit, we believe the City in not on solid ground to denyof a building permit based on an alleged violation of the restr ctive covenants. Wo have been unable to find a specific case in Minnesota which governs the ability of the City to deny a building permit based upon violation of private restrictive covenants. However, we have general guidance from 4 21 NW2d 741 (Minn. App: 1988) and , 178 NW2d 215 (197 Thsoo cases discuss whether or not damages are available for wrongful denial of a building permit. While each case roots on its own specific facto, the general rule is that damages are available if the issuance of a building permit is deemed ministerial, (if all applicable requirements are met, the building inspector has no discretion and must issue the permit) or discretionary, in which case damages are unavailable (if plans and opecifications clearly violate existing City ordinances which allow the element of discretion to determine compliance). MAY.-1T-96(MON) 13:42 OLSON/USSET P.A. TEL:612 925 W9 _ _ P. 005 — May 13, 1996 Page 2 I find nothing within City ordinances which gives the building inspector, as a representative of the City, the right to enforce private covenants. Our ordinances governing building permits indicate only that applicable zoning ordinances and the provisions of the Uniform Building Code must be followed. Foreign jurisdictions have not been much help. We have identified two older Missouri tames which indicate that the City has no authority to deny a building permit based on private restrictive covenants. in one of the cases, St4se va. Eckhardt, 322 SW2d 903 (Missouri 1959) the Court held it improper even though a City ordinance authorized the City to do so. It is bible that the fact that the City is also the owner and develo4er o t1,e royezty in question (and established the covenants in question) elevates the authority of the building inspector o exercise discretion in issuing building permits which he dettermines violate the covenants. This is a risky ositio, to take. If we are wrong, we are subject to damages for ailuro to issue the permit if a Court determines that the building inspector acts in a ministerial manner. Based upon my research we believe that the City should issue the building permit. If the City desires to enforce its covenant, it should bring an action for an injunction to prevent the construction of the building with the improper pitch. This is the normal course taken by private owners desiring to enforce private covenants. 2. Since the City is an owner of the property inqquusetion, it would have standing to bring an action to enjoin Bichlera from building in violation of the covenants. There are proof problems and cost issues which the City should be aware of if we take this route. They are as follows: a. At present, Mr. Bichler has presented an argument from his builder and a drafts person that his lower roof pitch is "architecturally significant'. In response, we have relied upon our building inspector and planner. As a practical matter, if we are to prevail on this issue, 1 would n4ZCaA1Y recommend that we immediately retain the services of an arc iteet to