The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 02-27-1995a AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, February 87, 1898 - 6 p.m. Mayor. Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Call to order. Discussion of alternatives for expansion of the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant. Adjournment. Monticello WWTP Hydraulic Capacity Phase 2 Upgrade 2-- 1.8- 1.6- -- 1.8-1.6- Phase 1 Upgrade 1.4- 1.2 .4-1.2 - Imerirn Imarovemems 1 J 0.8 - it 0.6- .8- 0.4- 0.4- 0.2- 0.2- 0 0 g I g I g I �gtg g I g I g I g I I 1 1 1 . vow WTP Capacity —Average Wet Weather Flow � i.'o :.rc J••T •, -- 1 too. ,. {Tad SLUM lOlattQr {Tana MONTICELLO. M. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PACLITV PLAN TRICKLMa FLTER/ACTIVATED SLUDGE ALTERNATME PNAISM PIAN LEGEND unnuo ruun¢t uruiuo .wua , a t cotnT.ano. -r[. tro rw.w rmuim ouio rtT rraa umtrim maimi- WIN. nnm -ruurTut oTmriuuo.co III wuw _ amnia 1sT wuv dmNISSIO[o -FAflllint no nuw .1. All r111LL 6attIRL , 11 `caw lana ra.a i � t11c11m1 i t 1 C:D\ 1 1� 1 t 1D. ' ` l traaSLUM i 1 010[1x01 00"m / 1 1 MONTICELLO. MM. WASTEWATER TRlArKMT PLANT FACILITY VLA" ACTIVATED eLUOOE ALTERRATIVE IPMASM PLAN LEOEMO Q(11111"0 .raClL11111 unarm solsrwsrla _Ir. t"o owu ratan.. _Ulall"0 molrlm 0001110 Ifr was[ 1"x1101 .1t11D RI Cabr vla1 Sray, IIR] ---DItr w1a51 - 01agI11a1 Isl n1.0 DEMNIUKWO _PKIWI11 too rwu I (20%) Total 620,000 17,090,000 I 4,240,000 )-=&MaM%WNC%vW"TW a' Monticello, MN Wastewater Treatment Plan, . Summary of Phasing Plan Trickling Fitter/Activated Sludge Alternative Interim Phase I Phase II 1. Preliminary Treatment 350,000 2. Raw Pumping____ _ 80,000 70,000 3. Primary Clarifiers 350,000 50,000 300,000 4. #. Yard Piping- - N - - A- - 190;000 S. Trickling Filter 420,000 420,000 S. Intermediate Clarifler/Pumping 601000 7. Activated Sludge 90,0.00_ 390,000 8. Final Clarifier 1,000,000 9. Sludge Pumping Facility 700,000__ 10. Disinfection 100,000 11. DAF Thickener 390,000 12. Sludge Storage 720,000 13. Existing Digester Renovation 880,000 14. Replace Pumps/Blowers 90,000 15. Demolition 30,000 18. Electrical/Mechanical 400,000 260,000 17. Interim Improvements 110,900 18. Odor Control 1,400,000 Subtotal, Construction Cost 460,900 5,250,000 3,140,000 Contingencies (15%) 69,100 790,000 470,000 Engineering, Legal, Administrative 90,000 1,050,000 630,000 (20%) Total 620,000 17,090,000 I 4,240,000 )-=&MaM%WNC%vW"TW Monticello, MN Wastewater Treatment Plant Summary of Phasing Ptan . Activated Sludge Alternative'` Interim Phase I Phase II 1. Preliminary Treatment 350,000 2. Raw Pumping_ 80,000 70,000 3. Primary Clarifiers 350,000 50,000 300,000 4. Yard Piping 210,000 5. Activated Sludge 480,000 290,000 6. Final Clarifiers 1,000,000 7. Sludge Pumping Facility 700,000 S. Disinfection 100,000 9. DAF Thickener 390,000 10. Sludge Storage 720,000 720,000 11. Existing Digester Renovation 880,000 v 12. Replace Pumps/Blowers 90,000 13. Demolition 30,000 14. Electrical/Mechanical 630,000 30,000 15. Interim Improvements 110,900 16. Odor Control 1,300,000 Subtotal, Construction Cost 460,900 6,910,000 1,410,000 Contingencies (15%) 69,100 1,000,000 210,000 Engineering, Legal, Administrative 90,000 1,380,000 280,000 (20%) _ Total 620,000 9,290,000 1,900,000 1. 2. 3. Monticello, MN Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives Trickling Filter/Activated Activated Sludge Sludge Treatment Capability a) Process able to meet Yes effluent limitations b) Odor control High requirements Operational Flexibility ^Ability a) to handle "shock" Good loadings b) Level of operator skill High required. c)_ Number of unit processes 8 Financial Considerations a) Annual equivalent cost $1,510,620 b) Total Capital Cost $11,950,000 Required c) Estimated Operational $503,000 Cost JVn&w%CML%M=L wn.ln Yes Medium Fair - High 6 - $1,591,982- $11,810,000 $536,000 � Monticello, Mn. Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan -Recommended Interim Improvements Recommended Short-term Action Budgetary Estimate $1AW Primary Clarifier Construct I new 45 R. diameter primary clarifier without cover, with splitter box and necessary $350.000 yard piping. Raw sewage pumps 400 Provide a cable restraint system into the raw pump pit. Intermediate transfer plumps 8,000 Switch Intermediate transfer pumps with flow equiliration pumps. Activated sludge blowers 30,000 Install 1 new, larger au blower in activated sludge blower building. Primary and secondary scum pumps Replace the non -operational scum pump with an air -operated diaphragm pump, electric operated 10.000 diaphragm pump, or rotary lobe type pump. Anaerobic digesters Inspect first stage digester cover as soon as possible. Determine repairs/replacement needs.(Note: 2S 000 cost of replacement cover is included In Phase 1 cost estimate). Provide a cable restraint system , for each digester access ladder. Sludge storage Provide a cable restraint system for each digester access ladder. Repair draw -off and fill piping 35A00 supports. Repair digester in piping connection. Gas management system Install a condensate sediment accumulator to the digester gas piping. Replace the non. 20.000 operational gas drip traps and add drip traps at all valved locations on the digester gas piping. Install a flame arrester on the digester covers gas piping. Heat reservoir system Z,500 Replace the boiler controller. Budgetary Estimate rot Interim Improvements $160900 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLD CITY COUNCIEL Monday, February 27, 1995.7 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 February 13, 1995. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. A. Consideration of Annual Junk Amnesty Day. ( B) Review of year-end liquor store finandal statements. 4. Citizens commentatpetitions, requests, and complaints. k'2Rerir..doP thug. to -4- GL"s — R „d 6. Public hearing on proposed modification of Redevelopment Plan for Project No. 1, Modification of TIF plans for Districts 1.1 through 1.18, and adoption of TIF plan for District 1-19 (Mississippi Shores). 6. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a resolution adopting a housing plan and program for issuance of multi -housing revenue bonds. 7. Consideration of accepting bids and awarding contract on phase II - Public Works Building Expansion, Project 93-04C. 8. Consideration of an offer to purchase Lots 6 and 6, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition - Quality Welding. 9. Consideration of a resolution accepting feasibility study and ordering plans and specifications for phase V of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. 10. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment establishing buffer yard requirements. 11. Consideration of a resolution approving plans and specifications, authorizing advertisement for bids, and calling for a public hearing on Gould Brothers Chevrolet/D & D Bus utility extension. 12. Consideration of amending urbanization plan tart and adopting a joint resolution supporting annexation of Gould Brothers Chevrolet and D & D Bus Company. Agenda City Council February 27, 1995 Page 2 13. Consideration of an ordinance amendment regulating pole building design and construction. 14. Consideration of issuance of seasonal beer license - Monticello Softball Association. 16. Consideration of bills for the month of February. 16. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, February 13,1998 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: None Annroval of minutes of the special meetine held January 23, the reeular meetine held January 23, and the special meetiMheld January 31. 1996. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 23, THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 23, AND THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 31, 1998, AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. A. Consideration of odonting $ resolution supporting an administrative fee increase for deputy registrars. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the Minnesota Deputy Registrar's Association is requesting that the City Council adopt a resolution stating its support for increasing the administrative fee collected by the deputy registrars on DNR transactions from $.60 to $3.60 to coincide with the administrative fee of $3.60 charged for handling motor vehicle transactions. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE INCREASE TO $3.60 FOR DEPUTY REGISTRARS HANDLING DNR TRANSACTIONS. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 96.10. Citizens commentWmtitions, rN meats. and complaints. None. Public Hearing --Consideration of it resolution adopting a hausing plan and proeram for issuance of mold-housin¢ revenue bonds. Mayor Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Pago 1 0 Council Minutes - 2113/95 Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reported that because the financial package for the senior housing project has not yet been approved, Council is asked to open the public hearing and continue it to the February 27, 1995, Council meeting. Continuation of the public hearing will allow time for the involved groups or individuals to define the project and resolve the financial gap for funding the proposed senior housing facility. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 27, 1995, AS REQUESTED. Motion carried unanimously, 6. Consideration of revigwing assessor's report for 1994 and setting the Boated of Review for 1995 - Jerry Kram�b ;. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the County Assessor has tentatively set Thursday, May 4, 1995, at 7 p.m., as the date for the City's 1995 Board of Review meeting, and Council was asked to confirm this date. It was the consensus of Council to set the 1995 Board of Review meeting for Thursday, May 4, 1995, at 7 p.m. Jerry Kramber, the City's Assessor, reviewed the 1994 Assessor's Report, noting that adjustments were made in valuations for residential lots in the original plat. Kramber explained that in the past, lots in the original plat were valued approximately the same no matter how many lots were included with one home site; therefore, valuations were increased for those homes with more than one lot. Also, the value on river lots and lots abutting the Monticello Country Club were increased to more accurately reflect the true values based on actual market conditions. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to accept the City Assessor's report for 1994. 