City Council Agenda Packet 01-23-1995AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCEL
Monday, January 28, 1998 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Brad Fyle
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 9 and the special
meeting held January 17, 1996.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
A. Public hearing on adoption of proposed assessment roll for delinquent utility
bills and certification of assessment roll to County Auditor.
4. Citizens eommentstpetitions, requests, and complaints.
6. Consideration of appeal of denial of 2 -ft side yard setback variance to allow garage
addition. Applicant, Paul lGein.
6. Consideration of accepting revised proposal for purchase and development of
Outlot A. Country Club Manor.
7. Consideration of a resolution calling for a public hearing on TIF District 1.19
(Mississippi Shores).
8. Consideration of a resolution declaring official intent to reimburse (Mississippi
Shores).
9. Consideration of approving plans and specifications, authorizing advertisement for
bids, and setting a public hearing for the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet project.
10. Consideration of adopting resolutions authorizing preparation of a feasibility study
and declaring official intent to reimburse --Cardinal Hills Phase V.
11. Consideration of selecting consultant to conduct soils correction study at the fire
hall site.
12. Consideration of adopting modification to redevelopment contract assessment
agreement --Tappers, Inc.
13. Consideration of upgrading uniforms for public works employees.
14. Consideration of bills for the month of January.
16. Adjournment.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 17, 1998 - 5:30 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator; 011ie Koropchak, Economic
Development Director, John Simola, Public Works Director, Gary
Anderson, Zoning Administrator, Karen Doty, Office Manager,
Wanda Kraemer, DST; Steve Grittman and David Licht,
Northwest Associated Consultants
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brad Fyle. The purpose of the special
meeting was to outline a plan for completing the update to the comprehensive plan,
focusing on review of the purpose of the plan, identification of major planning issues,
and establishment of a process and budget.
Assistant Administrator ONeill reviewed the development history of the
comprehensive plan. He noted that the current 1986 version of the plan is an
updated document from 1978. In addition, the plan was amended in 1992 after the
Chelsea Corridor Study, which reviewed the southeast quadrant of the city. Future
associated studies that will support the comprehensive plan that have already been
undertaken include expansion of the wastewater treatment plant, a comprehensive
sanitary sewer study, and the Ocello storm sewer study.
O'Neill also noted that, in preparation of this process, $15,000 was budgeted in 1994
and 1995 for a total of $30,000. The total estimated cost of the proposal by
Northwest Associated Consultants to update the comprehensive plan is $24,000.
Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) highlighted important
aspects of updating the comprehensive plan such as goal and policy clarification and
analysis of necessary projects. In reviewing the scope of the work, he noted that it
is necessary to collection information and develop a list of issues on which to focus.
Policy planning will form the conceptual basis for the city's growth and development
decisions and is designed to bufld community values into the planning process.
Grittmnn also noted that since questions have been raised as to whether he should
continue as the consulting planner for the City of Monticello, David Licht, President
of Northwest Associated Consultants, was present to address this issue with Council.
Licht explained that the comprehensive plan should be the City's plan, and NAC is
the facilitator while Council is the deciaion-maker. Most cities prefer to receive
recommendations from their planner, but a different approach can be used if Council
Page 1 0
Special Council Minutes - 1/17/95
wishes to do so. He noted he is available if Council prefers that he take a more
active role in assisting Monticello with planning, as he is currently active in
consulting with many nearby communities.
Mayor Fyle noted that he supports the role that the planner plays to review
development plans during early design stages so that plans presented to the City
Council better reflect the comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Herbst noted his concern regarding the presentation at the joint
meeting held in early 1994 involving rezoning and annexation of property owned by
Kjellberg and Emmerich and IGein. He noted he valued the planner's opinion, but
it was his view that it appeared a decision had already been made prior to the
meeting, and he preferred that the Council be made aware of issues prior to
community meetings. Steve Grittman of NAC responded by saying that NAC was
asked to submit a summary outlining whether or not the proposal was consistent
with the adopted comprehensive plan, and it was his opinion that the development
proposal was compatible with the area; however, it was not his intention to leave the
impression that he was pushing for the desires of the developer. David Licht added
that Council needs to define the planner's role in order for the community to be
served properly. He noted that communication is important, and workshops are often
used in other communities to discuss issues and determine how their councils want
to address issues. Councilmember Anderson added that she likes how the meeting
agendas present information, alternative actions, and staff recommendations,
including the planner's recommendation.
Councilmembers Herbst and Anderson agreed that workshops would be very helpful
in relaying information to Council prior to decision-making at regular meetings and
noted that Council should be briefed on the planner's view or a development proposal
prior to any future community meetings.
Discussion then turned to issues that need to be addressed in the comprehensive plan
update. Mayor Fyle questioned if Council will be asked to change any current zoning
and how much of the township area the update will include. Steve Grittman reported
that a new comprehensive plan will emerge from the update and will restate current
and new goals and polices. Council will also need to look at the entire township in
terms of how the city and township affect each other. It was also noted that the OAA
should be evaluated and that communication with the Township is critical.
David Licht briefly reviewed the process noted in the proposal, noting that Council
will review policies, details of the city will need to be collected, policy planning will
include a written conceptual basis for growth and what the Council wants to
accomplish, maps will be developed showing the physical layout of the city, and the
final plan will then be implemented. He noted that NAC can present ramifications
of specific changes to the plan, but ultimately the changes are the Council's decision.
Page 2 0
Special Council Minutes - 1/17/95
Councilmember Herbst asked how the City can preserve areas for higher -end
housing. Licht responded by giving an example of a city that had a high number of
lower -end startup homes, and after calculating what valuation a house needed in
order to pay for services provided by the city, the city increased the minimum lot size
from 11,000 sq ft to 15,000 sq ft. This equation resulted in an increase in house
values from an average in 1993 of $125,000 to an average of $165,000 in 1994.
Charlie Pfeffer, a landowner in Monticello, requested that the City include property
owners in the process of updating the comprehensive plan, as they have a substantial
interest in how the community grows. In response to Pfeffer's comments, it was
noted that the Council would be scheduling workshops to discuss the update, and
community -wide public information meetings would be an important part of the
process.
Councilmember Herbst questioned whether the community arena issue should be
removed from the list of issues to address since the cost to develop an arena has not
been determined. Licht noted that the plan will not address a detailed finandal plan
but rather a general plan addressing public facility needs.
Councilmember Anderson questioned the proposed hourly rate of $25 for NAC clerical
staffs work on the comprehensive plan. It was her view that it would cost the City
less to hire its own clerical staff. David Licht noted that the $25/hr fee includes not
only salary but items such as equipment as well.
After further discussion, it was the consensus of Council that the City should retain
NAC as a consulting planner now that past communication difficulties have been
discussed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO AUTHORIZE COMPLETION OF AN UPDATE TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PROPOSED BY NAC AT A TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST OF $24,000. MOTION INCLUDES UPDATE TO BE COMPLETED BY
AUGUST 1, 1995. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 3 0
Council Agenda - 1/23/95
3A. Public hearing on flkdontion of oronosed assessment roll for
delinanent utility bills and certification of assessment roll to
Countv Auditor. (R.WJ C.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is again asked to adopt an assessment roll for utility
billing accounts which are delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the
assessment roll to the County Auditor for collection on neat year's real
estate taxes if not paid by November 30, 1995.
The delinquent utility accounts that are included with the agenda are
accounts that are at least 60 days past due and include all new delinquents
from the last time we certified them. In addition to the delinquent amount,
the Council also previously approved the establishment of an administrative
fee of $26 per account that is added to each delinquent assessment. The
amounts shown on the enclosed delinquent utilities list include the
additional $25 administration fee for the preparation of the assessment roll.
It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment
roll for certification in 1996 at an interest rate of 8% as allowed by state
statute. As in the past, if any accounts are paid within 30 days after the
adoption of the assessment roll, they can be paid without the additional
interest. After 30 days, payments will be charged interest and can be
accepted up to November 30, 1995.
As you will note, account 4100200370000 has a past due balance over $600,
and this account is a commercial property. Previously, Council approved
disconnection of water service in such a case. The City will be taking action
on this in the near future following proper notification to the property
owner.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Adopt the assessment roll for the delinquent charges as presented.
Based on public hearing input, adjust the assessment roll as required.
It is the staff recommendation that the Council adopt the assessment roll as
presented. All of the accounts are at least 60 days past due and have been
given proper notice of this assessment hearing and ample opportunity to
Council Agenda - 1/23/95
pay the accounts in frill. All utility accounts were notified that there would
be an additional $25 administrative fee attached to each outstanding
balance if the acoount was not paid by 4:30 p.m. on January 13, 1995.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll; Complete listing of delinquent
accounts to be certified.
RESOLUTION 95.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has
met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for
delinquent sewer and water billings and other service charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessments against
the parcels named herein, and csn-h tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable on or
before the first Monday in January 1997 and shall bear interest at the rate of
8 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment
resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire
assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1996.
3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification
of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on
such property with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City
Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution.
4. The City Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax list of
the county, and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same
manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the City Council this 23rd day of January, 1998.
Mayor
City Administrator
3A �A
01/17/95 16.28.22
OTR 3, 1995 DELQ UTILITY BILLIta CERTIFICATIONS WITH LATE MZE
PALE I
"
Account I PIP I
Protrarty Address
APT Custwer Hae
Ovr30 Day
Ovr60 Oav
Ovr90 Day
0vr120 Day
Late
Total
1
Past Due
Past we
Pc3t Are
Pat Due
ChugD
w/Late
Charge
I
00100310000 155010055040
307 RIVER ST W
PATTY ROWERS
48.84
G0
.00
,00
25,00
13.E4
G0100M= 155010063040
301 FRONT ST
DICK RICE
11.73
,80
CO
DO
25.00
102,73
00100520000 155010056030
413 RI ccR ST W
WVZY BELLESO!
53.95
.0
.00
.03
25,00
18.95
001CO57M 155010051010
$25 RIVER ST W
DMZJA CARLSON
32.0
Co
.09
.aI
25.00
57.90
00100830000 155010044100
924 RIVER ST W
RACHAEL SMITH
54.29
.00
.00
.00
25.00
19,29
0010118000 155010067130
212 RIVER ST E
ED ODP
93.40
,0
.00
.00
25.00
118.40
00101250000 155015005140
318 RIVER ST E
KEVIN 11001E
83.51
M
.00
.00
25.00
118.51
00101o60M3 15415005150
324 RIVER $T E
MIALD BEGIN
120,51
.00
.0D
.00
25.00
145.51
00101340000 15.015103160
518 RIVER ST E
DIANA KRUSE
103.80
.00
.00
.00
25.00
120.60
002CMD000 155500124300
1407 HART BLVD
CARCIA SRNDIN
32.50
DD
.03
GC
25.06
$1.50
00200310000 155015005010
3S5 BROADWAY E
B -CLEAN LAUNDRY
025.33
CD
.00
.00
25.00
850.33
CO20000DOD 15501CM7070
I10 VIRE ST
REED OR KARL DENAR115
73.03
.00
.00
CG
25.00
98.03
00201090007 1550100501:0
638 BROADWAY W
WAYNE BACHLER
40.01
.p
.00
.00
25.00
73.01
00201310002 155010036041
203 WALNUT $T
MATH 6 AMIATES
24.2+
.00
CO
.00
25.00
49.24
00201410609 155010035090
112 MADVAY W
VIDEO PLUS
44.03
.03
'Co
.00
25.09
69.05
00201450.701 155910034159
too CROAGWAY E
HIL6.0$A"0T INVESTORS
10.63
.CD
CD
.00
25.00
43.68
00201500000 1550100340&0
IFA BROAJHAY E
GARY HMCR
330.93
.0
Q7
.00
25.00
361.93
0520165NO 155015013000
512 6ROASWAY E
RIMA GIENIIGER
0.52
0
CO
.00
25.00
111.52
00300t80000 155040003010
213 nW ST
TOM BIKER
100.16
CD
.00
Am
25.00
125.16
00300380000 155010031010
310 30 57 W
CLARENCE HCCARTY
123.?4
.C7
.93
.60
25.00
140.34
00300110000 155010030050
211 LIM S7
DAVID A d DEBRA KEVISSE)N
81.64
.Q1)
Co
.Oa
25.00
106.44
00373530007 155010651010
725 3RD ST W
ROEERT BARTHEL
$9.03
.07
.00
C7
25.00
0+.03
003COOt0G00 155910030090
310 30 ST W
RODERT A103 VVOA^!E COX
52.01
.CD
.0
.O0
25.00
17.01
C
G0360S84000 155010010100
30 3RD ST E
GERALD SOISIEBY
E6.10
.0
.00
,0
25.80
01.29
003010",.0001 15SO150151GD
424 350 ST E
TERRY 1tEAVERNI
99.45
.Q1)
43
.03
25,00
124.45
MC112MOO 155015935030
41) 6TH $T E
LEOLA EACKSTMM
52.43
C3
,C)
,03
25,00
77.43
CZ,S '32001 155010020330
415 LAIN ST
VAU6ND! VEIT
310.19
.0
43
Am
MCI
343,19
C115Cr117t 3 15501O0Jcm
308 4TH ST E
WAYNE COX
70.10
10
.03
,DC
25.60
In .00
004091000 ISSOIS038031
414 RMGEY ST
MERT PEDEMN
17.23
,CO
C0
.0
25.00
102.23
0050590300 16591007£0:9
601 6TH 8T W
fr.^1 FLOKELL
51.0
.G3
,0
CO
25.00
76.90
06500GDC00D ISSOIC035060
100 8TH ST W
DAIRY QUEEN
446.11
.C)
.OJ
co
75.80
471.11
0030rv30DC0 155500113401
620 CEDAR BT
VFW CLUB
10.03
.0
Co
.03
25.00
IS. Do
OCC0i.0700n 15550014305
130 UMAY V
JMS 6 LY21E'T H91AWALT
$2.00
CO
p
.00
25.09
11.00
0C--MC001 155020002040
1119 RIVER ST W
RUTH A A173ERA-TK!