state that the lowered root pitch request is not 'architecturally significant•. I estimate this cost at approximately $1,000.00. b. We must keep in mind that Courts disfavor rcotrictions on the use of land. MiuianmL ,W Nei 91 NM1d 0�0 (Minn. B Givan t t t p ass architecturally hitectura ly significant design" is vague, our Courts have indicated a desire to construe the covenants against such restrictions. In other words. if Mr. Bichler's house meets all other criteria, and can present at least some evidence that the property is "architecturally significant' a Court is likely to rule against us. MAY..-13'-96(MON) 13:43 OLSON/USSET P, A. TEL:612 925 5879 _ _ P. 006 May 13, 1996 Page 3 A further complicating factor is our failure to enforce our covenants uniformally. I am advised that there is a home that has been constructed without the necessary 20 percent front elevation in brick or atone. I understand that an attempt was made to amend the covenants but that the amendment never occurred because Mr. Eichler was not provided with the amended covenants at closing and now refuses to sign them. If I request an injunction against Mr. Bichler for attempted violation of the covenants, he will likely point out that we are permitting a violation of the covenants at the present time. If we are unwilling to enforce our covenants against the other party, it is unlikely a Court will sympathise with our decision to enforce the covenants against Mr. 8iehler. I must respond to Mr. Sichler's attorney after our meeting. our options are as follows: 1. Refuse to issue the building permit and wait for him to sue us. I will assert that the ownership of the property by the City elevates our building inspector so as to have discretion on the issuance of building permits which violate our restrictive covenants. I do not recommend this approach. 2. Issue the building permit and immediately move to obtain a restraining order and advance to a temporary inunction hearing. Such hearing will be held very quickly. If we are to prepare for this hearing, I strongly recommend that we utilise the services of bothour planner fee td ao bevapproximately $1,000.00andipethe the remaining costa of litigation through the hearing at an additional $1,500.00. 3. Work out a settlement with Mr. Bichler to issue hie permit, allow him to build his house as he desires or as negotiated, and require that hs sign the amended covenants to bring everyone into line. I will be available for discussion at the hearing. PAW:lld Enclosure rIES MHH HYD. Hydrants;— Woterois', +*it v �,Wr ` f, ,.,recoydsf tnt Corps.'a Curb.Stops t Ford .` ;.� w .0 • • to ilt�jk� �: y L 'm FROM Wt 6" G. V. 10M HYD. d D.I.P. HYD. LEAD ' f ND _TIES MH "`--t - HYD. TEE WATER TIES 53.5. - MH 5-5 ` 44' HYD. -- ORP. STA. 0+25 ENGTH 30 QT BLK.PHASE II , 6 T W Qr I TIES WATERMAIN 5' FROM MH 5-5 PROPERTY CORNER HYO. 0+_.r 78 44 r 9 STA. 40+25 ILK' 2 i GATE VALVE TIES _ ze.5' - EX. mm -A� BORING 53.5'_ HYD. 421 riES 41 T=4 — —8(EAST) 1 2 M.H. 5-6 1E COORDINATED THROUGH THE CITY CONNECTION MAY BE REQUIRED ISE PERIOD. 