7. Consideration of confirming anointment of new Fire Chief - Mark Wallen. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that according to the fire department bylaws, fire department members elect a Fire Chief, who then is to be ratified by the City Council. He noted that the previous Fire Chief, Jerry Wein, elected not to continue as Chief, and the fire department members recently elected Mark Wallen as the new Fire Chief. Wallen has been a member of the fire department since 1977. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO RATIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF MARK WALLEN AS FIRE CHIEF FOR THE MONTICELLO FIRE DEPARTMENT. Motion carried unanimously. Page 2 G) Council Minutes - 2113/95 Consideration of an update report on Senior Citizen Center activities for 1994 - Pam Loidolt. Pam Loidolt, Monticello Senior Citizen Center Director, updated the Council on senior center activities for the year 1994, noting that usage of the center has increased from 1993 to 1994. She also reported that the Monticello Senior Center will begin a dining program in March or April of 1995, which has received a positive response from area seniors. Mayor Fyle thanked Ms. Loidolt for her report on the 1994 activities of the Monticello Senior Citizen Center. No action was required by Council. Consideralioq of approving twehminary plat of phase V of the Cardinal Hills, residential subdivision. Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that phase V of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision will consist of 34 lots and is consistent with the development plan previously reviewed and approved by the City. He also noted that the City has obtained an outlot rather than an easement for the purpose of constructing a pathway to the park, which is an improvement over previous methods of obtaining pathways. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PHASE V OF THE CARDINAL HILLS SUBDMSION. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of approving Klein Farms EAW and authorizing submittal to Environmental Quality Hoard. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Council previously authorized completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in conjunction with development of the Klein Farms plat. Emmerich provided the funds necessary to complete the Klein Farms' share of the EAW and one-half of the cost to provide supplemental information describing the extension of trunk sanitary sewer service serving the Klein Farms and other future development areas, and OSM has completed the EAW for Council review. O'Neill went on to note that if Council votes to accept the EAW and authorizes submittal of the document to the Environmental Quality Board, tho EAW will then be submitted for a 30 -day comment period. After the 30 - day time period has expired, Council will then be asked to consider making a negative declaration of impact associated with the development, which is required before the project can proceed any further. Page 3 O Council Minutes - 2/13/95 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO ACCEPT THE EAW AND AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Consideration of accentine Klein Farms residential subdivision feasibilitv study. AND 12. Consideration of orderine plans and specifications for improvements to the Klein Farms residential subdivision. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the feasibility study has been completed by OSM and outlines improvements to the Klein Farm residential subdivision. The School Boulevard extension is planned for construction in 1995 and will be included in a separate feasibility study currently being completed by OSM. He noted that dividing the project in two parts should result in lower bids because reducing the project into two smaller parts will open the project to more contractors. It was also noted that the developer, Tony Emmerich, plans on providing the City with funds necessary to complete plans and specifications. City Engineer Bret Weiss reviewed the estimated cost and assessments of the two phases of the project. ONeill noted that staff is comfortable in financing the project using the public improvement process. Mayor Fyle noted his concern regarding the risk to the City with a project of this magnitude. City Engineer Bret Weiss responded that the risk of non-payment of assessments is minimal because the developer is required to provide 60% of the cost of improvements to the City in the form of a letter of credit, which the City can draw on in the event the developer does not pay the assessments. In addition, the City can eventually acquire the land if the developer forfeits it due to non-payment of assessments. The value of the letter of credit plus the value of the improved lots far exceeds the City debt associated with installing the improvements. Weiss also explained that the feasibility study does not include upgrading Fallon Avenue. Although it does not appear necessary to rebuild the road at this time due to the planned extension of School Boulevard to Highway 25, the City may want to consider reconstruction at this time so that expenses associated with Fallon Avenue can be assessed against the vacant lots, as it will be much more difficult to assess the costs after the project is developed. It was Weiss's view that perhaps the City should consider performing an appraisal of benefit for the area, which would indicate the amount that could be assessed to each parcel prior to beginning Page 4 6) Council Minutes - 2/13195 reconstruction of the street. It was his recommendation that the development agreement include an amount per lot to help pay for reconstruction of Fallon Avenue. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO ACCEPT THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE KLEIN FARMS RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONTINGENT ON THE DEVELOPER PROVIDING FUNDS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ESTIMATED AT $50,000. MOTION ALSO INCLUDES DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO OBTAIN AN ESTIMATE FOR COMPLETION OF AN APPRAISAL OF BENEFIT FOR UPGRADING FALLON AVENUE. Motion carried unanimously. 12a. Considerption of a resolution declarinq the official intent of the City of Monticello to Feimburse certain expenditures from the fpr seeds of bonds to he issued by the Citv. It was noted by the City Administrator that if the lGain Farms residential subdivision is going to be completed as a public improvement, Council should 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. He noted that in order to be reimbursed for any expenditures that the City may incur prior to a bond sale occurring, the resolution must be adopted. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95-12. 13. Consideration of establishing Council subcommittee to update City[ ToMnshin Urbanization Plan. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that plans for extension of sewer and water service to Gould Brothers Chevrolet and D & D Bus are nearly complete and will be ready for consideration by Council at the February 27 meeting, along with consideration of advertising for bids and calling for a public hearing on the project. However, prior to ftuther formal action on the project, the Township has asked Council to review their concerns about the annexation agreement as it relates to the Gould Brothers/D & D Sus annexation request. Although the Township does not intend to delay the annexation, they would like any amendments made to the agreement retroactive to the Gould Brothers/l) & D Bus annexation. Page 5 Council Minutes - 2/13/95 O'Neill went on to explain that the Township is concerned about the taxes they will lose when commercial entities are annexed. They are proposing that the taxes stay with the Township for three years after annexation. It's also been suggested by the Township that the City collect the residential and commercial taxes for land annexed but pay the Township an amount equal to taxes for agricultural land for a period of three years, which would allow the Township to cushion the impact of the loss in tax base over a period of time. It was Councilmember Herbst's view that the City should adhere to the current agreement. Mayor Fyle recommended that the City wait until the comprehensive plan update is complete and renegotiate the agreement at that time and consider making any changes to the agreement retroactive to include the Gould Brothers Chevrolet and D & D Bus Company annexations. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to review the City/Township Urbanization Plan after the comprehensive plan update is complete and, in the meantime, adhere to the current agreement for the Gould Brothers Chevrolet and D & D Bus annexation. 14. Considerptioq of avaDvine development greement and final nlat of the River Mill subdivision. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that plans and specifications are nearly complete and need final approval by the City Engineer. He also noted that the City Attorney has prepered a development agreement for the River Mill suhdivision that is similar to the Oak Ridge development agreement in that it also calls for the private funding of improvements; however, there is a major difference between the two agreements. The River Mill development agreement includes a disbursement agreement rather than requiring the developer to submit 25% of the total project coat in the form of a letter of credit. Under the disbursement agreement, the lending institution guarantees that sufficient funds are available to the developer for payment of costs associated with construction. As construction is completed, both the developer's engineer and the City Engineer certify work that is completed and jointly authorize disbursement of funds to pay costs. In the event the developer would default on the agreement, the City would be able to draw on the funds to complete the project. City Attorney Paul Weingarden noted that the developers attorney requested some amendments to the agreement which appear to be reasonable and are only slight modifications that do not change the substance of the agreement. Page 6 0 Council Minutes - 2/13/95 O'Neill went on to note that the original preliminary plat included a land swap between the River Mill development and A Glorious Church; however, subsequent to approval of the preliminary plat, A Glorious Church decided not to exchange land, and the final plat was adjusted accordingly. He also noted that there may be some need to make easement adjustments to match the extension of sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer, which would be made prior to plat signing. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO ADOPT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT CONTINGENT ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. Final approval of development plans by the City Engineer and City staff. 2. Completion of minor adjustments to the final plat necessary to accommodate City Engineer requirements. 3. Execution of the disbursement agreement and payment to the City of all preliminary platting expenses in excess of the original platting fee. 4. Acquisition of all necessary permits. Motion carried unanimously. 15. Consillergtion of selectins 9onpH1WDt to conduct soil contamination and remediation studv for fire hall/bulk tank site. Public Works Director John Simola reported that City staff and representatives from Riverside Oil and JM Oil interviewed two of the consultants and checked references for the proposed soil contamination and remediation study for the fire hall and bulk tank sites. After completion of the interviews, the joint group selected Agassiz's proposal at cost of $14,994. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRT" ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE AGASSIZ ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS AS THE CONSULTANT TO THE REMEDIAL SOIL INVESTIGATION AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $14,994, WHICH WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE CITY, RIVERSIDE OIL, AND JM OIL Motion carded unanimously. I ! !tr: W.10.0 Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that there is a need to upgrade two of the personal computers so that all employees are working in the Windows environment and using the same programs. One PC is needed at public works and tho other at city hall. He noted it is proposed that the Page 7 0 Council Minutes - 2113/95 City purchase one 486DX2 and one Pentium computer, which would allow implementation of systems such as GIS in the future; however, O'Neill noted that since we are not ready to implement a GIS system at this time, two 486DX2 computers would be sufficient. It was also noted that one of the computers could also be equipped with an optional CD-ROM unit, which would allow the City to access government information that is available only on CD-ROM. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF TWO 486DX2 PERSONAL COMPUTERS AND ONE CD-ROM UNIT FROM PC EXPRESS AT A TOTAL COST OF $4,280.01. Motion carried unanimously, 17. Consideration of adopting a Cesglplion approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids on Eastwood Knoll improvements_ Proiect 94-026. Administrator Wolfsteller reported that plans and specifications for the Eastwood Knoll subdivision have been completed. If Council approves plans and specifications, bids could bre returnable March 10, 1995, for review by Council on March 13. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AS PREPARED BY OSM AND ORDER ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS RETURNABLE MARCH 10, 1998. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95-11. 18. Consideration of approving agreement of understanding with Wright County concerning Civ acauisition of tax forfeited Gille Auto property. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that the City recently received notification from the MPCA that the City's efforts to clean up the Gille Auto property site have been sucoessf d, and they have agreed that the site is clean. He also noted that it is unknown at this time whether any of the $30,040 invested in the clean-up efforts will be reimbursable through the Petro Board, as the site contained very little contaminated soil, and it must be established that a leak has occurred in order to receive reimbursement from the Petro Board; however, the consultant fees of $8,700 should be reimbursable from the Petro Fund. Wolfsteller went on to note that the County has agreed to turn over ownership of the Gille Auto parcel to the City; however, before the County actually obtains a deed from tho Department of Revenue for the City, the County would like the Council to approve a Memorandum of Understanding outlining how the proceeds will be divided in the future when and if the Page 8 0 Council Minutes - 2113/95 City sells the Gille property to a private party. The agreement allows the City to recover from any potential sale all of the cost incurred during the clean-up. Any funds available above the City's cost up to approximately $12,000 would be paid to the County to cover delinquent real estate taxes, and any remaining amount would be kept by the City as payment for handling this process. If the sale proceeds do not cover the City's $30,000 expenditure for clean-up, the County has agreed to pick up half of the coat not covered by the sale. It was the view of Councilmember Stumpf that the City should obtain an appraisal of the property prior to attempting to sell the property. Councilmember Herbst suggested that the City first try requests for proposals similar to what was done with Outlot A of Country Club Manor. If the proposals are rejected, then an appraisal could be ordered prior to listing the property for sale. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WRIGHT COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO CONCERNING THE CITY'S ACQUISITION OF THE GILLE AUTO PROPERTY SITE AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM A SALE. Motion carried unanimously. 19. Consideration of aliophng a formal Dgsjtion on Vonco Demolition Landfill expansion Proposal - Biu Lake Township, City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the PCA recently held a public informational meeting regarding the Vonco Demolition Landfill's application for an extension of their permit to operate the landfill and also a modification to increase the size of the facility. Early in January, City staff provided written comments to the PCA indicating the City's concern with the heavy truck traffic using County Road 75, along with the general concern of the visual impact this development may have on the scenic Mississippi River. He noted that if the Council is interested in submitting additional commenta, the PCA has extended the deadline for additional written comments to February 14, 1995, at 5 p.m. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to submit a formal letter that echoes concerns outlined by staff in previous correspondence to the PCA on the matter. Page 9 Council Minutes - 2/13/95 20. Consideration of imorovemgnts to the intersection of Countv Road 75 and Highwav 25 (left tarn lanes). Public Works Director John Simola reported that Councilmember Anderson had previously requested that staff contact Wright County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to consider improving the intersection of CSAH 75 and Trunk Highway 25, possibly by adding left turn lanes on CSAH 76. After discussing the intersection conflicts with Wright County, the City recently received a response from the County and MN/DOT, which noted 10 options for reducing conflicts at this intersection. Simola summarized the response by noting that three of the alternatives involved installing left turn lanes on CSAR 75, which would require removal of the streetscape nodes and parking on one block either side of Highway 25, and other alternatives involved light phasing changes and/or timing which may improve the situation for the near future. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council that staff should continue working with MN/DOT and the County on resolving conflicts at the intersection of CSAH 75 and Highway 25. 21. �onsideratian of renewing annual hiehwav maintenance aereement with WriAt County, Public Works Director Simola reported that each year the City Public Works Department performs snow and ice removal and springtime sweep -up on certain County State Aid Highways within the city. In an agreement with Wright County, the County reimburses the City each year for those services based upon the actual County coat of maintaining its own highway system the previous year, and payments are based upon a per -mile cost for each type of maintenance performed. He noted it is again time to consider renewing this agreement with Wright County. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH WRIGHT COUNTY AS PROPOSED. Motion carried unanimously. Public Works Director Simola noted that during the workshop hold in January, Council reviewed with OSM and RCM several alternatives for expanding the wastewater facility operations. Another workshop was scheduled for 6 p.m. on February 27, 1995, to tiuther discuss expansion of the plant and financing alternatives. It was proposed at that time that a Page 10 0 Council Minutes - 2/13/95 public hearing be held on March 27, 1995; however, staff recommends that Council delay ordering the public hearing in order to allow additional review of alternatives for plant expansion. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO DELAY ORDERING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT. Motion carried unanimously. 23. Other matters. A. Consideration of waivinUtatutory liabilitv limits—excess is 'li insurance. City Administrator Wolfsteller noted that by state statute, the City is not liable for any tort liability claim in excess of $600,000 damages; however, because the City has purchased an excess liability coverage, the City has the option of waiving our rights under Statute 466. which would allow someone to seek damages from the City in excess of the $600,000 limit up to the $1.6 million provided by our excess liability coverage. He noted that in order for the City to continue to have excess liability coverage, the City Council must formally decide whether or not to waive its monetary limits established by statute. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO NOT WAIVE THE MONETARY LIMITS ON TORT LIABILITY AS ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE 466. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned Karen Doty Office Manager Page 11 0 Council Agenda - 2/27/85 3A. Consideration of aetdW 8th Annual Junk Amnesty Day. Bnrinq Cleanuu for Qaturday. Mav %I898. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the past seven years, on the first Saturday in May, the City of Monticello has held a "Spring Cleanup Day", whereby residents can bring out bulky household goods such as furniture, carpet, and appliances and have them disposed of at no charge. Many of the products received at Junk Amnesty Day are recycled. During last year's Cleanup Day (1994), we recycled over 70,000 pounds of appliances, scrap metals, batteries, motor oil, tires, TV's, etc. Each year the program serves just a few percent more households than the previous year. For 1994, we served 380 households or about 18.2% of the community using 7 paid hourly employees and 13 volunteers which consisted of the general public and salaried City employees. As part of the program last year, we decided to ask the general public who brought materials to the Cleanup Day how they felt about the Cleanup Day and other environmentally correct programs the City sponsors. Please refer to the survey, as a summary is enclosed for your review. There are a few things I would like to point out; one is the fact that 85% of the residents felt that the $6,000 spent each year on this project was a good use of their tax dollars. 60% of the people questioned felt that we did not need an additional Cleanup Day in the fall, and 69% of the residents felt that the City's garbage, recycling, cleanup and waste reduction services were above average. This year we would like the City Council again to consider setting Saturday, May 6, 1895, as the 8th Annual Junk Amnesty Day/Spring Cleanup in Monticello. The first alternative would be to declare Saturday, May 6, 1995, as the 8th Annual Junk Amnesty Day in Monticello and direct staff to prepare the activities based upon those provided last year. The second alternative would be to discontinue our Junk Amnesty Day program. The third alternative would be to expand our Junk Amnesty Day program by having two Junk Amnesty Days each year. Council Agenda - 2/27/95 C, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is a recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council authorize the 8th Annual Junk Amnesty Day as outlined in alternative #1. i1SUPPORTING DAM: Copy of questionnaire summary; Copy of 1994 Junk Amnesty Day activities summary. CITY OF MONTICELLO JUNK AMNESTY DAY SUMMARY - 1994 Date Held. May 7. 1994 Public Hours. 8 a.m. - 3 p.m. Paid Workers, 7 Volunteerso 13 City Equipment Used. 2 rubber -tire loaders 1 pickup truck 6 2 vans 40 traffic cones Households Serveds 380 (18.2% of city households) Recyclerso D 6 K Refuse and Recycling (St. Cloud) Appliance Recycling Center of America (Minneapolis) Buffalo Conoco (Buffalo) LAHR TV (Maple Lake) Disposal Contractors. Demcon Disposal (household goods) Veit (demolition material) Items Recycleds A. 202 household appliances (34.340 lbs) B. 20.710 lbs of scrap iron and metal C. 1.870 lbs of scrap aluminum paid for by D h K Recycling D. 2.730 lbs of vehicle lead batteries (78 units) E. 3.360 lbs or 480 gallons of used motor oil P. 6.300 lbs or 325 tires G. 1.470 lbs or 21 color TV's for parte or rebuilding TOTAL 70.980 the (items A thry G) Household cords A. 180 cubic yards of furniture 6 carpet Disposed oft B. 125 motresses. box springs and sofas C. 60 cubic yards of demolition (used building materials) Cost@ Labor. City Employees $1.375.50 Supplies 7.50 General Rental 33.90 Maus Foods 8.36 ARCA 1.778.00 Demcon 2.461.33 Forest City 178.00 Mailings (U.S. Postmaster) 251.13 Advertising (Monticello Times) 134.40 Printing (Monticello Printing) 22.21 Monticello Office Products 14.91 1996 71otal Costa $a•28o5 24 (1993 Total - $5.914.94) (1992 Total - $5.966.40) WP5I.JOHN.JUNKAMN.94: 1/9/95 �� _� JUNK AlDiFM DAY 1994 Q08STI0911AME (179 Completed Questionnaire's) 1. How many contributed to your load? 82 % -1 home .51 - 5 homes 9.5% - 2 homes .55 - 48 -unit apts 3 1 - 3 homes 4.51 - not listed 2. How did you find out about Junk Amnesty Day? 47.55 - newspaper 45.35 - mailings 7.25 - word of mouth 3. It costs approximately $6.000 for the City to fund this project. Do you think this project is a proper use of your tax dollars? 951 - yes 15 - no 41 - don't know 4. What do you think of the fees charged for disposal of specific items? 451 -just right 91 - too high 31 - too low 43% - don't know S. Other than hazardous waste. are there any other types of problem wastes you think the City should add to its cleanup day? 61 - paint 6. Do you think the City should sponsor an additional cleanup day in the fall? This could result in a slight tax increase. 381 - yes 601 - no 21 - don't know 7. What improvements do you think could be made to the cleanup day? 61 - would like it extended to at least 2 days 121 - wanted to see extended hours (earlier in morning & later in evening) 8. (fiat do you think of the City's garbage collection services? 591 - above average 9% - below average 111 - average 201 - don't know 9. What do you think of the City's curb -side recycling program? 571 - above average 12% - below average 111 - average 20% - don't know 10. Are there any other products you would like to see recycled at curb -side? 51 - more plastics 11. Currently the City collects leaves and grass at curb -side 3 times per year. what do you think of thio? 571 - just right 61 - too often 13% - too little 241 - don't know 12. Did you know the City provides a roll -around garbage cart for 11 per month? 381 - yes 411 - no 211 - didn't answer MIUMUCUMASTS 2/211H 3A -s QDESTIONNAIBE CONTMED 13. Did you know used motor oil can be recycled at service stations? 66% - yes 14% - no 20i - didn't answer 14. Did you know used tires can be recycled at service stations and salvage yards for a low fee? 63% - yes 18% - no 19% - didn't answer 15. Overall. how would you rate the City in providing garbage. recycling. cleanup. and waste reduction services to its residents? 69% - above average 9% - average 2% - below average lei - don't know 16. would you consider volunteering to help next year? 19% - yes 51% - no 30i - don't know YISIUOIIUOJI111.0lTi if!)f9i 3A -C Council Agenda - 2/27/95 3a. Review of vear.end liauor store financial statements,. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Enclosed you will find copies of the year-end financial statements for our liquor store operation comparing 1994 with 1993. Joe Hartman will be in attendance at the meeting to answer questions you may have in regard to the operation and the financial results for last year. To summarize, sales for 1994 were up $72,000 over 1993 figures, which resulted in a gross profit increase of $15,469. Our gross profit is almost identical to 1993'8 percentage at 23.1%, which we feel is satisfactory for our operation. As you will note, our expenditures are almost identical to 1993's expenses at $208,457, which turns out to be actually $181 lower than 1993'8. As a result, our operating income was able to increase by $15,650 to a grand total of $150,805 for We year. This is the figure that more accurately reflects how We operation is doing, while our adjusted net income takes into account other earnings such as investment interest income and/or transfers to other finds for projects. When analyzing the business, we want to focus on the operating income, not necessarily the bottom line income. When looking at We result, We gross profit percentages are in line with what we expected, and We operating income is certainly acceptable in my opinion. Hopefully we can continue generating this type of income in We future. No specific action is necessary other than acceptance of the report as presented. In addition to reviewing the financial statements, Mr. Hartman may have additional information he would like to discuss regarding the Council's feelings on the installation of security cameras at our liquor store. For We past few months, Joe and I have been getting quotes on different types of security cameras and their features, as we both believe this may be a good idea to consider. It is assumed that the cameras can be installed in various locations throughout the store to not only keep an eye on customers in our sales area but also be positioned for covering our stock room and back door locations. Joe may have additional information to present at Monday's meeting for your consideration. Copy of financial report. MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 31Dec94 Current Assets: Cash Change Fund Investments Accounts Receivable A/R - NSF Checks Inventory Prepaid Insurance TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS Fixed Assets Land & Parking Lot Buildings Furniture & Equipment less: Accumulated Depreciation "VOTAL FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS Liabilities Accounts Payable Due to EDA Fund Sales Tax Payable Salaries Payable Accrued Vacation/Sick Leave Other Accrued Expenses TOTAL LIABILITIES RETAINED EARNINGS TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 88,822.50 1,600.00 435,400.07 7,050.93 (236.97) 175,732.52 3,850.90 712,219.95 46,591.03 199,285.65 74,324.45 (210,219.33) 109,981.80 822,201.75 ...0.0aaaneo 31,599.94 25,000.00 15,399.47 2,418.79 16,672.02 497.52 ------------ 91,587.74 730,614.01 ------------ 822,201.75 0.00000.0000 36-A MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING DEC 31, 1993 AND 1994 1993 1994 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT Liquor Sales 419,483 429,073 Discounts Cost of Sales 316,716 309,586 GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR 102,768 24.51 119,486 27.8% Beer Sales 853,014 912,620 Cost of Sales 676,636 731,425 GROSS PROFIT - BEER ---------- 176,378 20.7% ---------- 181,195 19.8% Wine Sales 158,704 164,970 Cost of Sales 105,314 115,066 GROSS PROFIT - WINE 53,389 33.6% 49,903 30.2% '.sc Sales 50,832 47,211 -t-oat of Sales 33,523 31,486 GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE ---------- 17,309 34.1% ---------- 15,725 33.32 Misc Non-taxable Sales 2,111 2,906 Cost of Sales 1,082 1,959 GROSS PROFIT - MISC NON -TAXA ---------- 1,029 48.7% ---------- 946 32.6% TOTAL SALEb 1,484,144 1,556,779 TOTAL COST OF SALES 1,133,272 1,189,523 TOTAL FREIGHT COST 7,080 ---------- 7,995 ---------- TOTAL GROSS PROFIT 343,793 23.2% 359,262 23.1% I MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING DEC 31, 1993 AND 1994 1993 1994 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT SALES Liquor 419,483 429,073 Beer 853,014 912,620 Bine 158,704 164,970 Other Merchandise 50,832 47,211 Misc Non -Taxable Sales 2,111 2,906 Discounts ---------- ---------- TOTAL SALES 1,484,144 1,556,779 COST OF GOODS SOLD (1,140,351) ---------- (1,197,517) ---------- GROSS PROFIT 343,793 23.2% ccac=acorea 359,262 23.1% nncnceeoca rENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE `Personal Services Salaries 108,768 111,503 PERA 3,847 5,011 FICA 8,051 8,311 Insurance 11,341 9,930 Unemployment Benefits TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 132,007 8.9% 134,813 8,7% Supplies Office Supplies 680 374 General Operating Supplie 7,144 6,803 Other Supplies 169 ---------- 215 ---------- TOTAL SUPPLIES 7,994 .5% 7,392 ,5$ 36-G MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING DEC 31, 1993 AND 1994 1993 1994 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT Other Services & Charges Professional Services 2,500 3,350 Maintenance Agreements 1,500 1,575 Communication 1,164 1,730 Travel -Conference -Schools 70 268 Advertising 5,219 6,939 d Insurance 20,504 13,467 Utilities, Electric 11,211 11,517 Utilities, Heating 1,305 1,571 Utilities. Sewer & water 760 677 Maintenance, Equipment 1,881 3,026 Maintenance, Building 2,730 3,132 Maintenance, Other 211 74 Depreciation --Acquired As 18,574 16,422 GULL MlbC EAVVi1ee6 645 ---------- 2,390 ---------- TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH 68,638 4.61 66,252 4.31 TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS 208,638 ---------- 14.11 208,457 ---------- 13.41 TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 135,154 oanooaaaac 9.11 150,805 aaaaaocaaa 9.71 Other Income (Expense) Interest Income 11,088 12,196 Cash Long/Short (43) 123 Sale of Property ---------- ---------- TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE) 17,045 1.11 12,319 .81 NET INCOME (EXPENSE) 152,542 aavaaaaaaa 10.31 163,123 -n 10.51 Transfera In/Out (31,654) (35,000) ADJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE 120,889 00.00 oaaa 8.11 126,123 000a a aaaoa 8.21 sem Council Agenda - 2/27/95 Public He%ring and thgconsideration to adopt a resolution relating to the modification of thq Redeveloqment Plan for Itedeyelonment Prosect No. 1. the modification of the Plans for Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) )\Jos. 1.1 through 1.191 ansl the establishment of TIF District No. 1-19. 411 located within Re0eyelonment Prosect No. 1. and the anoroval and adoption of the TIF Plan relating thereto. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing may be opened for comments and questions relating to the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, modification of the plans of the existing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts, and the approval of plan for TIF District No. 1-19. On January 13, 1995, the said modification and approval of the TIF Plans were distrit'iil" to the cuutAy, schuul, and hospital taxing jurisdictions and to Commissioner Pat Sawatzke satiafying the Minnesota Slalutpry 30 -day notice requirement. This notice provides the members of these individual boards with the opportunity to review the fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. On January 11, 1995, the HRA adopted a resolution approving the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-19. They modified the budget within the TIF Plan on January 26 and again on February 22, 1995. Because the TIF budget does not include land write-down, there is no need for the HRA to hold a public hearing for the acquisition and disposition of raw lands. On .January 23, 1995, the City Council called for a public hearing date of February 27, 1995, relating to the TIF. The public hearing notice appeared in the Mgnticeliq Times February 16 and 23, 1995, satisfying the Minnesota dory public hearing notice requirement. On February 7, 1995, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution stating the proposed senior housing project and TIF Plan were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Monticello. MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN RELATING TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. i AND THE PLANS RELATING TO TIF DISTRICT NOS. 1.1 THROUGH W& Because the described property of the proposed TIF District No. 1-19 lies within the Redevelopment Project No. I boundaries, there is no need to enlarge the geographic boundaries nor to modify the plan. Council Agenda - 2/27./96 The plans for TIF District Nos. 1-1 through 1-18 are modified to include the proposed district. ESTABLISHMENT OF TIF DISTRICT NO. 1.19 AND APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE PLAN. TIF District No. 1-19 is a Housing District with a maximum life duration of 26 years. A Housing District means a district which consists of a project, or a portion of a project, intended for occupancy, in part, by person or families of low and moderate income. The district is being created to assist the Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc., for costs associated with on-site and public improvements and a debt -service reserve for the housing bonds. Although the district has a marimun life of 26 -years, it is anticipated District No. 1-19 will decertify in 2011 or upon collection of tax increment sufficient to cover the $326,830. Remember, the budget within a TIF Plan is a guideline and allows for flexibility. If during the life of a district a budget needs to be increased, both the HILA and Council must approve the increased or modified budget. The Plan illustrates the estimated fiscal and economic impact to the taxing jurisdictions and demonstrates whether tax revenues are sufficient to cover the TIF budget. The Private Redevelopment Contract between the HRA and a developer spells out how, when, and the actual dollar amount the developer will receive from TIF. The Alliance plans to construct a 48 -unit senior housing rental facility at an estimated cost of $3.3 million. The project will be located on two parcels directly to the east of the Monticello Clinic, currently owned by the Monticello - Big Lake Hospital District. The estimated annual tax increment of $42,286 (CTC $37,646) is based on a $1,860,000 estimated market value. This estimated annual tax increment is sufficient to cover the TIF budget of $326,830. If the proposed Housing District meets the 20.60 or the 40.80 income tests (two -person income, $24,600, or one-person income, $21,400) and the rent restriction test (two-bedroom, $889, or one -bedroom, $674) for a period of 16 years, the Housing District then is a "Qualified Housing District" and the HACA Penalty or Loss to the City is waived. If the district would decertify in 2011, the estimated HACA Penalty is $34,600 (NPV ® 6.696). As a precaution, Attorney Bubul suggests the City consider being a party to the Private Redevelopment Contract. The contract provision could read something to the effect, the HRA agrees to transfer the 10% Administration to the City if the City is subject to an HACA Lose. The projected 10% Administration in 2011 is $42,600 (NPV 0 6.6%). Tho HACA Penalty Council Agenda - 2/27/95 commences at a graduated rate in year 6 after the district is certified. The Private Redevelopment Contract has not been dratted; however, the method of TIF financing is the pay-as-you-go. TIF is necessary for the project to cash flow and to obtain the necessary rental rates. The senior housing project will be financed through Revenue Bonds issued by the City, TIF by the HRA, and a note and land donation by the Hospital District. Prior to the bonds being sold, it is understood that the Hospital Board will make available $100,000 cash. Next and independently, the Hospital Board will sell the land for $175,000. Upon issuance of the revenue bonds, the Hospital Board will receive $100,000 and will take a $75,000 Interest -Free Note subordinate to the bond mortgage. TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION. Tho cnclosed resolution for aduptiuu affirms the above information and states the proposed project would not occur solely through private investment and the TIF Plan conforms with the general plan of the municipality. Additionally, it affirms that District No. 1-19 meets the requirements of a Housing District and a "Qualified Housing District" and is established in the public interest. Lastly, the resolution authorizes City officials to implement the TIF Plan. Upon hearing comments from the general public, the public hearing may be closed. Councilmembers are then requested to consider and take action of the following alternatives. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: A motion to adopt the resolution relating to the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, modification of the Plans for TIF District Nos. 1-1 through 1-18, and the approval and adoption of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-19. A motion to deny adoption of the said resolution. A motion to table the agenda item. Council Agenda - 2127/85 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 91 subject to execution of the Private Development Contract between the HRA and the Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc., and subject to approval of the other funding sources. The project itself meets the community overall economic development objectives and the Minnesota Statutory reauirements. D. SUPPORTING DAA: Copy of the Plan for TIF District No. 1-19; Public hearing notice; Resolution for adoption. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17 (As adopted August 8, 1994) 1. Land acquisition. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 (As adopted November 28, 1994) 1. 'Soil Correction. Zu Increment Financing District No. 1-19 (As adopted February 27, 1995) 1. Demolition. 2. Site improvements. 3. Public improvements (street, sewer, water). 4. Site preparation. 5. Parking/landscaping Subsection 1. 10. Estimated Public Costs and Sunnortive Data. The estimated costa of the public improvements to be made within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and financed by tax increments derived primarily from Tax Increment Financing districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 are as follows: Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1 (As adopted November 29, 1988) The estimate of public costs associated with this project, and to be recovered by tax increment financing are as follows: Land Acquisition $58,600.00 Special Assessments 14.901.67 Subtotal $73,501.67 The Oakwood Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1 will be established with respect to the east 180 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park, while the above figures reflect costs for all of Lot 7. Based on that division of land, the following figures apply to this project. 