24,91
CD
CO
,0
25.00
69.01
06801100000 1550034^0
1123 R1VER GT W
15 D. FEOERLOJ G M. GLOCR
29.0
0
IID
C)
25,01)
54.09
fl'M 2 0 15:J21024ED
IO2 KEC.'ETH LA
SALTER B NA:xv OLNWS
70.65
0
47
07
25,0
MGr cS
90GOi03C.CD 155SM3 WSJ
103 tAYMW CIR
CZM9 CIAT2
02,01
C)
CJ
,C
225,03
IU/.01
MMIC,') 1559033320
2001 UWAY W
t:P/F•IA:NT (FD2"7K3)
50.71
.CO
.0
.07
eS.GD
07.77
C073109910 155500141401
130 0.1YWOC C:1 E
L 0 W A3SMAT6
23.97
.C)
.2
.0
2L,C9
50.97
C07C1G1G0C3 155330)1010
101 TKOR.* PARK OR
ILITI WJTIM
62.81
0
0
,0
25.co
67.31
IWO M, MMM11?0
111 RFVIN 211 ---LEY 02
MES KAI:ECLIK
ION.,')
m
co
,03
25,q
112.,'0
OCC'U211730 15E°=CCD110
111 LEERY tHIM DR
RIOi.^_SO L CWTt
C3.0
.13
w
0
25.0
121.09
00;iC 3cm 1 9X02010
ICJ MIN ELI>'Q7fl RAJ
IVAN WALTER
b0.r3
C)
C)
al
25.0
71.H
00',019)003 155023rY)30f.J"
120 Y.AR m ELwm RD
JAKFS JUMziN
,0?.13
CJ
.0
C)
MCD
1'x2.10
Q
17=16500CD 15;02GDD3103
132 K%VIN ELWM M-
TSI GIC,33
74.32
.0D
G3
,63
25.00
07.32
C=116C)C3 155:)10210)
t44 4,,":041 LA
::►F 4}C7ON
64.51
.C7
)
0
25,0
C3.51
C_30121cl) 1553IIG).3:J
Cit CALCRI (;IR
L1QA REr AD3
40.CA
.0
)
C
23,0
I).GS
Q
`
CITY OI 09;TICELLO
34-8
L Dl/17/95 16,26.22
Account 0 PID 1
t
00803510000
155035001110
00803580000
155035001050
0"10 Day
00803600000
165035006030
N020 03Y
00903860000
155035003030
1
00803 801) 00
155035003060
Pt3t Due
6080394000
155035001050
r/Late
00804050900
155035001100
00806010000
155035001110
0080511ODOD
15503SCO1133
56.31
00805130000
155035001141
DO
00804240000
155031001070
B. GORDON 8 C. HAlSON
00804260700
155031006010
.Ca
00806380001
155026001030
99.94
OCE0441000O
155035006010
.00
00901620000
15S033O01110
1
OCSOIP4000
155033003036
77.31
00901 room
155033002140
.00
01000660000
155014C0319D
LIZA 8 8009 BLLOLY
0100550000
155014003110
,00
01000060000
1550160050
79,67
0100145000D
IM17MM20
'OD
Oi1030700G3
155045002010
25.00
01103230000
ISS015005050
61.57
01105S1O00D
155065006060
.00
Oi1088e09D0
155059002000
KATIE LAWRENCE
011C3730DO0
1550AS003OAO
.03
01107010006
155010002103
105.45
OIZC303030D
155500156103
43
01203D'a0000
155500156463
25.00
012MOSCDOO
155500156603
58.69
012001l e:01
lss5001SW 01
.00
012C32003C0
1555'16154603
JJVd$ CELLETTE
01X751 f-' ^3
1555001564 03
.0
01^090510000
1555.9155603
135.04
012900401!0
155573154403
CO
01203190300
155500151603
25.03
O'20O9:C000
155500146693
86.22
01201=7 I)7
1555CDIM23
.0
1 01120.:7
1555031166O3
OA4 CROCKER
01271ii:3:7
ISS5C7i56603
.0
013C71Q", 0
15S013CONN
109.80
Ot0W17C9C7
i55073CO31to
GO
GO
Cc
25.00
O13G3350pD
i55.',�9C7,�.8
83.02
C' ?117 0 C7
1:5715OI1C0
W
C-�� 5111C7
105'' 1113,x7
BEV R05S
C05010c4L7
15C44 lci 10"7
CO
.00
25,00
124.23
JENS RIVERVUE APTS
210.91
Prwerty Address
19 MARVIN ELWOOD RD
19 CROCUS CIR
17 CROCUS LA
16 CRCCUS LA
16 CROCUS LA
i2 MAiMN ELWOOD RD
10 MURVIN ELWOOD RD
$ KARVIN ELWOOD RD
10 K4RVIN ELWOOD RD
14 MQVIN ELWOOD RD
13 HED%A) LA
15 HEIMON LA
IS M6RVIN ELWOOD RD
$ PRAIRIE RD
9 SAmTRAP CIR
16 EASE CIR
10 EAGLE CIA
i9 RIVERVIEW OR
D KISSISSIFPI C2
17 RIVERVIEW DR
A RIVERVIEW I)7
i1 RED OAK CIR
)0 ICADOW DAX OR
A OAKVIEY LA
I1 ICADOW LA
5 KEADOW DAX OR
17 BRIAR OAKES CLW
)2 KJELLCERG'S PARK
IS KJELLBERG'S PARR
11 KJELLCERG'S PARK
13 NELl0EG5'S PAq
O KJEILEERu'9 PARK
ID K-JEILPERG'S PAN
A KJELLCERG'9 PARK
3 KJELLSERO'S FAQ
11 KJELLEEVo'S PARK
10 KJELLBERG'S PA:K
H KJE1lCEE3'5 PACK
3 VIELLBEG9'9 FART
;4 KJELLEER6'5 FA[tt
a KLLAJ LA
:0 Ff�EON 11
0 STA LN, CR
)I CTARLII6 OR
11 C'0�T`AVE
!1 gJtC:EL41A ST
15 W'EY ST
OTR 3, 1994 DELI) UTILITY BILLIt:6 CERTIFICATIONS WITH LATE CHAQ,
PAGE 7
APT Custorer Na--
0"10 Day
OYr60 Day
("O Day
N020 03Y
Late
Total
1
Past Due
Pest ON
Pt3t Due
Past Due
Chsrge
r/Late
Charge
19KE CARTER
56.31
.00
ca
DO
25.00
91.37
B. GORDON 8 C. HAlSON
74.94
.00
.Ca
DO
25.00
99.94
STEM LMMIST
65.40
.00
.00
.00
25.00
90.60
Rm WALBERG
77.31
.00
Go
.00
25.0
102.31
LIZA 8 8009 BLLOLY
$6.41
.60
,00
.00
25.00
79,67
KEEECCA YANALLEN
62.69
'OD
.00
.00
25.00
87.69
MIALD WOOD
61.57
.00
.03
.00
25.00
86.57
KATIE LAWRENCE
19.65
DO
.03
.00
25.00
105.45
CINDY MUND
6846
43
p
,03
25.00
93.96
LARRY AND TA" ItETCAIF
58.69
.0
.GO,
.00
75.10D
8).69
JJVd$ CELLETTE
110.04
.0
.0
CD
25.00
135.04
KE12:ETH ROSSEERG
75.12
CO
.00
.00
25.03
100.12
LARRY POTTER
86.22
.00
.00
.0
25.00
111.22
OA4 CROCKER
84.0
O
.0
CD
25.00
109.80
BILL AND BEY GRIGSBY
81.98
GO
GO
Cc
25.00
106.90
TED DMILS
83.02
m
.00
W
25.00
103.82
BEV R05S
99.23
C)
CO
.00
25,00
124.23
JENS RIVERVUE APTS
210.91
.0)
.CO
.00
25.GD
235.01
HAMA 9CKIE3IN
99.66
C)
.03
OD
25.03
175.46
LIONEL CALLIES
SO.C6
.03
.0
.00
25.00
03.C6
LEE 0 TA1M SUMJ
7S.G2
.I)1
.CO
43
25.00
109.02
KIML FURTER
102.0
OP
.0
.03
25.0
127.00
GARY KRAFT
24,80
.09
p
W
25.60
69.90
JACK 8 KASA HAREEN
22,1.6
.63
.0
Z
25.00
47.14
DENTCN WILtRiDER
163.99
.00
.00
.03
25.00
168.50
JULIE HEIIIRICHS
15.CA
.69
.0
.0I)
2S.00
107.CO
DAVID 8 JaU S0HWART2
104.00
.00
Co
.60
25.00
129.87
9W.'=4 SASE
10,40
.I)9
CD
V
25.CD
35.40
LOIS 8 RICHARD GILCEN
31.70
.C9
.CD
.00
25.00
55.20
PAN RIOMKE
20.00
.9D
C7
GD
25.CO
65.00
KJELLCERa'S ENC
10.03
.Cl
03
,00
2b.00
36.03
ERIAN =EDER
31.20
.OD
49
,I)0
75.07
5:1120
A 5?W).Ltt�r aER
3 1. 211
q
C1
.00
213.07
50.20
RAT WITE
D1.I0
co
,03
.CD
75.00
S5.N
STEVE 9 CLARICE VILKINO
31.20
.0
.97
.p
25.00
50.20
CAII KXER
31.,3
co
.0
.W
25.00
E5.40
ALAN TREPANIER
31.20
.60
.0
&
25.01)
50.20
KEVI'1 8 CATO M::1LLIIR
71.23
.0
.0
,0
25,03
13.20
EG3KE KIIu?IT?1
31.71)
.C1
.C3
.07
20. CO
5.13.30
CI EYE JACM)
^2C.O
V
.0
CO
35. C9
65.CJ
TiUV HA:E71
137.53
C
.0
.C9
29.6)
127.53
LItaA EDEN
63:C0
.0
.;:7
.CD
25.63
0.0
M6 CO LIQ-A>A
C4.C:!
.61
Cl
95.03
110.02
L. A'J V. 14-WINTEK
45.92
,G
C1
GO
c?. G3
70.01
KEVIN OLCI.1
33 -CJ
:D.1)
.^1
.0
20.09
Ci.GJ
WAYi; 8 'ACI*)A POTVIN
10.40
.0
.G7
,0
25.0
15.40
T t:LqCCN
31.20
CO
co
.0
2.3.0
CITY CS KATICEILO
m
7
34 -�
C_
C
01/17/95 16.28.22
QTR 3,
1896 DELA VERITY BILLING CERTIFICATIONS t71TH LATE CHARGE
PAGE 3
AOMAt I- AID I-
-Propr-tr- -Address- - _
APT
Custmer, Naze _
Orr30 Day
OerGD Day
Or, Z) Day
Ovr120 Oar
Late
Total
I
Past Due
Past Due
Past Due
Past Due
Charge
#/Late
Charge
C
80501680100 155067000010
518 WRIGHT ST
PAMELA STEFFES
31.20
.00
.00
.00
25.60
56.20
90501690100 155067000010
522 WRIGHT ST
RICHARD SPARK
31.20
co
CD
CD
25.00
55.20
90501868800 155029001031
301 7TH ST E
8
TARA OPSAL
31.15
.00
.00
w
25.00
58.15
90501861500 155029001020
207 1TH ST E
15
AVA IAISRAISANEN
10.60
co
co
.00
25.00
35.60
96501892500 155029MI010
207 7TH $I E
25
BRIOGET STR0WB
20.80
OD
.00
.00
25.09
05.80
FINAL 101ALS
TOTAL
7763.93
30.00
OD
.03
2.675.00
10.268.93
cam 99
END OF REPORT
CIIY OF "JTICULO
34 -D
Council Agenda - V23195
Consideration of aipPgal of denial of 2 -ft sitle yard setback variance
toallogtarane addition. Anolleant. Paul Klein. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKG
Paul IGein is requesting a 2 -ft variance to the minimum 10 -ft side yard
setback requirement to allow construction of a garage addition to the west
of the existing garage. The existing garage is approximately 16 ft wide by
22 ft in depth. The total garage width after the variance would be 26 ft. A
standard 2 -car garage is 20-22 ft wide.
The existing 16 -ft garage width on the front is used to accommodate a 9 -ft x
7 -ft overhead garage door and a 3 -ft wide entrance door. To construct this
addition as proposed, a 10 -ft minimum width is needed to accommodate a
standard 9 -ft x 7 -ft overhead garage door. There is approximately 20 ft
from the proposed 10 -ft garage addition to the garage of the residence to the
west.
Mr. 1Gein's justification for his hardship is that he needs the 10 -ft building
width to accommodate the minimum 9 -ft width for a standard 9 -ft x 7 -ft
overhead garage door. According to the Planning Commission, this is not
justification or a demonstrated hardship for a side yard variance request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Approve the 2 -ft variance to the 10 -ft side yard setback requirement.
This would allow expansion of the existing garage as proposed. A
motion to approve this variance request should note that a unique
hardship has been demonstrated.
Deny the 2 -ft variance request to the 10 -ft side yard setback
requirement.
This motion should be based on the finding that the property owner
can achieve reasonable and full use of his property without a
variance; there is no unique circumstance or hardship that would
justify the variance; and by granting the variance, a precedent would
be set that would impair the intent of the ordinance.