12 "x6' REC i HYD. A OY! j INP 6` I NP 8 ` ^ SAN SMf GATE VALVE TIES iL tS� RZ- HYD. 14.5'— MH 12"xi2" CROSS N. 6 S. ENDS PLUGC , 1E COORDINATED THROUGH THE CITY CONNECTION MAY BE REQUIRED ISE PERIOD. 12 "x6' REC i HYD. A OY! j INP 6` I NP 8 ` ^ SAN SMf GATE VALVE TIES iL tS� RZ- HYD. 14.5'— MH 12"xi2" CROSS N. 6 S. ENDS PLUGC 417111 STATUTORY CTTIPS 488 412.791 [Repealed. 1967 c 280 s 181 412801 [Repealed. 1967 c 289 s 181 412.911 [Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 181 412.821 [Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 181 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS 412831 OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. The council shall, annually at its first meeting of the year, designate a legal ncwspa- per of general circulation in the city as its offseial newspaper, in which shall be published such ordinances and other matters as are required by law to be so published and such other matters as the council may deem it advisable and in the public interest to have published in this manner. History- 1940 c 119 s 100; 1973 r 123 art 2 s 1 tubd 2 412.841 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 701 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any pan thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or pan thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution maybe adopted only by a vote of four- 6fths of all members of the council. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks* published and posted notice. The council shall cause written notice of the hearing to be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed reso- lution as well as the time, place, and date of the hearing. In addition, if the street, alley. public grounds, public way, or any pan thereof terminates at or abuts upon any public water, no vacation shall be made unless written notice of the petition or proposed reso- lution is served by cenified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 30 days before the hearing on the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natural resources is for notification purposes only and does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. Alter a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the some in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in the transfer record.- The notice shall then be filed with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any such vacation proceedings. History: 1949 c 119 s 102: 1933 c 733 s 1 1937 c 383 s 1: 1967 r 289 s 15; 1969 c g 185: 1973 c 123 an 2 s 1 subd l 1973 c 494 s 11; 1976 c 181 s 2: 1936 c 444; 1989 e 183 s 4; 1990 r 433 s 2 412961 PROSECUTIONS, VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES, Subdivision 1. Complaint. All prosecutions for violation of ordinances shall be brought in the name of the city upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. If the accused be arrested without a warrant, a written complaint shall thereafter be made, to which the accused shall be required to plead. and a warrant shall issue thereon. The warrant and all other process in such eases shall be directed for service to any police officer. marshal, process officer, court officer, or constable of any town