1-29 District No. 1-18 (As adopted November 28, 1994) Soil Corrections S102.000.00 Subtotal $102,000.00 Administration 11.333.00 TOTAL $113,333.00 (As adopted November, 1982) Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 (As adopted February 27, 1995) Debt -Service Reserve for Housing Bonds 575,000.00 Demolition/Removal 7,500.00 Site Improvements Storm Sewer 13,440.00 Sanitary Sewer 18,950.00 Water 3,400.00 Water/Sewer Hookup Fees 30,000.00 Public Improvements Utility Realignment 12,000.00 Fire Truck Path/Hydrants 10,000.00 Bike/Pedestrian Pathway Bridge 10,000.00 Site Preparation 39,208.00 Other Preparation Footings 15,673.00 Parking/Paving/Landscaping 48.657.00 Subtotal 5285,830.00 Contingency 20,000.00 Administration 20.000.00 Total $325,830.00 Subsection 1.11. Land Use. All new and/or existing development on land identified on Exhibits I -C through 1-F as "property to be acquired' or 'possible acquisition' will be subject to the following uses and requirements: I. Uses Permitted in Designated Areas. 142 SB SECTION XX TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-19 Subsection 20.1. Statement of Objectives. See Subsection 1.4 of the Redevelopment Plan. Subsection 20.2. The Redevelopment Plan. See Section I, Subsections 1.1 through 1.20. Subsection 20.3. Description of the Project. The project, located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19, consists of the development of a 48 -unit senior housing facility. This project is expected to begin in 1995 and be completed by January 2, 1996. Subsection 20.4. Parcels to be Included in Tax Increment Financina District No. 1-19. The following property is located in the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota. PID Number: 155-015-021-020 PID Number: 155-015-022-120 PID Number: 155 -015 -MI -010 PID Number: 155-011-000-210 PID Number: 155-011.000-050 PID Number: 155-015-022-020 PID Number: 155-015-022-040 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. Subsection 20.5. Parcels in Acgmisilkm. The Authority may acquire the property listed in Subsection 20.4, which property is located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. Properties identified for acquisition may be acquired either by the City or the Authority in order to accomplish public improvements listed in Subsection 1.11 of the Redevelopment Plan hereof. Subsection 20.6. Develoament Activity in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 for Which Contracts will be Sim. The following contract(s) will be entered into by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the person(s) named below: Prior to the certification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.19, a Development and Assessment Agreement will be executed between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Monticello and Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc. Subsection 20.7, Other Specific Develoment Emected to Occur within Redevelopment Project No. 1. (As specific development is expected to occur, it will be inserted into this Subsection.) XX -2 (2i) Subsection 20.8. Estimated Public Improvement Costs and Sgpportive Data. See Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan for estimated costs associated with Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 20.9. Sources of Revenue. Land acquisition costs, and other coca outlined in Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments. Subsection 20.10. Original Tax Caoacb. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subd. 1, of -the Tax Increment Financing Act, the original tax capacity value for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 is estimated to be 55,096, based on the tax capacity value of all taxable real property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 4, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the County Auditor of Wright County (the 'County Auditor") shall certify in each year the amount by which the original tax capacity value has increased or decreased as a result in a change in tax-exempt property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19, reduction or enlargement of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 or changes in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current tax capacity value of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 declines below the original tax capacity value, no tax capacity value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the Authority. Subsection20.11. Estimated Captured Tax Capgei1y Value. Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.177, Subd. 2, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the estimated captured tax capacity value in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 at final completion will approximate $37,454. This estimated annual captured capacity value is determined in the following manner: Estimated Tax Capacity Value at Final Completion $42,550 Original Tax Capacity Captured Tax Capacity Value $37,454 Subsection 20.12. TTXpe of Tax Increment Financing District. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19, is pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 11, a Qualified Housing District as described below: "Housing District" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of a project, or a portion of a project, intended for occupancy, in part, by persona or families of low and moderate income, as defined in chapter 462A, Title 11 of the National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1959, the United States XX -1 0 Housing Act of 1937, as arrnended, Tide V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, any other similar present or future federal, state, or municipal legislation, or the regulations promulgated under any of those acts. A project does not qualify under this subdivision if the fair market value of the improvements which are constructed for commercial uses or for uses other than low and moderate income housing consists of more than 20 percent of the total fair market value of the planned improvements in the development plan or agreement. The fair market value of the improvements may be determined using the cost of construction, capitalized income, or other appropriate method of estimating market value. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 is also a qualified housing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, as described below: 'Qualified Housing District' means a housing district for a residential rental project or projects in which the only properties receiving assistance from revenues derived from tax increments from the district meet all of the requirements for a low-income housing credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1992, regardless of whether the project actually received a low-income housing credit. Subsection 20.13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing_ District No. 1-19. Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 1(e), of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 will be twenty-five (25) years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. Subsection 20.14. Proposed Development Analysis. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 1(7), specific findings and analysis have been completed relating to the proposed development in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. Additional relevant documentation relating to the findings and analysis will be on file and available for review in the City Administrator's office. Subsection 20.15. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing lurisA_ictions. Test No. 1: The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. If the construction is a result of Tax Increment Financing, the impact is $O to other entities. Test No. 2: Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions 4 SO due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred without the assistance of the City, the following estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 would be as follows if Test No. 1 (the 'but for' test) was not met: XXL 0 Tax Base Entity Payable 1995 Wright County 548,638,744 City of Monticello $15,383,604 I.S.D. No. 882 $19,344,324 _Hospital District $23,874,025 Entity Wright County City of Monticello I.S.D. No. 882 Hospital District TOTALS IMPACT ON TAX BASE Original Net Future Net Captured Net i Tax Capacity Tax Capacity Tax Capacity District % Payable 1995 Payable 1995 Payable 1995 of Entity $5,096 $42,550 537,454 .077% $ 5,096 $42,550 537,454 .240% $5,096 $42,550 537,454 .194% S5.0% $42,550 537,454 _ 157% IMPACT ON TAX CAPACCTY Tax Rate 1994 Potential Taxes 31.965 S11,972 17.330 6,566 60.634 22,710 1.028 1.744 112.873 $42,276 Subsection 20.16. Cash Flow Assumptions and Analysis. A. Future Tax Capacity. The estimated future tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 at final completion is anticipated to be $42,330, payable in the year 1997. B, Projected Timing. The payment of the first tax increment from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 will be received by the Authority in 1997. C. Original Tax Capacity. The County Assessor's records show the original tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 to be $5.096 for taxes in 1994 and payable in 1993. D. Gross Tax Capacity Rate. The original local tax rate is 112.873 percent. This rate is estimated for taxes payable in 1994, although the actual rate to be certified will be for taxes payable in 1995. XX -5 E. Tax Increment. Total tax increment at the completion of all redevelopment activity has been calculated assuming a static gross tax opacity rate and a valuation increased by zero percent (0%) compounded anmially. F. Capital Expenditures. Capital expenditures are a summary of the items associated with the public improvement costa set forth in Subsection 10.8 and are to be financed from the proceeds of the Bonds and tax increment revenue. Subsection 20.17. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness. It is anticipated that $325,830 of bonded indebtedness will be incurred with respect to this portion of the Redevelopment Project. Subsection 20.19. Tax Increment Financing Account for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. The tax increment received with respect to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 will be submitted by the Authority to the City and segregated by the Authority in a special account or accounts (the 'Tax Increment Account') on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the City to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders of the Bonds. Subsection20.19. Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. As of February 27, 1995, there have been no modifications made to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. XX -6 0 Noy 00090 O -X ... ,,2T vvk�cv jr r �A 0 ,Il �Y. 1�'4 i, tt'IV #,**:t7 DISTRICT CERTIFICATION FORM Date Prepared: Iamma 9. 1995 Name of District or Modification: Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 Date of City Council Approval: ,,. ;.. 27, 1991 QUALIFIED HOUSING DISTRICT CERTINCA71ON At the time of dittdct creation or m2 ftanioe. the fallowing crondldmu ®elv: The project, or a portion of the project is intended for oeanpancy, in part, by persons or families of low and moderate Income, as defined In chapter 462A, Title H of the National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1959, die United Stares Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, a amended, any other similar present or future federal, stern. or municipal legislation, or the regulations promulgated under any of those acts. The fair market value of the improvements which are constructed for commercial uses or for uses other than low and moderate income housing does net consist of mons than 20 percent of the total fair market value of the planned ' ,, , In the development plan or agreement. Land Use Plan Map JL City Council Resolution Project Objectives Other: This Form Prepared by: Public Resource Group- Inc. Original Building Condition Data Collected by: pI/A Documentation in support of District Certification is on file at the City offices. XX -B CiD APPENDIX B Chronology of Resolutions Establishing the Development Program, the Development District, the Tax Increment Financing Plans, and the Tax Increment Financing Districts DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-19 Jbte Ad= lanuary 11 _ 1991 Resolution of HRA for the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. Jamar 13. 1995 Letter to County Commissioner representing the area of TIF District No. 1-19. Ianu= 13. 1995 Letters sent to Wright County, Independent School District No. 882, and Hospital District. lana 23. 1991 Resolution of the City Council calling for a Public Hearing. February 7. 1991 Submit Notice of Public Hearing to local newspaper. February 16, 1995/ Februm 23. 1995 Notice of Public Hearing is published in the local newspaper, calling for a Public Hearing on February 27, 1995. Februar^_ 27. 1991 Resolution of the City Council modifying the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopting the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. Appendix B -2 can '-•-- .ILWA CREEK TOWNSNIP To Nem r,•o (2)5upwvxw. td • pb P. la, ]]. tpp5) A.xUAI TOW. YEE'W IRq (]) YY 1wm W m aM El(xmR A T...=AMD E{ECTgR oru 111 T q Iw •term 01 ROME OF •tI KEAI-0 a Ax lo/I, a U— 1..0 (2) Y•r. cT Yo.TICELLO C-1 0.11.1 WI�n�sl— of Cour OF "Jo. Wme.ou r. wr.le.a m wi• r P�1 A b open .wn 12 rbOn b e ' $TAM OF raacapTA pwrxrr .a,Cw., r• nn•or nabn•e D m in. Annul Y••Imp MII fetor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Fr h wnta CRr C(e, T' r, n In a Io- M I In• Ann.. EI•Coon o1 ..b -" 0 M Da. F, M b w•M, Cm, ur a .10n•C••0, Cry d Wrg1Y akrY.r1. 6YY, .0 ook, . plat n.rmp T1*111TD.n.nDiD Nr1 1101 en In. Tu♦t0.nr Don A D• n•b ax IGfO T f•Erury 27. IM.l AproEmialy 2 00 ?p. ,Cay N•!. 250 EqI boW.ry. '.1 Iw5 Ia m. IobOwp �. n Dr ret+• bn• wy y..e•Y YwKK•.o. Wrra. rr.tiy m k POPnrI m06taaon, q•a p Can b .Ib •nrp•a 0•oO.Orc :eA IM NDIn•q r,0 Reeoeglopnwll MAIwal�ryct Iiee 23. —1c 2 {P, IwS) P•0evbwn.m Prq•tt No M In• .pwtr.. rr .,. Ipuo.1 01 tn• Y ;b•0 R•e...bDmM Plr, warp Mrtb, N oabP..e nne:rrsa, W .In.aa PO LEOAL ROME xm Co.R aye FKaPo 0•oP•d.� rq. d bx MD61M Tq Yvwmr• inw.twq Tri Fmm..cn CDnrouctal n PDDORrV b cwn•vcl MI vq• awry rb ]SO T • b Tu Namlwn in�Icbp p.pkb No 1.1 ldPpn -1{ bcq•E .ITY� menvn .—tv nwnup WU m Ie0 J tK.q iM rOewbn .a ca,v.l a tap R•G•r•bpDmm PIq•m No t, M 0» P 111e .0a0bonl Of T•. Inw•m.nl .ROS .b• d Oq.00e .,euglr PM O.M.•n Oq.me pl.• •r1e F•ul,mrV PIY1 I." b Ta --- F.—V PIs, Ne 1.1 •, r•e btr.e wIm .ton +nt W d 04roo0 DM 4 Dn, d ar Po R•Jw•bwn•n Rbra NP ,, d pv.u.n m r1a n •wwOglt• qF1 may. DO•newoN,mm•clry alAo•K•Oow...r1e •.rMvy .•.r6W trr.M err SUWu.9•mwn.•eP OOt 10•ee wt. Irxfu.ly, •. •m•M.O. eta 6•c.on. b m. on'.IDOrn•Io..rtrle Sm1od BUA.r.re.•.1 m OY.00e c". e10 ton •6P , ]• m •FA I n .dv.N•, q .nw1e•e A m DI• Amela.e R.yrrownro b1•.b .rte .Iwm .•.w -TQ—=P, ]r e•.r1DPrn•n Cun.nq., er 1a0 Ron b R•e.vrOwnw• Prpl.ci No 1 rte M Tm Yvrnw. Fne,v,p WI. 4 b _c.1. rMlm MDrl4crgo fowMp 1 ti C.y Dov,a n tm.OMO b [wxEr Tu Fv.m.nl F•vlwq Oubkb Na 1 hPgn tlp, q .Vq•e b M •eaaM uw�q . p•e InoM,m •u(W0q ..apn m ApY 10. Im afx• a M G7 Mln.tl.brd r Ccar II.D rlDl 41r DIr1 r In .rte ADPwN do. pinl r.mkRm aipp Yner.bn on Mrm la. IPPy Ia. ,BPS wartlrrqq � Tv Y,wwn•Ia F Ik.irlm Ho I -,a e q 1N0�.. MM Irq J ene.ne .a tb mrNbucle0 n.•.wY Phcq rb n..px.TW m 1Ye PPDrry tw�va^o by b an r'ts. b canPNn• Pnq• ,, ,Nhm n rOtrpei.e b tawnrlc• conibuc PID Nunbw 155 01 y� �I QlO Innnme.Imnr of tLflS.Wmrania )t .•Iple nary rnYrxn rb l2e m•nPm Nuraw ISSOt50]2t20 drr✓ry �es+eer,ce. Pnm• I ee.+IDDm.mt •a u' o ndlM enwebn d 5mbd PID Nu—R. 155 a15 Ml-0Io B-- -1131 ROmsaOa.Ooe(klrrb•nwbnm.ser me.eww ren¢n PM]•2A PIDMnb ISSOt1-00p]Ip I a ] D wIm• Isnry avpencq rte Jp mw11 onrwry r PID N—R 1 yyot,a000w 1H Gry d uwn aeo M. P—. n Emmmmnnlal I. won.Na Rp Hvmr 155-0t5 pt2L20 ' AM .Icm r•nev. e,. •rnwvm•rgr .]p•m• a M PDOgM Polri -, EAW RD Nvrb I5" 5 0220 n -K ,w I— Y M bOo.bO buee. - Yonac•Oo cq IW l,lI-- P--- b..l M'•r Rgw,Y Uo,Ing Z50 u1 &dr0e •m l wrru .ot, Owmq, '. can uN eew,.aar M Cwmnre. rlwt M uemmq b W J.ff O N . A•mYm Gry AJn•vtra, m. uvnareo IUD or wm n, IM CF. can Iwo TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO CRY COUNCIL Monday, F•b. 27. 1095, 7 p.m. Meym Brad FYI.C _,lmombO,e Shuley Anderson, Clint Hmbst. Brian Stumpf, Tom Poneuff 1 Call to order 2 Approval of minut- of too '.got., .-Ing hold Fab 19, 1995 9 COn510M.1— of ndrling nems to IM aUnnda • C11I e M COmmenta;pcidIaIn, roquestO and complants n Co it,nued Punic HBJrl,hg COnsldaatlm of o resolutlm adopting a houffo g plan arid progrom for ctlSop r:o of muen W,,,ng Imnanun bonds B Pubic hoar mg ort propo:od moddIcatlon al Rnd—k,p,nrm PIM for Profm No 1, Molelcallm of TIF palm for Dlsucu 1 1 Irwougn I.1B, and adoption of TIF plan for Dr.Irn 1 19 (MI—ppl Sham) 7 CM-1.11a11On of form, W sato of Oulbt A. Country Club Marro David "or mg B Co—dormnn of —Wig M3 and —ding Conbttct on porn ItPubl,c Warks Blkldb,g C.pomlon, Pm ocl 97 OAC On -i 9 Cdrr, aw of an offo to Pur ch— Loll 5 And B, Oakworla 11RImtwil Pork Socond Add,tIor, Quality WOWug 10 Con-xtumt,on of a rm, otullon accc I g 1 nmWlhty ctuoy to VWV.1 In. Cnrdlnal 1-111M rosr0CInul - ubdNk:mn I I C—M-11lon W a MOM" PUM and LpoCtlkl - Imre IM W — II of too CardgW 11123 ro".. I.Mul Grpd,-- 12 Cm.ldoralu,n 01 n 7m11g odmanc0 amondngnl m1ab bshmg buff', ylr0 foq.,—nb ,3 Con-adomliOn of a r --duhon nplronng pUrn And sperm. fal.,nn, nNlrlon'I g ndvarlkomonl tar DId], and CAalllg tot a p,m1c noanrg an Goum Brothoro ChaymloVD&D Bto w:,ty N -1 t a Con.M" — al odopang a 10" "'Outlon pupPMIN .n -..I— of Gould Brothao Chc rrokA and DAD &n Company 15 C.—o,al— of on aaklance Omoodmpm ,.gutwf v Palo bu{Wag oa,.tgn arm CbnaULil0r1 10 Cwry.,lotx,n W 0—bung kcorca I.—W Ama—n too., 17 Con-.morpllon W k-- P O W came l boor bcenOo Moalcolb Doshall Ax iollpn. 1 B Com, twollpn W bid] IV tho month of Fobnnry 19 Ad)oumnem Aho e••wla•0 q Rlroc�rum6,•..d LG2.3 1]•.11.12 Ir�Ortr•gt•nY mb DV .tbr.'.aN..W M cl ua.Iwlwl wn1 w mw.t•nr a v,. mrm•rnrry •u•mbrl DI m. wuPl•glwry .Ix a..d Ent to A].p •Ir D.n m la a a A,mw• s.m.lrlm HD or,..teamo b Fr r.cme rl mq Erna, rr a M wA„••.xrry •dwxbn a n..wrnr.ry IDr a Em.. EOw'ER uoNT�Euo.trna.Ip b •r rrnaw pr br. a •.1«w.e .wm.w:wlr m ti .eus..•n .. a m La a b.t.P aw D.n N.1n oDlar�.�ar.ry•rmIe • ar w•e•I .YI rhe 12 a.r nm,rry a. M e.uTb.e r rd b.. 3 r •r .+w.rban a Dr •.vnm a •r .alewra. rry .1 a lnlB— ]] a.ra Blas. h Mn ti .RCI•narry .Mr a PI• IYI. 01 .re BFrK..wmlw.Mry r . e•n•cbon rv. K,— a I ]] e• V.•. b Ilew..a 1 v..ra .D,arq,.rry •.rrbn a Iti ,am..•.t Ir. a lltwr z2, . a.a.Ic• a IJ0 S aq mw• w a•• In ••b reunnn: 0n. G LW 6 W Aynlw BWenn.bn Ab On..rb qb M •rr• brlMn•Sno AM INI w.l a 6o.e1.q cb.e a LOWER {.oNr�c[uo rsorml�m Ifr •rr•a .Mr or v..ee1•r 01v rn.re,e1 a art. elDn awe {ow[R uoNl lcEuo rte nwm.arry a I,1. n~w•1..•,rry •nw.lan a •r ra.s�...t rr a La { a ti A.bb . OrrOr..n No Qr CV Np m Iv uma•e my M.d aErr WDrn1•tv11•pw¢p M bwK4<m a br pr<a b M MqM In 1.. Yrt,wr,•r• M1,.rxrlp �b4 NO 1 Ip mq W adgra Rom ti oak• a N Crry In Aamr•e.rw b Inbrlpgt•e Draw mq App•r r h Irabp w P..r• I,•b w•r. ay P c:;. F•a 13, Iws .RM tMRCIR CryGA2Nv:]oy Om to a a, too. TR Vt I` PII III�1'.`� fMYn1-rO1l,lmio). Virrn'ninii, IrnF�ir FEB -24-'95 FRI 08:57 ID:BDS INC 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. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1.18, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-19, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING THERETO. BE rr RESOLVED, by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section I. Rasah- 1.01. & 1.01. It has been proposed and adopted by the Rousing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") in and for the City that the Authority modify, by Increased Project costs, Redevelopment Project No. 1, pursuant to and In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. It has been further proposed and adopted by the Authority that the Authority modify the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1.18, and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 located within Redevelopment Project No. I, and approve the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating, thereto, pursuant to and In accordance with MinnesoL S o ��tes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. -i- 1.02. The Authority has caused to be prepared and this Council has investigated the facts with reapect thereto, a proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan (The "Modified Redevelopment Plan') for Redevelopment Project No. 1, defining more precisely the increased Project costs to be made to Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tau Increment Financing Districts No. 1- 1 through 1-18, and the proposed Tax Increment Financing District Plan (the 'Tax Increment Financing Plano) for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 (collectively referred to as the 'Plana`). 