Council Agenda - 1/23/95
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
City staff and Planning Commission recommend alternative tit due to the
fad that a hardship has not been sufficiently demonstrated. To approve the
variance request would establish a precedent that would violate the intent
of the ordinance. Also, the proposed addition would result in a 26 -ft wide
garage, which is 46 R wider than a standard 2 -car garage width. The
Planning Commission did not believe that a variance should be granted to
allow construction of a garage that is bigger than a standard 2 -car garage.
Mr. Mein's request for an addition to the garage has clearly demonstrated
no reasonable hardship for granting of this variance.
lflein is correct in that he needs a minimum of a 10 -ft building width to
accommodate the minimum 9 -ft width for a standard 9 -ft z 7 -ft overhead
garage door, but this is not a defined reason for a hardship in the granting
of this variance request. Mr. Mein, however, does have some merit in his
request from the functionability of his existing garage for any type of
expansion. To accommodate another garage stall, a minimum 9 -ft width is
typically needed to accommodate most larger vehicles with the exception of
some of the smaller vehicles which we see today. To create a garage
addition less than the minimum 9 -ft typical width would lessen Mr. Mein's
ability to utilize this garage addition for vehicle or accessory uses with the
excbption of smaller vehicles and accessory uses. To construct a garage
addition to moot the minimum 10 -ft setback requirement could also be
accomplished through the removal of the existing outside west garage wall
with support posts installed underneath it to accommodate a standard 16 -ft
x 7 -ft overhead garage door, however, the usability of this new 16 -ft garage
width is minimized with the locations of the posts in the middle of the
overhead garage door opening.
Copy of location map; Copy of the site plan for variance request.
, 0 . �-4
/
A\ N GR
Consideration of a 2' variance to the
0' sidaynrd setback variance request
which would allow expansion of an existing
garage.
APPLICANT: Paul Klein
110OZE tow -
28".
Pi
56
Council Agenda - 1/23/95
Consideration of accenting revised oronosal for ourehase and
develonment of Outlot A. Country Club Manor. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In May of 1994, the City Council completed a request for proposals process
(RFP) in an attempt to find a buyer and developer of a 16 -acre parcel that
the City/HRA obtained through a tax forfeiture process. Under the RFP
process, a number of developers were contacted regarding the City's interest
in selling the property for R-3 (medium density residential) uses. Area
residents were involved in the selection process. It was the goal of the City
to sell the property to the developer that offered the beat combination of
price and development design. The proposal submitted by David Hornig
was selected over a similar proposal submitted by Shelter, Inc. Please see
the attached copies of relevant meeting minutes for additional history and
the reasons supporting selection of the Hornig proposal in the first place.
Following is a summary of progress on this project since April 1994.
Relevant meeting minutes and letters are attached for your review.
4/25/94: Council selects Hornig proposal and directs staff to prepare
development agreement based on phase I consisting of 42 units
at a land price of $126,000.
6/13/94: Staff reports that Hornig would like to modify plan. Hornig
needs 30.60 days to complete market study before committing
to purchase more than enough land to support 12 units
($36,000). Council directs staff to negotiate with Shelter if
Hornig does not make commitment to develop 42 units. Two-
week deadline given for commitment.
6/27/94: Council gives Hornig another two-week delay. Hornig to
finalize obtaining financing in meantime.
8/4/94: Letter to Council from Hornig updating progress on
development of Outlot A. Letter says they will commit to
purchase in late September if financing application to MHFA is
approved.
Dec/Jan: Undocumented telephone tag.
Hornig informed via fax of staff ooncern regarding lack of
progress.
Council Agenda - 1/23/95
1/10/95: Revised proposal sent to City - Phase I - 24 units senior rental.
Total purchase price - $72,000.
1/11/95: Homig informed that the new proposal does not appear to be
consistent with original plan and must be presented to Council.
1/12/95: Handwritten letter from Hornig stating that the revised
proposal ig consistent with original plan.
The revised proposal is similar to the original proposal except that the first
two phases of land acquisition and phasing are reversed. Under the
original proposal, the developer indicated that his first phase would consist
of a 42 -unit family housing complex on 4.36 acres at a purchase price of
$126,000. The second phase would consist of a 24 -unit senior housing
complex on 3.84 acres at a purchase price of $72,000. Under the new
proposal, the total cash provided to the City remains the same; however, the
second phase becomes the first phase. The developer argues that reversing
the phasing does not change the proposal. Staff argues that this change is
significant and could have affected the original decision to select the Hornig
proposal. The phasing switch is a concern for the City because the new
phasing greatly reduces the cash that the City expected with phase 1, which
means that the City must carry greater land holding costs.
Also, due to the long duration between the award to Hornig and the land
exchange, land values have increased, and the City has suffered mounting
holding coats associated with keeping the land longer than desired. At a
minimum, the price of the land should be renegotiated given the delay in
the purchase of the property.
B
Motion to accept revised proposal of January 10, 1995.
This alternative should be selected if Council is comfortable with the
now phasing as proposed. The now phasing calls for initial
development of the senior housing aspect of the plan, which Council
could view as quite positive despite the fact that the revenue (iron the
senior site is quite less than the revenue expected with phase I of the
original proposal.
Motion to deny acceptance of revised proposal and direct staff to
continue negotiations with Hornig.
Council Agenda - 1/23195
Council may wish to deny acceptance of the revised proposal due to
the change in phasing and due to the length of time that it has taken
to close on the property. However, Council may continue to work
with Hornig and could, therefore, direct staff to attempt to negotiate
a higher price for the property.
Motion to deny acceptance of revised proposal and direct staff initiate
a new RFP process, or take no action at this time.
Council may wish to explore the possibility of sending a revised RFP
to developers. This option may make sense because there appears to
be a fairly strong interest in the property. Since May 1994, the City
has been contacted on numerous occasions from developers interested
in purchasing the land. Also, Shelter Corporation continues to be
interested in purchase and development under their original proposal.
Perhaps a new RFP process would benefit the City by allowing the
City to take advantage of a recent appreciation in area land values.
Finally, the City Attorney has been contacted regarding this matter.
He has confirmed that the City is not obligated to sell the property to
Horning under the proposal as outlined.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative A3 as outlined. It is our view that a good
faith effort was made by the City to establish negotiations with Hornig with
the goal of developing the property as defined under the original proposal on
a timely basis. Unfortunately, Hornig has not been able to commit to the
original plan and associated phasing. Therefore, it is our view that the City
should be at liberty to withdraw from further negotiations with Hornig. It
is our view that a now RFP process should be initiated or the City could
hold the land in hopes of reaping the benefit of continued appreciation of
the land.
Location map; Excerpt from previous meeting minutes; Various
correspondence; Revised proposal; Original proposal outline.
Council Minutes - 4/25/9
Consideration of selecting a development proposal and authorize negotiation
of a development agreement - Outlot A, Country Club Manor.
Assistant Administrator ONeill reviewed a summary of the attributes of the
two proposals to purchase Outlet A of Country Club Manor. In his
presentation, he noted that both companies are reputable. The Hornig
proposal comes with a higher price for the land, the structures will have
more 3 -bedroom units, which will result in a higher population and a higher
tax value. The Shelter proposal, on the other hand, will result in a lower
population for the area and calls for a significant investment in the
neighborhood park, which would be dedicated to the City. The park
investment offsets the lower price offered for the land.
Laura Maser, representing the neighborhood group, outlined specific
reasons why they supported the Hornig proposal as follows:
1. The outer structure and appearance of the Hornig proposal was
superior.
2. The tenant mix would be better.
3. The floor plan of the Hornig development was superior.
4. Several of the neighbors stated that they would not mind
having a structure like the one Hornig is currently building on
7th Street next to them.
5. Finally, Maser noted that the neighborhood group she has
worked with liked the layout of the overall site.
Brad Pyle noted that either one of the developments would be fine. The
Hornig development has a slightly higher amenity level. Overall, the value
to the City under each proposal is close.
Clint Herbst noted he was happy to hear Brom the neighborhood that the
Hornig development is favored. Herbst noted his favor over that plan as
well.
Patty Olsen noted that the price of the land offered along with the value of
the park improvements makes the Shelter offer superior to the Hornig
proposal. Pyle noted that over time, the higher taxes paid by Hornig will
offset the difference.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to authorize City staff to negotiate a development
agreement with Hornig Companies on the sale and development of Outlot A
of Country Club Manor. Voting in favor of the motion: Brad Pyle, Clint Q
Herbst, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Patty Olsen. (p D
Council Minutes - 6113194
lieview statue of development amement negotiations - ('.w -A= -Club
Manor. Outlot A.
Assistant Administrator O'Nei11 informed Council that Mr. Hornig requested
that the City allow him to have the &xibility to reduce the size of the first
phase and associated land purchase Evm 42 units to 12 unit& O'Neal went
on to note that Hornig is completing a market study which cold ultimately
lead him to development of a 42 -unit complex as originally proposed.
Hornig is requesting that he be provided 30-60 days to complete the market
study before he would be willing to commit to more than 12 units.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Patty
Olsen to direct City staff to obtain a commitment from Hornig to develop 42
units with the first phase prior to the nen Council meeting. In the event
this commitment cannot be obtained, staff is authorized to negotiate directly
with Shelter Corporation. Motion Carried unanimously.
4
Council Minutes - 6/27/94 ,
G�
Review David Hornis's response tp Copgcil a,Sgpn taken with regard
imposition of Outlot A Country Club Manor.
Assistant Admimstarator O'Neill reported that at the previous meeting of the
City Council, staff was directed to inform Hornig that he must make a bona
fide commitment to development of the site. This commitment must be
obtained by the dune 27, 1994, Council meeting. O'Neill noted that he
discussed the matter with Hornig and invited him to attend the Council
meeting to discuss the matter anther.
Dave Hornig indicated that the proposal he submitted was predicated on a
market study supporting development of a housing project as initially
anticipated under his proposal. He noted that nothing has changed unless
the market study reveals that a project of the magnitude originally
anticipated is not feasible.
Clint Herbst indicated that the other proposal was firm in its commitment
to purchase all of the land associated with phase I. If Hornig is not willing
to purchase the entire land area associated with 42 units in phase I, then
perhaps we should terminate negotiations.
Dave Hornig stressed that he plans to proceed to purchase the property and
develop the land as originally anticipated; however, he needs a few more
days for the market study to be completed, whereupon he can confidently
move forward on the project.
It was the consensus of Council to allow a two-week delay in the
requirement that Hornig make a commitment to purchase the property.
The purpose of the delay is to allow for completion and analysis of the
market study currently underway.
(0 D
COUNCEL UPDATE
August 4.1894
Update on states of Oudot & C antro Club Manor—David Hornig. (J.OJ
Please review the following letter from David Hornig regarding his continued
interest in the purchase and development of Outlot A If the letter satisfies,
Council that progress is being made, then staff will continue to work with Hornig
toward development of the final site plan and associated development agreement.
Please bring the item up for discission if you feel sufficient progress is not being
made by Hornig that would justify shifting negotiations to Shelter or others.
Coo.xc''1 1kM- O4ckcLA4 1s,,14`
A
0
Yo0V IA C, 0.J:kC\
to
dh
THE HORNIG COMPANNS
101 IRVING AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 • (612) 824750'
August 4, 1994
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362-9246
Dear Jeff and City Council:
We have been actively pursing the development of Outlet A.
Country Club Manor. On Friday (8/6/94) we are submitting an
application for tax credits for 24 unite of senior housing
and 21 unite of family housing, we will be informed of the
status of the application the last Thursday of September `
1994. Uo eceiving an allocation, we would tike to
ipurchase 43 nits • $3,000 per unit as previously indicated.
Should o application be denied, we will have'to re -apply in
April 1998.
Our market studies have indicated sufficient demand for both
projects at this time. We appreciate your patience.
sincerely.
David Hornig
1k.
MANAGEmR4 T • DEVELopm NT • BROKERAGE
�r
P.01
THE HoRMG CoMPANMS
7101 WING AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55408 • (612) 824-7303
3 p(c)051
I
January 10. 1995
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello. MN 55362-9246
Dear Jeff:
Proposed P.A./Option Monticello
Park Shore a Park Glenn
RE: Conceptual Site Plan 3/16/94
1. Hornig Companies to Purchase +/- 3.84 acres 8 Easterly
most parcel 4/1/95 (24 unite x 3K c 72,000)
2. Hornig Companies acquiros option for +/- 4.36 acre site
-42 units x 3K a 126,000 Option to be for term 4/1/96-
4/1/97
3. Hornig Companies acquires option for +/- 3.5 acres (church
site) 22units x 3K s 88,000 Option to be for term 4/1/95-
4/1/98.
4. City and Developer agree to mutually select ♦/- 1.2 acres
for active park outlot
S. City and Developer agree to mutually select +/- 3.1 acres
storm water outlot
Jeff, plwaae review this proposal and comment. Thsnk youf
Sincerely.
41920'r 10.ee—
Dave Norma
MANAoRmwa • DammPmEm • ftomAGS
6G
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Fax. (612) 295-4404
Mr. David Hornig
The Hornig Companies
3101 Irving Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
Dear Mr. Hornig,
January 11, 1995
I have received your revised proposal for the proposed Park Share & Park Glenn
Development. The revised proposal that you have submitted is clearly quite different than
the original proposal selected by the City Council as a result of the request for proposal
process completed in May of 1993. Therefore, prior to engaging in additional negotiations
regarding your revised proposal it will be necessary to place this item before the City Council
for further review. As part of the review, Council will be asked to determine whether or riot
the revised proposal meets the Council's expectations supporting the original decision to sell
the property to your company. Given the length of time it has taken to obtain a commitment
from you regarding a purchase of the property and given the change in the project design and
phasing, Council may wish to completely reopen the process and provide the opportunity to
other potential buyers to purchase the property.