or city in the county, to the theriff of the county, or all of them. Subd. 2. Form and contents of a mplalat. It shall be a sufficient pleading of the ordi- nances or resolutions of the city to refer to them by section and number or chapter. "ha r- 125.00 to %,ilo LLJ Z i 5 r,t ,� n L — — —125.00 — — - J N W oo r S83.34' 00" W Y I D lo v _ ;o I9 9 3 .o L"I ,n o 110 I w o o a L— —N83' 34' 00" E— J c r � 125.00 J 1 o o 0 z 3 (a I o' — jwinI'n° O , 125.00 S03034 00" W tD I 3.. Z IN Q y°o O , I sem(' I L —--- -7 __ _J 25 25 T)i c� ;MEADOW#^ d C2 C3— — t 55_00 O r— �F 60 12 0 I 2• I I IN FEET I O u u 'u J 1� 1 I <' 0 I _ ' u T8 � — 3 �f °Ar�fl' laW 2� V _ Y ot PtET r 10 125.00 W a ,/Io Z aI 5 ;t a 0 --125.00-- J JN tuL— o r 583.34' 00" W I Y cvIo ^ lo a � I u1 b I ,n 3 o �o I 0 I 132_76 _ o L 00" E J e _ —N93.34' — io r— — — — — — _ 125.00 1 N • 'o J Io 1� 100 Z _ IIan L ---125.00--� S83.34 00" W Iri i. Y I N Io a I 8��'AmO Im swc 25 T)i MEADOWC2_ J C3 55_00 4 _ r �- (m I --2! I I O I in l y11"Um I u 4 1 -.1- , Z 0 I 132_76 _ w _ J u 0 r cn fV W 3 O • O t0 (V l0 O Z c V7 00 d S"0 60 O 120 CAL"EQi, FEE T r 125.00 I LU v to " Io Z o 'n • in o Q n L ---125.00--J Jry W 2! I I Ngo 6 ,o d • 'n I �, 3 O , 10 b tn 00• E J 0 — —N83.34' — 4 N 125.00 J l0 100 Z TO L_ —— ��� 210* I �w II L — — —125.00 S03.34001W I10 YI i IN y0 R �D v in O awl I sw;4Ae L � 25 25 f--,% .7 ,.. s.� �r-.,� j `'Jr. Arca Eo BL41,•u. C-cl .A MEADOW TI� TJX C2 C3 55.00 _ -�- 2! I I I 1 � N (A y Iu u .J 4 12 o I 13278 — in — J u TO L_ —— ��� 210* •r,�' 19"W MISC. NON GRID SIDEWALK ORANGE = NGR - Non Grid Residential GREEN = NGS, NGBR - Non Grid Business, Non Grid Business Residential {BLUE = NGC - Non Grid Church YELLOW = NGSch - Non Grid School H eTNW AYS .% P in1go P pIG ,P t CITY OF IIONTICELLO PAY SCHEDULE JAIRIARY I, 1995 57EP5 GRADE 1 2 3 4 S 6 BASE PRCNT BASE 105.00% 110.00% 115.00% 120.001; 125.00{ 1994 COLA 1995 HOURLY RATE 1 15-29 18.20 1.025 11.40 18.82 19.21 19.66 $10.08 110.50 2 30-14 18.69 1.025 11.90 19.35 19.79 110.21 $10.68 $11.13 3 IS -59 19.21 1.025 19.11 19.91 110.38 110.05 111.33 111.80 4 60-74 19.15 1.025 110.00 110.50 111.00 $11.50 112.01 112.51 5 75-89 110.35 1.025 110.60 $11.13 111.67 112.26 112.73 113.26 6 90-104 110.91 1.025 111.19 $11.75 112.31 112.87 113.43 113.98 7 IOS-119 $11.57 1.025 111.66 $12.45 $13.05 $13.64 $14.23 114.82 1 120-134 $12.26 1.025 112.51 113.20 113.11 111.16 115.09 115.71 9 135-149 113.00 1.025 113.32 113.99 114.11 115.32 115.99 116.66 10 150-164 $13.78 1.025 114.12 114.83 115.51 116.21 (16.95 117.66 11 165-179 114.54 1.025 114.90 115.65 116.39 111.14 111.11 118.63 12 110-191 115.41 1.025 113.10 116.59 111.18 111.16 110.15 119.14 13 195-209 $18.33 1.025 115.74 117.56 $11.42 119.25 120.09 120.93 14 210-221 111.31 1.025 117.75 118.63 119.52 120.41 121.30. 122.11 15 225-239 111.35 1.025 MM 119.75 110.69 121.53 122.51 2 15 210-254 119.16 1.025 119.85 120.14 121.13 122.82 �y,123.52 123.12 - 124.81 11,+3 7 17 255-269 120.52 1.025 121.04 122.09 121.11 121.19 125.21 126.10 r II 210-284 121.76 1.025 122.30 123.41 1;1.53 125.61 126.16 $21.11 ' 19 215-299 121.06 1.025 123.64 124.12 121.00 121.18 121.16 129.55 20 300-314 124.11 1.025 125.06 121.31 127.56 128.11 130.07 131.12 21 315-329 125.79 1.025 126.43 $27.75 121.07 130.40 131.12 133.04 S ' 22 130. 