Please call me with your comments otherwise I will be placing this item for Council
consideration at the next City Council meeting scheduled for January 23, 1995, 7 PM.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
i
0 `Zell&
Jeff
Assistant City Administrator
JCf b,V?
CV Rick Wollbteller, City Administator
9
THE HORNIG COMPANIES9 INC.
3101 IRVING AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 • (612) 8247503
h(�
d?,W -e"° a loyal .* jtg� 4dw��
, %4e p,�� 444 At oe-r-o
oev #4's, ce
ill
T� �►- � /
Mr NAGrmw 9 DEVELOPMENT • BRoKmGs _
FINANCING
1. Jim and Dave Hornig would be the general partners in a
limited partnership. Initially. each would be 2.5% general
partners and 47.5% limited partner. At the Present time. Jim
and Dave, are the construe _j -�- • ���„*„ set
ii e entieiPatstg
`his built---- an atin�g 3 phase more over a 2-4�
ear built -out period. ��8��
most competitive source. We have
good working relationships with area banks and insurance
companies. We anticipate rents from 395 - 595 a month
depending upon size of units and utility coats. Upon
completion of a phase we would seek to find limited partners
to Provide equity strength.
2. We would look at the Federal Tax credit program for a
source of equity funding. These proceeds would be used to
"buy down' the total debt level because no mortgage or rental
subsidy is available. Restrictions for management aro
limited to: Maximum rents not greater than 60s median income
of Wright County -approximately $30.000 for a family of 4.
3. Unless the City of Monticello would Provide suction 8 or
some other subaidy-end they have indicated that they have
nono-Wo coo no possibility of subsidies to residents.
n. Maximum income level for one person. 20.800; maximum rent
558. Three people, 26.750: rent 669. Five people 32.150.
rent 774 including utilities. These limitations would be
dictated by Tax Credit program guidelines not financial or
management decisions.
5. See separate 'Market Area" page.
6. Developer proposes creation of T.I.F. district to provide
financing for ponding area. City park ProJect, and other site
improvements.
(o T
7. Developer
unit, payable
proposes a Salo
at commencement
Price of $3.000
of Construction
per
of
devolOPed
each pha$o
(o T
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION / COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS
OUTLOT A OF COUNTRY CLUB MANOR - 4/21/94
I I NORMO I I COMMENTS II SMELTER I I COMMENTS I
C •ow Sae Proposal Good I Sea Good
Fi und:
Developer See Good See Good
Cua011cadorls:
PHASE I - FAMILY APTS PHASE I - FAMILY APTS
Total educturewtam S 7
Total units 42 37
Ave so ltlumt Iw �(� ; n(� 1 1.683
• Total square R 58.490 K 40.05+
Budding cant cost !2.000.060 1 31.626.000
Total tax capacity ,
C)
Annual Ulm41.000 �
5 521.300
Two bedroom unlb 11 19
Three bedroom units 32 5
Total bedroom! 116 62
Acres used 4.35
Density • unttsracre 9.63
Price ottarod $125.000 $64.006
Price Per unit 53.000 52.270
Pncwacre $26689 521.000
WOM 42 37
Un ed pw" 78 74
Total pada g a= 116 III
Total stolmnt 291 340
Esomated population 137 39 .
Rentor mcoma rm07 rtc T'w
Edwriatad raises! rays 5400-M ZBM669 •38833774
washwrdrya In sadi uni Can" buedMO
PHASE II • SENIOR APTS PHASE II • SENIOR APTS
Total urYts 24 24
Total bedrooma6 32
Ave a6 ItAoUt 14x0 am
Total cquaa 6 24,980 26,830
Suddbg Cont. cat $1.100.000 1,170400
Tool tax capacity,
AMudl taxN 521.000 WAW
Asea used 354 4
Density • unit Wo 6.25 6.5
Puce omared $72.000 $64400
once Par unit 53400 53.231
T.. -r gwagy 24 25
rad pdrkeg 6
35
ToL, par" ota5a 32 as
Total cowunil Im L15
waJnwrdryw to each tn M sa h tar
TOW,'—d atd am
Imp now $262.00D
Lana W" mina
MORN10
COUYENTS
SIOrm saMar acal
3
so.=
Park ^^tea
2
Wand ldlb"ID
Surpkn W4
2.8
$10,000 Drmlopw hnde0
Total acva
18
city o11"of tam
Prfca/ace
$24.148
Latta PIMA • WI
5198.000
EXPENSE AND CREDIT
SUMMARY • PHASES I AND II
DEVELOPER
CITY
Larld cost
5108,000
Berm and ire pla dh
$15.000
$15.000 Spit 5070
Tr" pbnWW701 St
$10.000 Ona =50 no amy 20
Parts dwnbp TMM
$3.000
f8.o00 Davtot bl city -mw
Stam t .gorbipadhq
$15.000
SUBTOTAL
$218,000
548.000
TOW,'—d atd am
Imp now $262.00D
Lana W" mina
CITY
City omamas (n"
5152,000
city aorto ft. V"
so.=
Toto) Mrvowfwt
f3,382,000
Wand ldlb"ID
Dw•bt bt and o0ta
ToW annual tam
$10,000 Drmlopw hnde0
phwm I and 11
$70.000
city o11"of tam
$11,200
PHASE III • POSSIBIUTIES
Ptwdo III
5AMnndmall/ 58400 (0dw *111; —Km
we
SMELTER
3
2
3
18
$21.000
S1EB,000
DEVELOPER
CITY
5168.0D0
MODD
D-. atmpbma eamnarWwjo g
$10.000 Cr* $250 Irm awry 20
517.000
Dw•bt bt and o0ta
S5.0D0
$10,000 Drmlopw hnde0
5246.000
520.wo
S2E6.0D0
3148,000
$40.000
$3.054.000
556,700
$9,072
$113.000
(p L
Council Agenda - 1/23/96
Consideration to adopt a resolution calling for a oublic hearing for the
modification of fhe Redevglooment Plan for j<tedeyelopment Proiect,
No. 1. modification of the TIF Plans for TIF District Nos. 1-1 to 1-18,
and the adontion of the;iff Plan for TIF District No. 1.19. (OX)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 1-19, a 25 -year Housing District, is
being created for the Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc., a non-profit
organization. The Private Redevelopment Contract between the HRA and the
Alliance will outline the terms and conditions of the pay-as-you-go TIF
assistance. The TIF assistance will be used to reduce and maintain rental fees
of moderate rate. The minimum improvements include the construction of 48 -
independent housing units for senior adults with approximately 15,000 aq ft
of common space and 16,000 sq R of underground parking.
The TIF Plan is based on the minimum estimated market value of $1,860,000
with an annual estimated increment of $42,286. The TIF District is
anticipated to qualify as a "Qualified Housing District" which would waive the
City's estimated total HACA Loss of $216,000 ($78,700 NPV 0 5.5%). The TIF
budget (guideline) total is approximately $380,000.
Copies of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-19 will be distributed to the
school, county, and hospital taxing jurisdictions prior to January 27, 1995. On
January 11, the HRA adopted a resolution approving the plan for TIF No. 1.19
and requesting the City Council call for a public hearing. The HRA will hold
a public hearing on the acquisition and disposition of raw lands on February 6.
Site and building plan review and project financing are in progress.
At this time, the City Council is asked to adopt the enclosed resolution calling
for a public hearing on Monday, February 27, 1995, at approximately 7 p.m.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. A motion to adopt the enclosed resolution calling for a public hearing on
February 27, 1995, for TIF District No. 1.19.
2. A motion to deny the adoption of the enclosed resolution calling for a
public hearing on February 27.
3. A motion to table any action.
Council Agenda - 1&"5
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As the proposed project meets the Minnesota Statutory requirements for
establishment of Housing District, staff recommends Alternative Action 91.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution for adoption and map outlining the TIF District
boundary.
Councilmember introduced the following resolution,
the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its
adoption:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-18,
AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-19,
ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"). as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on February 27, 1995,
at approximately 7:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the following matters: (a)
the proposed modification, by increased project costs and enlarged geographic
area, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (the "Authority")
Redevelopment Project No. 1; (b) the proposed modification, by increased project
costs and enlarged geographic area, of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1
through 1-18, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (c) the establishment
of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19, located within Redevelopment
Project No. 1; (d) the proposed adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1; (e) the proposed adoption of the Modified Tax
Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through
1-18 (f) the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-19, all pursuant to and in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and
Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended.
7A
Section 2. Notice of Hearing: Filing of Program. The City Administrator
is authorized and directed to cause notice of hearing, substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be given as required by law, to place a copy of
the proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan, Modified Tax Increment Financing
Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plan on file in the Administrator's office at
City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public no later
than January 16, 1945.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted by the
Council in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, on 1995.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Administrator
76
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the 'Council') in and
for the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota, will hold a
public hearing on February 27, 1995 at approximately 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, 250
East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota, relating to the proposed modification, by
increased project costs and enlarged geographic area, the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority's Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the approval and
adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan relating thereto; the proposed
modification, by increased project costs and enlarged geographic area, of the
Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts
No. 1-1 through 1-18 located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; and the
proposed adoption of Tax Increment Financing Plan relating to Tax Increment
Financing Plan No. 1-19, also located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. all
pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as
amended. A copy of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project
No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing
Districts No. 1-1 through 1-19, as proposed to be adopted will be available at the
office of the City Administrator at City Hall not later than January 16, 1995.
The property comprising Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 is as
follows:
PID Number:
155-015-021-020
PID Number:
155-015-022-120
PID Number:
155-015-021-010
PID Number:
155-011-000-210
PID Number:
155-0I1-000-050
PID Number:
155-015-022.020
PID Number:
155-015-022-040
7C.,
Also described as:
Those parts of Lots 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12. Block 22 and Block 21 lying
southeasterly of the center line of said Lot 2 extended northeasterly to the shoreline
of the Mississippi River and lying northwesterly of the northeasterly extension of
the southeasterly line of said Lot 10.
Also that part of Lot 5 of Auditor's Subdivision No. One according to the recorded
map thereof lying westerly of the southwesterly extension of the southeasterly line
of Lot 4, Block 22, LOWER MONTICELLO according to the recorded plat
thereof extended southwesterly to the southwest line of said Lot 5 except that part
lying southeasterly of a line parallel with and 12.5 feet northerly of a line
described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southwesterly extension
of the southeasterly line of Lot 5 of said Block 22 with the southeasterly extension
of the southwest line of said Block 22, thence southwesterly at a deflection angle
of 132 degrees 46 minutes from the said southeasterly extension of the southwest
line of Block 22, a distance of 139.5 feet more or less to said southwest line of
Lot 5 of Auditor's Subdivision No. One and said line there terminating.
Also that part of Broadway Street of LOWER MONTICELLO according to the
recorded plat thereof lying southeasterly of the southwesterly extension of the
center line of Lot 2, Block 22 of said LOWER MONTICELLO and northeasterly
of the northwesterly extension of the southwest line of Lot 5 of the Auditor's
Subdivision No. One according to the recorded map thereof.
Further information regarding the identification of the parcel to be included
in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 may be obtained from the office of
the City Administrator.
All interested persons may appear at the hearing and present their views
orally or in writing.
Dated:
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
City Administrator
10
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
CITY OF MONTICELLO )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Administrator of the
City Council (the 'Council') in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing
extract of minutes of a meeting of the Council held on the date indicated with the
original minutes thereof on file in my office and that the same is a full, true and
correct transcript thereof insofar as said minutes relate to Resolution No.
WITNESS my hand officially, and the official seal of the Council this _
day of , 1995.
City Administrator
(SEAL)
0. IA9
focov OCV10 owroscl
"ZT its
Council Agenda - 1M"5
s. Consideration to re-apurove thq resolution declaring official intentd
the City of Monticello to reimburse certain ezoenditures from the,
uroceeds of bonds to be issued by the Citv. (OX)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the Council meeting of January 9, 1995, Councilmember Shirley Anderson
and Clint Herbst were advised by the City Attorney of a "conflict of interest"
as members serving on both the City Council and the Monticello Senior
Housing Alliance, Inc. Board of Directors.
It is understood that Councilmembers Anderson and Herbst resigned from the
Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc. Board of Directors at the January 16
Alliance meeting.
On January 9, the two Councilmembers with the "conflict of interest" made
and seconded the motion to adopt the resolution declaring official intent to
reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by the
City, therefore, the Attorney advises re -approval of the resolution.
Additionally and per the Attorney, other actions relating to the senior housing
project and approved or adopted by the City Council on January 9 which were
unrelated to the bond issuance do not necessitate re -approval.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. A motion to re -approve the resolution declaring the official intent of the
City of Monticello to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds
of bonds to be issued by the City.
2. A motion to deny re -approval of the resolution.
3. A motion to table action.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative Action 41.
A. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution for re -approval; Copy of the January 9 agenda
supplement as prepared by Administrator Wolfsteller.
10
CITY OF MONTICELLO, IIQINESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO TO RRIIMBURSE CERTAIN ERPENDITURM
FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE
CITY
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Tres. Reg. 1 1.190-2
providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures
will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and
WHEREAS, the City or Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc. (the
"Borrower") expecte to incur certain expenditures which may be financed
temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of a
bond;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO (THE "CITY") AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City or the Borrower reasonably intends to make expenditures for
the project described in Exhibit A (the "Project"), and reasonably intends to
reimburse the City or the Borrower for such expenditures from the proceeds of debt
to be issued by the City in the maximum principal amount described in Exhibit A.
2. The City Administrator to authorized to designate appropriate additions
to Exhibit A in circumstances where time is of the essence, and any such designation
shall be reported to the Council at the earliest practicable date and shall be filed
with the official books and records of the City.
3. This resolution is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent
for purposes of Tres. Reg. 1 1.180-9 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Monticello this 23th day of
January, 1999.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Attest:
Mayor
City Administrator
amin8
Yl/o•11
EXHIBIT A
TO OFFICIAL INTENT RESOLUTION
ADOPTED JANUARY 23, 1995
Maximum Principal
Date of Amount of Debt
Declaration Descrialon of Proiect for Protect
January 23, Multifamily Housing $3,800,000
1995 Facility
ami4
=IgorO
g6
0(04�1��
Council Agenda - 1/9/95
12. Consideration of a resolution dechuft rr the official intent of the Citv
of Monticello to reimburse certain exMnditures from the amceeft
pf bonds to be issued by the Citv. (R.W.)
As with all possible bond sales, the IRS requires the City to adopt a
resolution declaring its intent to reimburse itself for any expenditures it
may incur regarding projects that it intends to finance by future bond sales.
In order to protect ourselves from any expenditures that the City or the
Senior Housing Alliance may incur prior to a bond sale occurring, the
resolution should be adopted as proposed.
Adopt the resolution declaring the official intent to reimburse certain
expenditures from proceeds of future bond sales regarding the
Monticello Senior Housing Alliance project estimated at $3,500,000.
Do not adopt the resolution.
If the Council has decided not to become involved in the issuance of
housing revenue bonds for this project, this declaration resolution
may not be necessary at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the Council is considering issuing the housing revenue bonds, it is my
recommendation that the resolution be adopted to protect our interest.
1). SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of resolution.
go
Council Agenda - 1/23(95
9. Consideration of approving Diana and sneciHcations. puthorizinq
advertisement for bids. and setting a Dubllc hearing for the Meadow
Oak storm sewer outlet oroiect. U.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
It seems like we've been working on this project forever. It's really only
been 11 or 12 years since in 1983 we were asked by the County and
Township to bulk head the ends of the newly -installed storm drain from the
Meadow Oak pond, which led to the north branch of ditch 33 through the
Gene Bauer property. The first real movement toward completing the
project came with the completion of the Meadow Oak storm water study and
review by the City Council on January 25, 1993. At that time, the City
Council selected two alternates for further study: one alternate, "B",
running through the Rod Norell property, and another alternate, "D",
running down the center of Gillard to the Mississippi River.
Over the many following months, the City Council and staff debated the
Meadow Oak trunk storm sewer system as well as the Chelsea Road
corridor and Hart Boulevard trunk storm sewer system. This led to the
formulation of the revised storm sewer assessment policy, and that policy's
concepts were reviewed and approved on April 25, 1994. This allowed us to
go out and talk with Monticello Township, Rod Norell, and Gene Bauer
about impending storm sewer improvement projects and costs. We met
with the Township and got their promise to pay for half the cost of a 2 -inch
overlay on Gillard toward the reconstruction. A further attempt to increase
that amount met with no support at the Township level. Discussions with
Rod Norell indicated he was not interested in seeing the storm sewer run
through his project without a large payment to him by the City. This made
the Rod Norell, or alternate "B", approach impractical.
On May 23, 1994, we brought the issue before the City Council and asked to
set a public hearing for the Meadow Oak trunk storm sewer extension based
upon going down Gillard with alternate "D," and a preliminary estimated
project cost of $329,400 would equate to an assessment of about $1,550 per
acre. A 12,000 aq ft lot would see an assessment of about $427. After the
public hearing on June 13, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with
bids for the project but to continuo working with the Minnesota Department
of Transportation, the County, and Township, about oversizing the project
to help out ditch 33. The only influence our basic project would have on
ditch 33 is that we were going to close the file leading to the north branch
of ditch 33 coming from the Gene Bauer property.
On July 11, 1994, the City Council authorized approval of the plans and
speeiflcatons and advertisement for bids based upon the basic project and
an alternate as suggested by the County, Township, and State. We did
Council Agenda - 1/23195
receive information to include an alternate for a 60 -inch pipe based upon a
state study done by OSM. Bids for the base project to meet our needs and
the alternate project to meet the State's needs and a portion of the needs of
ditch 33, were received on August 12, 1994. That late in the year, the
bidding climate was not very attractive, and the aggressive schedule needed
by the project attracted only five bidders. The alternate project came in
$10,000 below the engineer's estimate, while the base project came in
$80,000 over our estimate. With no commitment from the County, State, or
Township to pay for a portion of the alternate large pipe project, the bids
had to be rejected, as there would not be enough time to delay the start of
the project for input from those agencies and still complete the project in
1994.
The City Council then gave each one of the agencies the opportunity to come
up with a cooperative agreement of some type to pay for a portion of any
oversizing of the storm sewer project. It was also decided that an alternate
would not be bid the next time, as it was felt that the large pipe alternate
clouded the base project. Consequently, all agencies were given until
January 15, 1995, to respond to the City of Monticello in writing. We
originally thought that the State of Minnesota would contribute to the
project with the run-off that comes from the freeway between Meadow Oak
and the Gene Bauer property, and pay for a minimum of 5 cu ft per second
additional capacity for the MN/ROAD project. It is my understanding that
they have now taken the position that they will be a participant in a County
improvement project which encompasses the entire ditch; and it appears
that the County will not proceed with the entire ditch project, as the cost
far outweighs the benefits chargeable to the property owners.
Consequently, we are back to square one. The only exception is that we will
receive some money from the State for freeway drainage by Meadow Oak. I
should have written responses from one or more of the agencies by Monday
evening's meeting; however, it appears that we must move ahead on our
own, else we lose the bidding climate again for 1995.
So we're back to our basic project at a revised estimated project cost of
approximately $334,000. This includes a small contingency, engineering,
and overhead costs To add an additional 5 cfs capacity for future
additional discharge into this system by the City or a small ditch 33 bypass
system constructed either by the County or the State, we would have to add
another $70,000, bringing the estimated cost of the project to $404,000.
This does not include the value of our land swap and assessment swap with
the Bauers.
It appears it is time to move ahead with the project on our own. We have
made more attempts to contact Rad Norell in writing and over the phone
and have failed to arouse his interest at all in regard to our pn&CL
Consequently, we are still with alternative "D" down Gillard. Since we had
a number of residents on Gillard concerned about the street replacement
Council Agenda - 1/23195
portion of the project and assessments for storm sewer and the delay in
getting this project off the ground, it may be beneficial to hold a public
hearing or at least an informational meeting after the bids are received.
Consequently, we could hold a review of the bids and consideration of award
on March 14 and the public hearing on the same date and make a decision
at that time whether to move ahead with the project or not.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the plans and specifications based
upon the original project only and authorize advertisement for bids to
be returned the second week of March to be considered on March 14
and to hold the public hearing on the same date.
2. The second alternative would be to approve the conceptual plans and
specifications with the additional 5 cu R per second of capacity at an
additional estimated cost of $70,000, and order the bids returnable
the second week of March to be considered at the March 14 meeting
and order the public hearing on the same date. Since this would
involve a major change in the plans, we could delay plan approval
until the February 13 meeting. At the meeting, staff will outline
potential long-term benefits associated with oversizing the system.
3. The third alternative would be to increase the design of the project
beyond the 5 ds additional capacity.
4. The fourth alternative would be to delay the project until the fate of
ditch 33 is ultimately decided. This may or may not be within our
lifetimes.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of City staff that we proceed with the project
under alternatives #I or 02. Further delay this spring in bidding the
project will result in higher costs to the City.
11. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of alternate "D" estimate; Copy of map showing affected area of
alternate "D".
t��>�`�
;STREET FNTAG JESSE -�
/DOT ROW
A.
* ---- t, -- --
+�;"W,� ASSESSED AREA
r)ro■n 9y: Drowinq Title Comm. No.
R.C.D. Elan MEADOW OAK TRUNK 1748.93
Ao�oeiei•i 1oc. STORM SEWER EXTENSION
nDote: •�••&►•av%••P•••••iieis••�•^ MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
UNE 6,••e wn rw c. • n^ ...00 aw•W
199♦ uw.~r n wu cs 6 ua•way^
Council Agenda • 1/23/95
Consideration of adontina resolujionit quthorizina Preparation of
feasibility opdy end declarina official intent to reimburse
Cardinai Hills Phase V. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Value Plus Developers Inc. of Monticello have petitioned the City to
complete improvements to phase V of the Cardinal Hills subdivision. They
would like to develop utilities under the same process that has been
successfully used to develop the previous four phases. The first step in the
public improvement process is to complete a study of the feasibility of
installation of the public improvements, including sewer, water, streets, and
storm sewer. The developer has deposited $2,000 with the City to cover the
cost to complete the study. The City can draw on these funds to pay for
engineering expenses in the event the project does not proceed beyond the
feasibility study stage. Phase V calls for development of 34 lots and will not
result in complete development of the Cardinal Hills area. Approximately
25 lots will remain to be developed with future phase Vl.
For our new Council members, under the public improvement process, the
City manages the entire process of installing utilities, including design and
installation. The City is responsible for paying the "up -front" cost to install
the utilities. Once the project is done, the total City expenditure is spread
against the development. Each lot is assessed a prorated share of the total
cost to develop phase V. The developer is required to provide a letter of
credit in an amount equal to 40% of the total assessment role which the
City can draw on in the event the developer fails to pay any portion of the
annual assessment payment. Under the Cardinal Hills assessment
payment program, each time a single lot is developed and sold, the
developer pays an assessment amount equal to 1 1/2 times the assessment
amount for a single lot. This arrangement has worked well with the
previous phases and has allowed the City to promptly recover its
investment.
The resolutions also include a provision declaring that the City intends on
using proceeds from a future bond sale to reimburse the City for
expenditures relating to installation of utilities.
H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to adopt the resolutions authorizing completion of feasibility
study and declaring intent to reimburse.
Council Agenda - 1/23/95
Council should select this alternative if it is comfortable with
developing utilities on the site under the public improvement process.
Declaring official intent to reimburse gives Council the option of
reimbursing self for all expenses relating to development of the site
through the proceeds obtained from a future bond sale. Based on
previous conversations with Rick, I suspect that he will be
recommending that the City borrow to fund this project.
Motion to deny adoption of the resolutions authorizing completion of
feasibility and declaring intent to reimburse.
This alternative should be selected if Council is no longer comfortable
with utilizing the public improvement to develop phase V. If this
alternative is selected, the developer has the option of completing the
project under a private improvement process, which requires that the
developer fund site development cost. Under this alternative, the
City role is confined to plan review and inspection of utility system
installation.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative ql. As noted in previous agenda items, City
staff prefers to use the public improvement process because it affords a level
of control that assures proper completion of utilities, and the financial
guarantees provided under the development agreement minimize risk
associated with City funding of improvements.
Resolutions; Petition for public improvements.
15
RESOLUTION 95.
RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION
AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
A certain petition requesting the improvement of phase V of the Cardinal
Hills residential subdivision filed with the Council on January 20, 1995, is
hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of
property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035.
The petition is hereby referred to Bret Weise, City Engineer, and he is
instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the
Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is
feasible as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection
with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement
as recommended.
Adopted by the Council this 23rd day of January, 19%.
Mayor
City Administrator
/0
RESOLUTION 95.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO FINANCING OF CERTAIN PROPOSED
PROJECTS TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND
REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL. REVENUE CODE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, (the "City") as follows:
1. Recitals.
(a) The Internal Revenue Service has issued Section 1.103-18 of the Income
Tax Regulations (the "Regulations") dealing with the issuance of bonds,
all or a portion of the proceeds of which are to be used to reimburse the
City for project expenditures made by the City prior to the date of
issuance.
(b) The Regulations generally require that the City make a prior
declaration of its official intent to reimburse itself for such prior
expenditures out of the proceeds of a subsequently issued borrowing,
that the borrowing occur and the reimbursement allocation be made
from the proceeds of such borrowing within one year of the payment of
the expenditure or, if longer, within one year of the date the project is
placed in service, and that the expenditure be a capital expenditure.
(c) The City desires to comply with requirements of the Regulations with
respect to certain projects hereinafter identified.
2. Official Intent Declarat13g.
(a) The City proposes to undertake the following projects described on
Exhibit A attached hereto.
(b) Other than (f) expenditures to be paid or reimbursed from sources other
than a borrowing, or Oil expenditures permitted to be reimbursed
pursuant to the transition provision of Section 1.103-18(1x2) of the
Regulations, or (iii) expenditures constituting preliminary expenditures
as defined in Section 1.103-18(ix2) of the Regulations, no expenditures
for the foregoing projects as identified on Exhibit A have heretofore been
made by the City and no expenditures will be made by the City until
after the date of this Resolution.
Resolution 95 -
Page 2
(c) The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for
costs of the designated projects out of the proceeds of debt (the "Bonds")
to be incurred by the City after the date of payment of all or a portion
of the costs. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures
as defined in Section 1.150-1(h) of the Regulations.
(d) This declaration is a declaration of official intent adopted pursuant to
Section 1.103-18 of the Regulations.
uj3 dggtary Matsers. As of the date hereof, there are no City funds reserved,
allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected
to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside) to provide
permanent financing for the expenditures related to the projects, other than
pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution, therefore, is
determined to be consistent with the City's budgetary and financial
circumstances as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof,
all within the meaning and content of the Regulations.
Filing This resolution shall be filed within 30 days of its adoption in the
publicly available official books and records of the City. This resolution shall
be available for inspection at the office of the City Clerk at the City Hall
(which is the main administrative office of the City) during normal business
hours of the City on every business day until the date of issuance of the Bonds.