127.33 1.025 $21.02 121.42 130.12 132.22 113.12 135.02 GROUP HEALTH PLAN QUOTATION COMPARISON (Average Monthly Premiums) HEALTH.COM: 10/18/95 sm"40nn I Dental Heahh I 1Insurance Comm Llle D1saW8b I Shwle FamiM Shale FemBv I IPncciow Mutual $021 $0.32 $14.73 $24.16 $135.07 $229.311 Islus Cross II $027 $0.71 $20.60 $33.82 $113.26 $208.701 IGuardian $026 $0.52 $24.10 S33.82 $162.55 $265.071 IGmw Health WA WA $19.31 528.97 $93.70 $193.501 IEmdovers Hem Insurance $025 $0.96 $16.83 $28.42 596.01 $160.52 IMedica $0.29 $0.81 WA WA $93.62 $161.62 (American Medical Security $0.39 $.79!. $15.00 $29.00 $139.74 $235.05 ITIme hwanca Compam $0.48 $0.851 $21.05 $45.08 $145.00 S186.68 n h it�,4v 9,> >> rlus �A� ,, r.�.�� rr�� v5re �� �JAJm urV fi /D,pI HEALTH.COM: 10/18/95 7 t o,Gs -�//t r j, 3 92 c - -liPx r > . C -V '.-7•!Z M7d7 ,7, ,7 74f t 1 ! 7 t o,Gs -�//t r j, 3 92 c - -liPx r > . C -V I � �,�,J7� lil �f GL :�Yi � T�rwf � �,,� Q•� � �s�* d ev L et .. (Lt.. +� oufirly �jJ vas i r • t` WOO C"I Co. I ' '¢' d,,�.,,,,,�w�.a -u.� �e"'„`"� ,d.:.e.. �,....ec.....t...�e.:..• e,... J3,�,,L�.-7. i2�tc=e:.ti-:., .-�'La.s2dt. ,6.,.i (.f'...Cws.,.,,,, ..•seGo--..,'1�.1 .dt, /�1�•i--••. � c�.2.N�'�•e.ulH.W;. '!`..�'"„`�.,�.tr2,.�'e,.t�ft-,�...,.^r-t n.."t"t �.,,,,'t`, •G' / j U ��'ys8 r� CG•un „r„ . U a�.� y, (� c. w....,, tl�-2b.... , ct.c�-a.......a v ht�-u6•�..a... CZd-w�f'R.-..4.,:7 ; �--•- Kti.r.•..-U...�YCA+�....ti..t c'Ga. p,,O�..y.�R/ .4,,:, ewe-Ra...v.:l �LQ...•+�+�a;.. .J �..d C4-t-.w�.» .•w,.•t...a. .s..c,l' ..8•d �1i.�.. �G's�•..-.,.. '�� � �,., •�',,,.y' .Z„,.r" �'� 1) •� rs__ .. jJ ll ..�,.� s� 3 7 ,�, � 2 . G o •yl.. Jf-.w+..[.� � c�.�-•-�•�.'.o a-o--..,a•o.., cc, eL,{t,-.G.'/../-c'►R.0 �S. P. we-�-4, �+.��.-�- �,,...up .t oe.•, ���..P �� G�•a:,�d.un.n.. �-dJf"1-a.E.t% � I ! y \� L(�+�.R f �YiV,.I f.0 •ft ! n � � s.�..• kjA-j 9 . 19,-0 �-°� ,,�.,� ►ate . �.. �. � �,, �4LAI lin N" Z \ 14 too 206 U.Z. . K..,&^%; //, V70. o o a—.# /.;, LJ9a . 0 /3, y3o. o0 14, a. yo. 0O /S, 356.00 /8,/Oti.ao slO,oeo.o0 /S, &8'0.06 //0. 0 0 /9, 3 Sb• a o /G,7aO, as 3s,aoo.oa z4, 0� (�'w�.C.c.0 � � }1G�,•�.u.c /cg. �Q.µ�.s•.+"�So }��G ?4c�-�.a�.y..,.., �,r�.f 64,—e C we . 300 °; tn ?.cccA ,rtes �1��'�t� .tL.• /•1c. c �. ''- J ' J 'a't"�.`' "".J'"� ..� P(.:� rel 1 ��� d � �Ir 5�d /,/ / q 60 t% ,;w. 6t.,Q..u't-� � �'.^.°`"� �• 7'L�..°`'-'Q."�.. CC.`-�' �Jws.f�""`�,`.`'' �. oo o . o.�„�•�e,�. ,+..-�,Qe. urt .. �:�ta Q,k,JI C�2 !ts •P.•�� .. .,o�+�o-4..�.G.+�i .,w 4}},.u.r.alY�' , d' �¢-..:-�.. mA 44"w 'nnht`o� -4� "4.,v .tc ces,�.,�sc�� 9- '•,. -J QZc c�.�.•.+ ,ow,, S..+,ZfA ksg-j (°�sc�n au (,t,�t.,jte,..,y ►.. �, s v-�v 7�k a4 i JAN 11,1961 Spccial meeting held this day. All members present. Adamson Adams, Hickman, Baker, Anderson. Motion bje Adams authorising the mayor and clerk to sell $30,000 in treasury bills to pay bill due state.' Second by Hickman Carried unanimously. _Attorney Goggins presented his fee for legal work on the village sewer condemnation proceedinsg� and stated his juetifcations of the bill. The bill in the amount of $4,117.71 was for the cost of condemnation proceedings on the sewerage plant site only as stated by Goggins. The council discussed the matter and compared the fee with fees presented in the past by Mr. Sebey. Motion by Adams to dispense with a village attorney for the time being and if anything comes before the council needing legal adtice to contact a attorney at that time. Second by Adamson. Carried unanimously. Motion by Hickman to purchase filing cabinet from St. Cloud Typewriter shop. Second by Baker Carried. 292.50 Motion by Adamson to appoint Leona Peshia as deputy clerk to collect watet bills at salary'of 10.00 per month. Second by Hickman. Carried. On motion adjourned. Clerk. Feb 6, 1961 Regualr-meeting of, the village council held this day. Members present; Anderson Hickman, Baker Adamson, Absent; Adams. Minutes of previous regular and special meetings read and approved. Motion by Adampon to grant bbilding premit to Methodist Church to build a addition to =hurch per plans persented. Second by Baker Carried. Motion by Hickman to pay Mr. Ooggmns $1000.00 presently and the balance of 693.56 as final payment when the clerk receives the recorded deed and easement for treatment plant site and village legal file. Second by Baker. Carried. Motion by Adamson that, the village council back the Hospital Committee and that the proper resolution be drawn for eatablishment of a Hospital Board .,Sedond,,bx,� ickamp. Carried. Hr. Claronce�pK'Anted a complaint on personal peoperty tax. d,•/+ Notion by Hickaan to move for she adoption of an ordinance to amend ordinance /133- Regulationg the keeping of dogs, The conmon council of the Village. of Monticello do ordain as follows Sectionl; The First Sectiond of Ordinance 8 133 is hereby amended to wit; Running at large prohibited_ no dog shall be permitted to run at large within the limits of the village on Monticello at any tinge during, any month of each year. Section 11. This ordinance shall take effect end be in force from and after its pass_ age and publication. Second by Baker. Carried. Yes; Baker Hickman Adamson Anderson. Motion by Adamson to appoint James Shaffer dog catcher and salary to be according to ordiance scheduli. Second by Baker. Carried. Mo Lion by Baker to put up an additional light on pole behind Lee's appliance 3ec.nd Hickman . Carried. Moti n by Adamson to insure village vehicles in fleet rate as bid foam H.N.Lungwitz agency. Second Baker. Carried. Motion by Hickman that bills be paid as read. Second by Baker Carried. Wm. Jongewaard sworn in as treasurer. Motion bb Hickman to send Ed.Sorenson to sewer maintence school. Secondby Baker. Carried. Following Billo were paid. Verified checks 1 3038 - 3091 General Fund 2,154.56 Mater Fund 1,022.65 Street Imp Fund 551.12 General Imp Fund Transfer- 8.293.35 Sewer Fund. 8,266.41 On Motion adjourned. Clerk ccr os .�:: OF r,rahT}' Eiir'I72. WRIGHTCQjrjNTY =" .....:... 9�3 STATE OF MINNESOTA --ice -- 'CerWJ Hae,enl,8 J Do" '.:Z .. ....fel J�l)OYd.:hV . l ISA-.1dwe aa, • Nare 1•ML ' Wiai..d Jo. void Cw+1., p.caa0..