BgtLmLutpement Allocations. The City's financial officer shall be responsible
for making the "reimbursement allocations" described in the Regulations, being
generally the transfer of the appropriate amount of proceeds of the Bonds to
reimburse the source of temporary financing used by the City to make payment
of the prior costs of the projects. Each allocation shall be evidenced by an
entry on the official books and records of the City maintained for the Bonds,
shall specifically identify the actual prior expenditure being reimbursed or, in
the case of reimbursement of a fund or account in accordance with Section
1.103-18, the fund or account from which the expenditure was paid, and shall
be effective to relieve the proceeds of the Bonds from any restriction under the
bond resolution or other relevant legal documents for the Bonds, and under
any applicable state statute, which would apply to the unspent proceeds of the
Bonds.
Adopted this 23rd day of January, 1995.
Mayor
City Administrator
io v
Resolution 95 -
Page 3
..wuuot a A
Proiect Descrintioq
Sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer,
bituminous streets, curb & gutter, and
appurtenant work within Cardinal Hills
Phase V, Project 9&W.
Estimated Cost
to be Reimbursed
Erom Bond Proceeds
$374,000
r
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
I (We), the undersigned owner(s) of the property described below
petition for a feasibility study pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429 (Local Improvements, Special Assessments), for the
following improvements:
Please indicate with an % the improvements requested:
_2� _ Sanitary Sewer
X water
X_ Storm Sewer
X Bituminous Surfacing
X Curb and Gutter
Street Lighting
I (We) agree to pay 100% of -the cost of the feasibility study. I
(We) understand the City Council may pro -rate the coat of the
feasibility study attributable to my property if the scope of the
study pertains to other benefiting property owners.
Description of Property: T �►o�� �.ie1: �s /
--"< 4 of 5
Signature of Owner,: 1'�1 AlC'�(X�..--�/
IMPFEAS.PET: 9/16/92
/06-
Council Agenda - Maw
t i . Consideration of selectina consultant to conduct sails correction
studv at the fire hall site. U.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item has been tabled pending further negotiations with two
consultants.
Council Agenda - 1/23/95
12. Consideration to anprove the Amended Land Restpted Assessment
Agreement for the Private Redevelonment Contract between the HM
Ani the Tanners. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you may recall, within the last few months the City Council adopted a
resolution modifying the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-9. The modification
increased the TIF budget by $30,000. The $30,000 site improvement
expenditures will occur with Bill and Barb Tapper's 18,000 aq R expansion this
summer.
In addition, the original Private Redevelopment Contract between the HRA
and the Tappers was agreed upon and amended by both parties. Within the
Private Redevelopment Contract is an Assessment Agreement, and under a
change to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.177, Subd 8, the City Council must
now approve Amended and Restated Assessment Agreement prior to it being
signed and recorded at the County.
The Amended and Restated Assessment Agreement increases the original
minimum market value of $750,000 by $475,000 for a new value of $1,225,000
as of January 2, 1996.
1. A motion to approve the Amended and Restated Assessment Agreement
for the Private Redevelopment Contract between the HRA and the
Tappers.
2. A motion to deny approval of the agreement.
3. A motion to table any action.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As a housekeeping item and to satisfy the requirement of the Minnesota
Statutestaff recommends Alternative Action 01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the agreement; Excerpt of the Statute.
AMENDED AND RESTATED ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the _ day of , )933 by
and between HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of
Minnesota (the "Authority") and WILLIAM R. AND BARBARA R. TAPPER, husband and wife
(collectively, the "Redeveloper").
RECITALS
A. The Authority is administering a redevelopment project (the "Project") pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469.
B. The Authority and the Redeveloper entered into a Contract for Private
Redevelopment dated as of July 13, 1990 (the "Redevelopment Contract") regarding the
redevelopment of certain property located in the Project and legally described in Exhibit A hereto
(the "Property").
C. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Contract the Authority and the Redeveloper entered
into an Assessment Agreement dated . 19_ (the "Original Assessment Agreement") and
filed in the offices of the Wright County Recorder on , 19 as
Document No. . under which the parties thereto established a minimum market value of
$750,000 for the Property and the improvements constructed thereon, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8.
D. The Authority and the Redeveloper have entered into that certain Amendment to
Contract for Private Redevelopment of even date herewith (the "Amendment"), pursuant to which
the parties agreed to enter this Amended and Restated Assessment Agreement
E. The Authority and the Redeveloper have detennined that it is necessary and in the
public interest to amend the Original Assessment Agreement as further provided herein, in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 8.
F. This Agreement has been approved by the City Council of the City of Monticello
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 8.
G. As of the date hereof, the estimated market value of the Redevelopment Property
for the most recently available assessment is equal to or greater than the minimum market value
established by the Original Assessment Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement. in consideration of the promises,
covenants and agreements made by each to the other, do hereby agree as follows:
I. The minimum market value which shall be assessed for the Property described in
Exhibit A, together with the improvements thereon, for ad valorem tax purposes, shall be
$1,225,000 as of January 2, 1996.
sraSuri
MMIV?]I
�Z
2. The minimum market value herein established shall be of no further force and
effect and this Agreement shall terminate on the earlier of the following:
(a) the date of receipt by the Authority of the last tax increments from the tax increment
financing district in which the Property is located. or
(b) February 26, 2000.
3. This Agreement shall be promptly recorded in the Office of the County Recorder,
Wright County by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper shall pay all costs of recording.
4. Neither the preambles nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, not shall
they be construed as, modifying the tants of the Redevelopment Contract or the Amendment
5. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors
and assigns of the parties. This Agreement supersedes the Original Assessment Agreement in
all respects.
6. in the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and
unenforceable by any conn of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render
unenforceable any other provision hereof.
7. This Agreement may not be amended nor any of its terms modified except by a
writing authorized and executed by the parties hereto.
8. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
9. This Agreement shall be governed by and construcd in accordance with the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
10. Nothing herein shall limit the discretion of the Assessor to assign a market value
to the Property and improvements thereon in excess of the minimum market value specified
herein nor prohibit the Redeveloper from seeking through the exercise of local or administrative
remedies a reduction in such market value for property tax purposes, provided however, that the
Redeveloper shall not seek a reduction of such market value below such minimum market value
in any year so long as this Agreement shall remain in effect
SJUISU
MNIM31
1 Zb
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORLTY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO
By:
Its Oair
By:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
Its Executive Director
On this _ day of 1994, before rte, a notary public within and
for Wright County, personally appeared and , the Chair and
Executive Director, respectively, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City
of Monticello, Minnesota (the "Authority") named in the foregoing instrurtxnt and acknowledged
said instrument on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
&MIS=
MNIW31
12 C.0
William R. Tapper
Barbara R. Tapper
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF 1
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day
19_ by William R. Tapper and Barbara R. Tapper, husband and wife.
Notary Public
This document was drafted by:
HOLMES & GRAVEN, Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota SS404
Telephone: 337-9300
siwua
Monaon
ILD
CERTIFICATION BY COUNTY ASSESSOR
The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above described
property, hereby certifies that the values assigned to the land and improvements are reasonable.
County Assessor for the
County of Wright
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acimowledged before me this _ day of
1994 by , the County Assessor of the County of Wright
Notary Public
wanes.
saiou»
Mcg
EXHIBIT A of ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Descriptim of Property
Lot 4, Block 2, OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK according to the recorded plat thereof,
Wright County, Minnesota
uarttn
tawott
IZ F
75
7v ECONOMIC DEVEWIPM. EN't 40.I77
since the date of certification of the district and to the captured net tax capacity of the
adoption of a tax incre•
district in each year thereafter when the abatement relates to improvements made after
district is situated shall,
the date of certification. The county auditor may specify reasonable form and content
city of the tax increment
of the request for certification of the authority and any modification thereof pursuant
plan and shall certify in
to section 469.175, subdivision 4.
x capacity has increased
(h) If a parcel of property contained a substandard building that was demolished
Teny within the district,
or removed and if the authority elects to treat the parcel as occupied by a substandard
to subdivision 4.
building under section 469.174. subdivision 14, paragraph (b), the auditor shall cenifv
ment district the county
the original net tax capacity of the parcel using the greater of (1) the current net tax
is the net tax capacity, if
capacity of the parcel, or (2) the estimated market value of the parcel for the year in
the mined underground
which the building was demolished or removed, but applying the class rates for the cur-
rent year.
vision 3, or parcels added
/Far torr u% suds la to 7, see M.S. 19921
lerseetton 273.13 ofprop.
mlft'rtnt assessment ratio,
Subd. 8. Assessment agreements. An authority may enter into a written assessment
mused at the time when
agreement with any person establishing a minimum market value of land, existing
ai6ed in the same class in
improvements, or improvements to be constructed in a district, if the property is owned
or will be owned by the person. The minimum market value established by an assess-
pta9ty of the district as a
ment agreemem may be fixed, or increase or decrease in later years from the initial
maria becoming taxable
minimum market value. [fan agreement is fully executed before July I ofan assessment
assessed pursuant to
year, the market value as provided under the agreement must be used by the count.
ca prior to the date
or local assessor as the taxable market value of the property for that assessment. Agrm-
year
tapuit-v assessed by the
menisexecuted on or after Juiy t of an assessment year become effective for assessment
purposes in the following assessment year. An assessment agreement terminates on the
amens were made to
earliest of the date on which conditions in the assessment agreement for termination
loci becomes tax exempt,
are satisfied, the termination date specified in the agreement, or the date when tax incre-
through foreclosure
ment is no longer paid to the authority under section 469.176, subdivision 1. The
t or as a result of tax
assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor, or city assessor having
ty of the district as a
the powers of the county assessor, of the jurisdiction in which the tax increment linanc-
dthe parcel's value that
ing district and the propcn) that is the subject of the agreement is located. The a»cuui
certihcd. The amount
shall review the plain and specifications for the improvements to be constructed.
s result of enlargements
review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvcmcnis
recently certified by the
are to be constructed and, so longas the minimum market value contained in the assess -
its increment financing
ment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate,
shall execute the following certification upon the agreement:
3, or parcels added
of a propeny increases
The undersigned assessor. being legally responsible
gncultural property tax
for the assessment of the above described property.
av, section 273,1 1 _, or
certifies that the market values assigned to
bite se planed, union
the land and improvements are reasonable.
plat under section
the pl
The assessment agreement shall be filed for record and recorded in the office of the
added to the original
county recorder or the registrar of titles of each county where the real estate or any pan
thereof is situated. After the agreement becomes effective for assessment purposes, the
capacity of each era
assessor shall value the property under section 273.11, except that the market value
to capacity for the pre•
inmarket
assigned shall not be less than the minimum morket value established by the assessment
value of all
agreement. The assessor may assign a market value to the property in excess of the
ft five to
minimum market value evabjuhcd by the assessment agreement. The owner of the
)cars prior
property may seek. through the cwrcisc of administrative and legal remedies. a reduc.
tion in market value for property tax purposes, but no city assessor, county assessor,
ttpuity of the district
county auditor, board of review, board of equalization, commissioner of revenue, or
Dxoming tax exempt,
court of this state shall grant a reduction of the market value below the minimum mar.
maatnt of original net
ket value established by the assessment agreement during the term of the agreement
an or being removed
filed of record regardless of actual market values which may result from incomplete
the tax increment
construction of improvements, destruction, or diminution by any cause. insured or
t, stipulation agree-
uninsured. cxcrpt in the case of aequnitton or reacquisition of the propeny by a public
order of the commis-
entity. Recording an assessment agreement constitutes notice of the agreement to ony-
rxt tax capacity of the
one who acquires any interest in the land or improvements that is subject to the assess.
oaI been improved
ment agreement, and the agreement is binding upon them.
ISG
- 41100es. a . a=re'. .,a..
469.177 ECONOMIC 00 ELUPNIL%T so
An assessment agreement may be modified or terminated by mutual consent of the
current panics to the agreement. Modification or termination of an assessment agree-
ment must be aperoved by the govcrnlnR bodv of the mynicioality. If the estimated
market value for the property for the most recently available assessment is less than the
minimum market value established by the assessment agreement for that or any later
year and if bund counsel docs not conclude that termination of the agreement is neces-
sary to preserve the tai exempt status of outstanding bonds or refunding bonds to be
issued. the modification or termination of the assessment agreement also must be
approved by the governing bodies of the county and the school district. A document
modifying or terminating an agreement. including records of the municipality, county.
and school district approval• must be filed for record. The assessor's review and cenrfi.
cation is not required if the document terminates an agreement. A change to an agree-
ment not lull% esecuted before July I of an assessment year is not effective for
assessment purpows for that assessment year. If an assessment agreement has been
modified or prematurely terminated, a person may seek a reduction in market value
or tax through the exercise of any administrative or legal remedy. The remedy may not
provide for reduction of the market value below the minimum provided under a modi-
fied assessment agreement that remains in effect. in no event may a reduction be sought
for a year other than the current taxes payable year.
/For tent of subds 9 and 10. sec .N.S.199;1
Histon: 1994 c i73 art II s 17,18
469.1931 NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS; FIRST CLASS
CITIES.
1For rest of subds I to 3. see .sf.S.1994
Subd. s. Proarum mnne); distribution and restrictions. (a) Neighborhood recital•
irauon program money may only be espcnded In accordance with the program for a
_ purpose listed to subdivision 3 or this subdivision. Program money may not be used
in those project areas of the city where the city determine that private investment will
be sufficient to provide for development and redevelopment of the project area without
public sector assistance, except in cases where program money is being used to remove
tl or rehabilitate structurally substandard or obsolete buildings. Revenues denied from
tas increments may only be espcnded for the purposes otherwise permitted by law,
eseept that notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the city must pay at (cast the fol.
,M fuss utgamount of prugram mune), including resenucsdenved from tax Increments. ( I )
15 perkent to the whool district, (-s) 7.3 percent to the county, and (3) 7.5 percent fur
social services. Payment must be made to the county and school district within 15 days
after the city receives the distribution of increment revenues, provided that the pay-
ment
ayment for calendar year 1990 may be made at any time during the year. Payment to the
county for social services delivery shall be paid only after approval of program and
spending plans under paragraph (b). Payment to the school district for education pro.
grams and services shall be paid only atter approval of program and spending plans
under paragraph (b)
a (b) The money distributed to the county In a calendar year must be deducted from
_ the county's levy limit for the following calendar year. In calculating the county's levy
limit base for later years, the amount deducted must be treated as a local government
x• aid payment.
The city must notify the commissioner of education of she amount of the payment
made to the school dmrici for the )car. The commissioner shall deduct from the whoul
district's state educanun aid payments one-half of the amount reeetsed by the school
dutnct.
The program money paid to the school district must be expended for additional
education programs and services in accordance with the program. The amounts
,11
S � expended by the school district may not replace existing services.
12.0
Council Agenda - V23/95
Consideration of uogradine uniforms for public works emnlovees
W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello provides five uniforms per public works employee per
week. The uniforms are rented from Unitog, who also launders them. With
five uniforms, the employees are essentially allowed to change uniforms
twice a week, wearing one uniform for two days and the other uniform for
three days, as there are always a certain number of uniforms out of the five
being laundered. The basic five sets of uniforms, or two changes a week,
cost the City $166.40 per year per employee. A seasonal change from short
sleeves to long sleeves adds another $20.80, for a total of $187.20.
Almost all the employees don't wear the same uniform for two or three
days. In the summertime, the odors would get quite strong. Many of the
employees wash some of their uniforms at home; however, the temperatures
required to get the uniforms clean are not available in a home laundry
system. The temperatures needed to remove pathogens for sewer workers
are much higher, and also to get out oils and stains from various public
works duties requires higher temperatures. Our shop mechanic pays out of
his own pocket for the additional changes so he can have a clean uniform
each day.
The City has changed uniform companies at least 3 times in the last 15
years. We are currently having problems with Unitog Rental Services out of
Minneapolis in regard to the cleanliness of the uniforms and the condition
which they allow the uniforms to degrade to prior to replacement. In
addition, we seldom receive now uniforms for replacements, and they often
have places where patches have been ripped off or sewed -up holes in them
when we got them in the beginning. We have checked with another firm,
G & K Services, out of Waite Park, Minnesota. They provide uniforms to
several companies in the area, as well as Professional Services Group.
Their minimum service is seven uniforms, or three changes per week. Thir
will mean employees have to wear the same uniform for two days out of the
week. They have indicated their service to be more appropriate as a
minimum service, as it allows them to keep the uniforms in better
condition. Using a cotton pant and blend shirt, the yearly cost per employee
would be $226.20. This company also offers a multi -colored logo that can be
attached to our shirts or hate to identify employees as City of Monticello
employees. The cost of the logo is $2 each. Previously, Unitog'a cost of a
similar patch logo was about $6 each, so we did not pursue obtaining them.
Council Agenda - 1/23/95
To provide eleven sets of uniforms, or five changes per week, which would
be a uniform for every day, would cost $312 per employee per year as a base
rate. In preparation for a switch in uniforms this year, we have placed an
amount of $300 per employee in the 1995 budget. In addition, we did a
small survey of nearby communities to see how they handle uniforms for
employees. The survey is enclosed for your review, along with a quote from
G & K Services.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to continue to allow the public works
department to choose its own uniform company but stick with the
same basic service we have now, two changes per week, at a current
cost of $187.20 per employee per year (including seasonal changes).
2. The second alternative would be to allow the upgrade to three
changes per week at a base rate of $226.20 per employee per year.
The City would also pick up the $2 city logo charge per shirt and the
$.17 per shirt seasonal change.
3. The third alternative would be to allow the upgrade to five changes
per week at a base cost of $338 per employee plus an initial charge of
$2 per shirt for the city logo, and a $.17 per shirt seasonal change.
4. The fourth alternative would be to switch to four changes per week at
a yearly cost of $286.
5. The fifth alternative could be to set a limit or cap for the annual
uniform cost per employee such as the current budget of $300.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The upgrade or changing of uniforms has been a topic of conversation over
the past few years. We have looked at many different possibilities,
including owning our own uniforms and having washers and dryers at a
specific location such as the fire hall. We've always gotten back to the
rental rates are the most economical way to deal with the uniform question,
and especially the idea of having contaminants from the sewer system in
the clothing and getting out stains such as grease and oil. A laundry
service is the only way to handle it.
Council Agenda - 1/23/95
The five changes per week would allow each employee a clean uniform every
day; consequently, you would be assured that those employees would be
wearing the City uniform and logo. For the supervisors, a leaser amount of
uniforms could be provided since they don't tend to get the uniforms as
dirty and often wear street clothes for meetings and such. There is a
benefit to both the City and the employee for the uniforms; also in the
future, it will be mandatory for the sewer workers not to take a
contaminated uniform home with them, so they may have to change at work
no matter what. We probably should already be providing five changes per
week for those three employees.
The City Administrator and I met before he left and felt that we should
make some upgrades and that alternative #2, which allows three changes
per week, was certainly within reason as a minimum service. The small
survey that we did of other communities shows a range of uniform benefits
provided. This was completed after Rick left. Almost all cities provide more
than just uniforms; however, the city of Buffalo provides lesser uniform
benefits. It would not be unreasonable to provide five changes based upon
the survey.
The Council basically needs to decide how important the wearing of the
uniforms and identification is for public works employees. If you provide
less than five changes per week, it is expected that the employees will not
be wearing uniforms at times simply because their uniforms are in the
wash. There are sufficient finds available in the 1995 budget Ar five
changes per week for the seven hourly employees and three to four changes
per week for the four salaried employees.
A. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of survey; Copy of quote from G & K Services; Copy of reference list
Rum G & K.
20
UNIFORM SURVEY
(As of January 19. 1995)
ELK RNIM
1. 3 changes per week (7 uniforms)
2. Hata with city logo
3. 5 coveralls
4. 2 Jackets
5. 1 winter car hart coverall and coat
1. Hate with city logo
2. Public Works Director working on adding uniforms
1. 5 changes per week (11 uniforms)
2. 3 Jackets
3. Hate with city logo
4. 1 winter cost
075EpQ
1. 5 changes Der week (11 uniforms)
2. 2 coveralls
3. 2 coats
Bill 1A
1. 3 changes per week (7 uniforms)
2. 2 coveralls
3. 2 Jackets
1. 2 changes per week (5 uniforms)
I C"
IELK RNER
IBUFFALO
BECKER
OTSEOO
IWO LAKE
IMONTK:ELLO
MATS
wwTH
CTTV LOOO
X
x
x
UNIFORM SURVEY
W o1 January 19, IBM
2 9 6
CHANGES OMANSES CHANGES COVERALLS COATS
x x x
x
x
x
x
JACKETS
x
x
x
J
G&K Services
lPa�Wis Park. MN 3e37
61:52.7130G
FAX 6121252.1091
Galt Price Proposal for
CITY OF M ONTICFI I A
January 19, 1994
Attn: John Simola
We appreciate the opportunity to discuss your interest in G&K Services. G&K
Services is committed to providing a quality level of service at a competitive
price. Please review the following pricing structure that will be offered to
You.
I%
Garments
(3 changes, 100% cotton)
Shirt $
Pant 8
(4 changes, 100% cotton)
Shirt $
Pant y
(5 changes, 100% cotton)
Shirt
Pant 182 go a
(3 changes, 65/35 blend)
Shirt
Pant $
(4 changes, 65/35 blend) 92.
Shirt g3% 9
Pant�- S
(5 changes, 85/35 blend)
Shirt IIs(,
Pant iX
Shop Towels
Coveralls
100% Cotton
65/35 Blend
Charges
Soasonal Changeover 0
Prep Charge
Namotag
Embloms
Prtee
.75 F 111 YR
.725
.725
.70
.70
f e
.70-44--
.70 704—.70
.65
.65
.60
.60
$ .07(.30 deposit)
a 1.70
1.50
.17/shirt (85/35 blend) "per shirt
.20/shirt (100% cotton) per day"
Will wave initial set-vpi
Will wave initial set-upi
S 2.00 each (Because they
are made specifically
for your account.)
1 am confident that G&K Services can provide you with the level of service you
desire. We look forward to establishing s strong and productive working
relationship. Plouuo givo mo a call if i ten answer any questions.
150r ly,
l4�1c�
Sa1oo Representative
Textile Wttlbgsystenle 13 Co
Gi
&K Services
120, PrPerww Drive
W.- . MN 0367
at2M.713D
at FAX 812M2.1091
References:
Hi Way Liquor
Moon Motor Sales
The Skillet Cafe
Ryan Chev
Morrie's Buffalo Ford
City of Little Falls
Alexandria Park Dept.
Alex. Street Dept.
City of Braham
City of Bartell
City of Long Prairie
City of Foley
,3a
Texdla teasing SIV W '
OWC FINANCIAL SY;TEM
01/08/95 19:5.6x06
ARRANT DAT£ VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
17006 12/30/94 PAGE LINK
37006 12/30/94 PAGE LINK
37091: 12/30/94 PAGE LINK
i730G 12/30/94 PAGE LINK
37_.96 12130/94 PAGE LINK
37496 12/30/94 PAGE LINK
.,,7996 12/30/94 PAGE LINT(
117G90 12/30/94 PAGE LINK
)7991; 1:2/30/94 PAGE LINK
77000 12/30/94 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL
77009 12/30/94 rOPV DUPLCATINS PROU
791n 12/)0/94 LARSON'S ACE HAROWAR
^1:")10 1?/I0/94 LA"OW S AVE HARDWAk
31Qtr! 1''/30(1)4 LAROON'S ACE FIARDWAR
37910 In/30(94 LARSON'S ACe HAROWAR
'7910 1?/30/94 LAR�,I7NIP, ACE HARDWAR
37910 12/10/14 LARSON", ACE HARPWAR
!'310 1?/�10/94 (.ARSON'!; AQL HAROWAR'
L ':i�51) 1r/;10/04 LAR50N'.i ACE FiARDWAR
Ti itl It r, 1?/)0194 LAREDN''f, A''C HARDWAR
: 71) 10 12/.10/04 LAVE ON 4 G ACE HARDWAR
DIr!10 1''/10/'14 LAR5ON'u ACE MAROWAR
I1s)10 1-/JO/94 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR
J 1910 LARf,ON' S AGE HARDWAR
t`.1�1 12/30/94 LAR'J0N' 9 ACE HARDWAR
`14)i t 12/30/04 MAUI; FOODS
%91MAOt) 1`40171`.;
1311 1,v/J0/04 NAUt; 100r)L;
?'1'711 1;1/1004 MAIMS FOtlli
1311 19/1U/'34 MAIIG FOODf
tt)1 ` t<>/::^.0(74 M1+0A M010W ^AL1: IN
1`)i 1;+/J6/96 NCk11ILf,N ;TAT(-, OW
U/O4 11t1Q111Lrt11 fI AI1.:+ P4t1I
0!')4 t11Ii;I14F:t 11 ,,TArt 1'0Wt•
N.'; 114LI.N ;,JAI1 fa>W;
11•K
,') t t't i J41t i4 11'1! lit!: � .1ili' tr t •w,
711. 111 ;Ar! t t1!
Di0bursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C
703
CHECK
VOIDED
42.60rR
103
CHECK
VOIDED
21.)OCR
703
CHECK
VOIDED
74.SOCR
703
CHECK
VOIDED
21.30CN
703
CHECK
VOIDED
21.)DCR
703
CHECK
VOIDED
21.30CR
703
CHECK
VOIDED
21.30CR
703
CHECK
VOIDED
21.30CR
703
CHECK
VOIDED
7.87rR
VC
J PEST COMT'ROL/LIERARY 4G.86
4I COPY EACH MTC/LIBWARY 54,140
074 MISC SUPPLIES/ANIMAL G 45.07
974 OLD MTC SUPPLIEVPARK: 40.04
974 MISC iA)PPtIE5/PARKA ?7.1?
074 OLD REPAIR SUP/;HO11G GA 2.;;+5
974 MIS( SUPPLIEr,/PW CHOP 1^.57
074 MISC SUPPLIES/WATER SO 19. it°i
074 NIOC tMOPLIUSIDEP REG 2D 42
874 MISC SWP/GTREETS 6 . a B
074 OLD MTC/SHOP A GAR ?.4,40
074 REPAIRS/WHTP 9.03
074 MIX SUPPLIES/Sf--WER GO 14.?0
074 YGUIP REPAIR PART'(/;1110 20. Ci)
974 CLEANING SUP/tAB RARY 7.07
074 OLD REPAIt2 PART:/LI(IRAR 4.173
27,73
100 SHOP t) GAR OIIPPLTCG , 1 7 .) i
100 POP/r'ARttf4C()NCFc;,IQv 1nG.`+O
100 CITU HAIR ';tiPPLIC`, 95.02
1U0 Di:P R£6 CI CANMO !!UP 18..711
100 LIURARY (L.LANING ,141) ?0.07
P 0 1 .117
14P OA!. ,MAOF IRIF 0. OC,
140 U17LIYICC, 4,1',);.,'3`I
160 91I1.dYY1':., ('I(;. is
16J Iii lt111(5 11).14
it,I UI I7Ifit5 9J').