►Imm.a! �nD_aa0lna_.7a31...:Arson, ' a ... Ir.a• a tr tM pa_ a fra.ild h, ■ad WA. ,.oW W!r op e.1(Wmw M. eb narYMIN ptl._.i A. Y.. 'WWW f W ra,•r w' a.w.,i tai henr.epi, D■■d 7■■peN l 5.50 Ratelpt me 198-30 Dorothy tto- taw .\•wre f„yy,_,_H}nrnD(R_. .-- _CwW, Yi,�u YI emtmmtlo(w o1Aw....r:Ad...� 111P�� cftlsY voei•ir Fax Nora 7071 1'e"tD/9AK- 1486e / 7' Set Rarah 61 ) Wy.A t. w 7s rirrlw t.wd tai. +� d t a ra_. •• R. R. riatrun. R96WJD.de. Rr rb1■r. sltauatar _ Tills IYDENTUat. Atd.Ai�__�_�+•• i,-Yif'a.�_�.__�._��-_.�_.... r— Arse N ut fw-y J_.._II4a114Dtn .�_..w/let.J_._211GD.4.LQLl_._._......__.►,N,.S09 JtYI.r M�..,1 .��'.�hi�'S3,1Pse_ef_IS4rSis9.l.lp_a.tDrppr-elon unser :pa lava ar eDt_....___ rmap. SW- J....._.CSdaaaaLa___. _.._._-t.n_.Y._ JW trawl p,t %loo -4th, The tM ri1 pardon.- J W JW pelt i. armoid Um of 0..•. J ._.. _._..-..� a Do::or ln�-iiS•sher Roo on3lQar■tton- ------------------------------------ 5OFFARa. ' Dorothy Rla=. i 4. do. ; tom ..... Ial "a !1' A4 oil idA.. Y__. d0. N j faA. llu- alwrai 't !■ 14M &.* ,- -4 W wm w pei,ito uccLa1114Vw G. -I. fn:'e!•, QnfUkK ad Gmen; anile Wi1 -m4owi straw, as W tww ow Y w pend -2. _ 01:24 4iae mad Wee i• W Cm,4 J Wtir4..%A fbb J Yienrr, A -vow mo/momma, ft-ok � �- A11 mat cert of Gov't tate Cne (1) and (2) of section Twelve (12). Twnshlp Ona hundred twenty-one (121). tanxT Twenty-five `25)- aaarl0ad as f011awat 8eSlnninf a¢ a point on One Range ;�� the :ou th l:ra o. Section Two va (12,. T tnahip hundred tworty-oro (•211 tr4nty.t'va (2S) and 1478 foot wast of the Sout"mat corner therooft thanae Ing's o the rltnt SCa a 6tat o"-* or 279 feat alon6 tra atntor line of old State M16tiway Na. 152 (new t a ao rv'.4 dr.ve) thanes arig o rldht 12 14' and Blond sold oenterlimr A ilatdnoa or 5 1 toot to ttL t:tusl point of °e=:nn inat :re::ee Conticlue on the loot deedrtt►d lino a David s. slaWne. cr '75 feat) thence at rltht anGlaa a d st nce of ill toot% th.nte angle t5' lett 1Dauslam. -�� C:' r:Zh: i distance of 42.42 foot: th2nc0 anay o0' a dletonel nt 135 root laalanl h3veri tMrtCe Seuthooatorl�• alenII maid EDOtiha 1 cera or :Baa t0 :he anere lira of :M 711aa ahcn :trtt to the lntertoct:Or. of a line t::at ie of richt angles ft= tna CO." of �ltooael. b: rt; :h4^.Ca $OULtwOatC.^:y :a :nC ;Clnt CC bc�inninl,. $aaapt the Soutnweaterly 33 fns ter r:ad. (St4:0 "):Cd Tex 95.50) - p° 9 d t To H■—d e. Held the lame, r44YAw WA .a tl. Aadi■tnwb Iod apn✓b•t.w. (,avow. Ielr•liaf w i. 4+1,oi.1 4/pmal.4 f puapleee pmrl :.�. J W woad 1.' • • aw4•1, lwaer. G ,is ( in T«tine-. R'hetaL rho reir rtrt-: _ A• J W f d vmn u-srL ko.. a me 0r do W poor { fila Owe frig- f•lrnwrJ 1_ S.tS�.-. Reuben C. tarcon �-.__ leo len !1•.,_°hokn^t!1 _�.�-..-. STATE OF MINNESOTA --ice -- 'CerWJ Hae,enl,8 J Do" '.:Z .. ....fel J�l)OYd.:hV . l ISA-.1dwe aa, • Nare 1•ML ' Wiai..d Jo. void Cw+1., p.caa0..►Imm.a! �nD_aa0lna_.7a31...:Arson, ' a ... Ir.a• a tr tM pa_ a fra.ild h, ■ad WA. ,.oW W!r op e.1(Wmw M. eb narYMIN ptl._.i A. Y.. 'WWW f W ra,•r w' a.w.,i tai henr.epi, D■■d 7■■peN l 5.50 Ratelpt me 198-30 Dorothy tto- taw .\•wre f„yy,_,_H}nrnD(R_. .-- _CwW, Yi,�u YI emtmmtlo(w o1Aw....r:Ad...� 111P�� cftlsY voei•ir Fax Nora 7071 1'e"tD/9AK- 1486e /