140 11131 11'11..: ; J.l.
tut 1111 LI't,
flTft'
nc,
m
7
BRC' FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/06/95 15:56:06
l
IiARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37914 12/30/94 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS
3'1915 12/30/94 OLSON P SONS ELECTRI
37915 12/30/94 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
37915 12/30/94 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
;7915 12/30/94 OL,ON F, SONS ELECTRI
:7915 12/30/94 OLSON F SONG ELECTRI
J7SIG 12/30/94 PAGE LINK
37916 12/30/94 PAGE LINK
:;7916 12/30/94 PAGE LINK
1016 12/30/94 PAGE LINK
J191G 12/30/84 PAGF LINK
7916 12/30/94 PAGE I. INK
379.1E 13/30/94 VAGE LINK
7819 1:'t/30/94 PAGE LINK
37717 1^/30/44 PAKK EQUPMENT COMPAN
37018 12/30/94 PC7ERSEN'3 MONT FORD
=;%Jfl1n 12/30/04 PF.TERGLN'3 MONT FOkO
)7910 12/30/94 PITNEY BOWES
)70:20 12/30/94 VA9KO kUODIEH REMOVA
"71920 12/30/04 VA;KO RUBB IGH REMOVA
7Jn,11 t'j/30/fl4 WATCRPRO OUPPLICO CO
GFUERAL rHECKIN5
C
Oisbursemont Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C
G50 PLAN 8 200 PROF SER 1.214.50
160 LAMP BULB/PARKS DEPT 24.07
160 REPLACEMENT BULBS/LIBR 47.:61
160 EMERGENCY LIGHT/FIRE 200.04
160 3 BULBS/CITY HALL 115.02
160 XMAS LITES/TIME CLOCK 154.03
541.97 Cr
703 PAGER CHARGES 42.6D
703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30
703 PAGER CHARGES 14.G0
703 PAGER CHARGES ?1.30
703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30
703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30
703 PAGER CHARGE) 21.30
703 PAGER CHARGEU 21.30
194.30 a�
104 STECL/1;TREET DEPT 7.67 0
165 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STRUE GO.52
165 FIRE DEPT VEHICLE REP 259.58
310.11 n�
1GO RED INK/P03TAGE MACHIN 07.56
924 GAKDAOC CONTRACT/DL 8,Y7n.0a
594 5ALE0 TAX/GARDAGE CON G18.21
10,309.03 ai
070 RENTAL/POWEP. HEA13/HAT 146.01
TOTAL ^4,UJ0.0?
w
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
1l12/28/94 12:22:30
`—RRANT DALE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37922 01/02/95 BUSINESS RECORDS COR
37923 01/02/95 FOSTER-FRANZEN-CARLS
37924 01/02/95 HERMES/JERkY
37925 01/02/95 MN ANIMAL CONTROL AS
37926 01/02/95 MONTICELLO AGENCY, I
37927 01/02/95 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
37928 01/02/95 MONTICELLO SENIOR Cl
37929 01/02/95 NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE
37930 01/02/95 NORTH STAR CHAPTER
37931 01/02/95 QUINLAN PUBLISHING C
GENERAL CHECKING
c
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
27 SOFTWARE UPDATE 8,546.01
61 NAME SCHEDULE BOND 50.00
81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50
117 MEMBERSHIP DUES/ANIMAL 25.00
132 SURETY BOND 50.00
185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00
139 JANUARY CONTRACT PV 2-,833.33
424 DEP REG SUBSCRIPTION 47.00
1.50 MEMBERSHIP DUES/BLD IN 45.00
177 SUBSCRIPTION/BLD INSPE 63.78
TOTAL 10,987.62
CLi
0
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
^1/10/95 16:51:55
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
37932
0'1/09/95
U.S. POSTMASTER
210
POSTAGE/DEP REG
215.42
37933
01/09/95
MN MUNICIPAL BOARD
397
ANNEXATION FEE/RIVER
M 74.00
37934
01/09/95
MN COMMERCE DEPARTME
511
NOTARY RENEWAL FEE/DOT
16.00
37935
01/09/95
WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU
875
MTC AGRMT FEE/DEP REG
19.12
37935
01/08/85
WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU
875-
MTC AGRMT FEE/PARKS
311.95
51.07
37936
01/09/95
WOLFSTELLER/RICHARD
217
•FY•
25.12
37937
01/10/95
CENTRAL MCGOWAN, INC
30
=FY*
21.51
37938
OV/10/95
COMPRESS AIR & EQUIP
356'
*FV*
107.98
37939
01/10/95
GOVERN FINANCE OFFIC
71
MEMBERSHIP DUES/RICK
110.00
31940
01/10/95
HERMES/JERRY
81
LIBRARY CLEANING CONT
227.,50
37941
01/10/95
HOGLUND COACH LINES
483
*FY*
5,110.74
37942
01/10/85
HOLIDAY INN NEW ULM
.90361
TRAVEL EXPENSE/B STUMP
$8.00
37043
01/10/95
J P COOKE COMPANY
479
DOG TAGS/ANIMAL CONTRO
68.00
37944
01/10/95
JOERG/STEVE
877
•FV*
370.00
37948
01/10/95
KRAMBER & ASSOCIATES
888
ASSESSING CONTRACT
1,245.83
37848
01/10/85
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
98
REG FEES/B STUMPF
125.00
37847
01/10/95
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INS
878
*FY*
102.00
37948
01/10/95
MARCO BUSINESS PRODU
106
TYPEWRITER MTC AGRM/C
78.00
31949
01/10/95
MN DEPART OF REVENUE
119
*FY•
0.33CR
37049
01/10/95
MN DEPART OF REVENUE
119
•FV•
107.49
37949
01/10/98
MN DEPART OF REVENUE
118
WFV*
1,222.79
37948
01/10/85
MN DEPART OF REVENUE
110
•FY«
28.05
1,358.00
37050
01/10/95
MN DEPARTMENT OF HEA
295
*FY•
2,102.00
37951
01/10/95
MN 3G/400 USER GROUP
300
MEMBERSHIP OUEG/USER
G 80.00
97052
01/10/05
MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
105
ANIMAL CONTROL CONT
1,100.00
*Cl
ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/10/95 16:51:55
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37953 01/10/95 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
37953 01/10/95 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
37954 01/10/95 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
37955 01/10/95 STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGI
37956 01/10/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
37956 01/10/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
37957 01/10/95 Y.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO
GENERAL CHECKING
c
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C
173 FIRE HALL CLEANING CON 50.00
i73 CITY HALL CLEANING CO 400.00
450.00 «C
175 WWTP CONTRACT PAYM 32,926.08
876 1995 MTC AGRMT/DEP RE 639.00
2:9 SHERIFFS CONTRACT 24.469.58
219 *FY• 6,886.55
31,356.13 •C
224 CONTRACT PAYMENT 625.00
TOTAL 78,700.38
SRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/18/95 09:4-7:08'
ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37958 O t/ 13/95 PUBLICORP, INC.
37959 01/13/95 MN STATE TREASURER'
37860 0,1/13/95 NORNEST BANK MINNESO
37961 01/t3/95 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
37962 01/13/95, MN DEPART OF NATURAL
37963 01/13/95 SENSIBLE LAND USE CO
77963 01/13/85 SENSIBLE LAND USE CO
37904 01/13/95 PI22A FACTORY
37965 01/18/95 A T & T INFO SYSTEMS
37966 01/tO/96 A.E. MICHAELS
3790 01/18/95 ANDERSON/GARY
37068 01/10/95 B a O'PLUMRTNG & NEA
379$9" 01'/18/95 CULLIGAN
?7970 01/18/95 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE
J77f71 01/10/95 GERALD HELLMAN CONGT
31977 01/18/95 GLEASON PRINTING, IN
X7073 01/18/98 GRIOOR CONSTRUCTION,
27974 01/10/95 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER
37975 01/10/95 LEAGUC OF MINNFSOTA
37976 01/1045 MCOOWALL COMPANY
79970 01/10/05 MCUOWALL COMV'ANY
;'07G 01/10/05 MCDOWALL (CMPANY
',1977 01/10/05 MINNE6ASCO
7977 01/10/95 MINN F6 l'1
'`i0'17 01/10/05 MINNEGA;,LO
:;177 O1/1;;/1)5 MINNEuA';CO
^7977 01/10/06 MINNL6Af-('0
;7017 (11/10/9') MINN61:A';C0
)7077 01/10/95 WINNEGAGC()
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL
879 REG F'EE/OLLIE K/SEMIN 150.00
262*F Vs 2.14'0.12
154 GO SO AGENTS FEE 200.00
98 REF FEE/TOM PERAULT 125'.00
118 WATER & SNOW REG 592.00
883 REG FEE/SEMINAR/OLL1E 35.00
883 REG FEE/SEMINAR/JEFF 0 35.60
70.00 *Cf
882 PIZZA/CITY COUNCIL MTG 62.50
15 FIRE PHONE CHARGES 27.60
338 *FV* 37.90
11 TRAVEL EXPENSE 7.50
000 REPAIRS/DEP REG 81.0 96.00
753 WATER SOFTNER CHG/RENT 23.11
510 *FY* 31.096.00
806 =( Y* 11, coo. 00
049 BLO INSP FORMO/?NOTICE 137.GG
105 *FY* 10.413.10
449 MEMBERSHIPS OUF-,/GARY 20,00
90 LL ArUE DIRECTORIES 4'i.G0
111 -FY* 1,?40.54
111 *1:Y* 323.04
111 *PV* 414.24
1.97:). J a
77? *F Y* 260.05
712 *V Y* 801.06
77? *F Y* 21). 1G
7'1! *t V* I.'29
712 *F Y* 1),11. 10
771? *V Y* 351).67
772 *� Y* . ,b00.'10
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/18/95 09:4.7:08
JAkRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING^
37P77 01/18/95 MINNEGASCO
37978 01/18195 MN RECREATION & PARK
37979 01/18/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37979 01/18/95 NORTHERN STATES PORE
37900 01/18/95 ONE CALL CONCEPTS. I
37981 01/19/95 PAUL A WALDRON A ASS
0190? 01/18/95 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET
97983 01/18/95 REACH EQUIPMENT
37964 01/18/95 TELXON CORPORATION
37005 01/18/95 WRIGHT COUNTY MAYOR'
GENERAL CHECKING
c
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
772 *FY-* 60.07
3.573.,29
8@1 MEMBERSHIP DUES/PARKS 180•.00
148, UTILI-TIES 27'.4.8
148 UTILITIES 3,0.88
58.18
836 ;FY* 48.00
830 *FY* 278.00
176 *FY* 67.00
705 BUCKET RENTAL/XMAS LI 244.95
042 MTC AGRMT/RECYCLING S $85.20
220 1995 MAYORS DUES 150.00
TOTAL 25,4GE*.39
870.43 *1;
I.a011UR F11NtJ 10'w At. 30,280.03
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/17!93
16:39::09
Disbursement Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
C
C
LIQUOR FUND
17915
0-1/14/95
DAHLHEI MER DISTRIBUT
800009
'EFY*
1'3,7111.,90
17915
01/'14%95
DAHLHEIMER OIST:RIBUT
800009
*FY*
206.95
13-,_920.85
*G
67916
01/14/95
MINNEGASCO
800160
xFY'*
201.08
17917
01/14/95
CONSOLIDATED COMM DI
800163
*'FY*
39.25
17918
01/14/95
OLSON &,SONS EL'ECTRI
600036
*FY*
16.10
17819
01/14/95
MN DEPT Of PUBLIC SA
800125
RETAILERS BUYERS CARD 70.00
17920
01/14/95
JOHN."N BROS WHOLFRA
600022
WINE PURCHASE 95
1,573.98
17921
01/14/95
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800180
94 CREDIT
86.55CR
17921
01/14/95
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800180
94 CREDIT
17.86CR
17921
01/14/95
PHILLIP$ WINE & SPIR
600180
LIQUOR PURCHASE 95
2,630.87
17921
01/14/95
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800180
WINE PURCHASE 95
896.30
9,4'22.76
ac
11922
01/14/95
NORTHWEST CARPET & U
600179
CARPET CLEANING 95
26,6.2$
17923
01/14/95
U S WEST COMMUNTCATI
800093
ADVE'RTISNG 95
27.50
17924
01/14/95
LIEFERT TRUCKING
800025
*FY*
624.11
l
`y
9,925
01/17/95
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
000012
WINE PURCHASE 05
557.53
17926
01/17/95
PLAHERTY'S HAPPY TYM
800091
CREOIT/MIKES/1983
31.DOCR
17926
01/1)/96
FLANERTY'£ HAPPY TVM
800081
*f Y*
267.50
230.00
*c.
17027
01/17/95
GRIGGS, COOPER b COM
000010
LIQUOR PURCHASE 85
1,313.49'
17920
01/17/96
GRO;ULEIN OEVERAG(i 1900010
OECR PURCHASE 95
4,,750.10
17029
01/17/05
JERRY HE'LLMAN CONOTR
800140
LIQUOR CAGE/IMPROVEME ?25.00
17930
01/1)/95
JOHNCON OROS WHOLESA.600022
WINF. PURCHASE 05
3.62.00
17,130
01/17/05
JOHNSON BROO WHOLEQA
000022
LIQUOR PURCHAGE 05
009.04
1,172.43
*C
17931
01/119 5
MN JAYCEES
000100
ADVEkTI`rING 95
35.00
17991
01 11 91
PAU:3711 E 00N'l
000103
WING PU4'CHACE O)
501.73
17bD7
01/17/00
QUAI-ITY WINF Q 'P1RI
000040
WINE CP.EOIT 94
Vl.ticcQ
1/'))J
01/17/95
WIIALITY WINE G `iPIRI
000040
LIOUOR CNEI)IT O4
1,041.1Citn
17033
01/17/90
QUALITX WINL & GP1RI
800040
WINE PUPiNASE 05
700.92
17033
01/17/09
QUALITY WINL• S CPIRI
800040
LIQUOR PURCHASC 95
1,219.07
CL
IOU17R POND
870.43 *1;
I.a011UR F11NtJ 10'w At. 30,280.03