1.03. The Authority and the City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-18 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 and the adoption of the Plans relating thereto, including, but not limited to, notification to the County Commissioner who represent the area included in the Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.19 and Wright County, Independent School District No. 882 and the Mondcello-Big Late Community Hospital, having jurisdiction over tate property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 and the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law. 1.04. no Authority hereby determines that It is necessary and In the beat interest of the City at this time to modify Redevelopment Project No. 1, and to modify Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-18, and to establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 and approve the Plana relating thereto, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment Agreement by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, W. -a 0 - F'EB-24-195 FRI 08:59 ID:BDS INC. TEL P0:786-9034 NQ4 PO4 2.01. The Cm=U hereby finds, determines and declares that the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-18 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. is intended and, in the judgement of the Council. its effect will be, to further provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development, increase employment and otherwlee promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Flags for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-19. 2.02. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 does meet the requirements of Housing District in that it consists of any project. or any pordons of a project which the Authority and City finds to be in the public interest because: (a) The project, or a portion of the project Is Intended for occupancy, in part, by persona or families of low and moderate income, as defined in chapter 462A, Title 11 of the National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1959, the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. any odwr similar present or future federal, state, or municipal legislation, or the regulations promulgated under any of those acts. (b) The fair market value of the improvements which are constructed for commercial uses or for was other than low and moderate income housing does not consist of more than 20 percent of the total fair market value of the planned improvements in the development plan or agreement. Tax Incroment Financing District No. 1.19 Is also a Qualified Housing District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, as described below: 'Oua*W Routing Dis ict' moans a housing district for a residential rental project or projects in which the only properties receiving assiamm from revenues derived from tax increments from the district moot all of the requirements for a low-income housing credit wrier awdon 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31. 1992, regardless of whether the project actually received a low-income housing credit. �-� - - FEB -24-195 FRI 08359 ID:BD6 INC. TEL IO: 786-9034 NQ4 P05 2.03. The Council finds, determines and declares that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary. 2.04. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the modified redevelopment project No. 1, the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Dlatrict No. 1-19 and the plans will afford maximum opportunity and be cessistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. 2.05. The Council finds that the Modified Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 conform to the general plan for development or redevelopment of the city as a whole. 2.06. The Council further finds, determines and declares that the City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2.07. The Council determines and declares that Redevelopment Project No. 1 is hereby modified, and that Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-18, and hereby modified and that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.19 is hereby adopted, contingent upon the execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc. Section 3. Ontion of Rumdva Plans. 3.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this date aro hereby approved, contingent upon exemdon of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc. shall be placed on file In the office of the City Administrator. ." 0 FEB -24-'95 FRI 09:00 ID:BDS INC. TEL N3:706r9034 #424 P06 n:• an -, MM) Jr. 71 a i 7. 9,7 M,. ;.f•• rf i 4.01. The officers of the City. the City's financial advlsar, underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the respeadve Plans and for We purpose to negotiate, drag, prepare and present to this Council for Its consideration all f n ther plans. resolutions, documents and contracts necessary to accomplish this purpose. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being tater thereon. the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said m Wudon was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator. City Adminlstmtor (SEAL) Mayor FED -24-196 FRI 09:01 1D:DD5 INC. TEL 10:786-9034 4424 P07 EXHIM A TO RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the modification of the Tax Increment Financing Flan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 as t'equIred, pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are as follows: 1) Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 is an wHouaing District' as defined in Section 469.174. Subd. 11. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 condsts of two pareal which do not meet the requirements of a redevelopment disuict, mined underground space development district, housing district or wAmn c development district. The Authority and the Qty find Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.19 to be in the public Interest because: (a) The project. or a portion of the project is intended for occupancy, In part, by persons or families of low and moderate income, as defined In chapter 462A. Title n of the National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1959. the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, any other similar present or Amm federal, state. or municipal legislation, or the reguladons promulgated under any of those acts. (b) The fair market value of the Improvements which aro constructed for commercial uses or for uses otter than low and moderate Income housing does not consist of more than 20 percent of the total fair market value of the planned improvements in the development plan or agreement. The project is a 411 -unit facility. Monticello Senior Housing Alliance will covenant that at least 40 percent of the units will be occupied by persons or families whose income does not exceed 60 percent of the areawide median Income. FEB -24-'95 FRI 09:01 ID:BDS INC. .. TEL ND:786-9034 13424 POB Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 Is also a Qualified Housing District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, as described below: 'QmkW Hoaft Dlydler' mesas a housing district for a residential rental project or projects in which the only properties receiving assistance frown revenues derived Prom tax increments from the district meet all of the requirements for a low-inc om housing credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1992, regardless of whether the project actually received a low-income housing credit. 2) Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary. City staff has reviewed the costs for this development. Due to the costs of public improvements, site preparation, demolition and land acquisition, the project would not be financially feasible without the City's assistance. 3) Finding that the Tax Increment Flnandng Plan Por Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 will afford maximum opportwtity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City. The project to be developed, which will be located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.19, consists of the development of a 48 -unit senior housing facility. The Planning Commission passed a resolution on February 7, 1993 finding that the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City. This project Is expected to begin in 1993 and be substantially completed by January 2, 1996. s•s 4) Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. The duration of Tax Increment Financing Dlstrlct No. 1-19 will be twenty-five CM years from the date of receipt of the first tax Increment. Pursuant to hA a Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City regtuata 100 percent of the available Increase In assessed value for current expenditures. N- S% Council Agenda - 2/27/95 6. Continued Public Hearin¢ and oonsideratioq to annrovp g resolution adontine a Housing Plan and Program for the issuance of Multi -Family Housing Revenue Bonds. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This public hearing is a continuation of the public hearing opened on February 13, 1995, for adoption of a Housing Plan and Program for issuance of the Multi -Family Housing Revenue Bonds. At the February 13 City Council meeting, Councilmembers approved a motion continuing the public hearing to February 27, 1995, and tabled adoption of the related resolution because the financial package for the senior housing project was incomplete. On January 9,1995, the City Council approved a resolution calling for a public hearing of February 13, 1995, regarding a proposed Housing Plan and Program and Issuance of Revenue Bonds underMinnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C. The public hearing notice appeared in the Monticello Times, January 12, 1995. The housing plan defines the housing plan of the community, and the program defines the financial program to be carried out for the acquisition and construction of the proposed 48 -unit multi -family rental housing facility known as Mississippi Shores. The enclosed resolution would adopt the plan and program associated with the issuance of the revenue bonds and would give preliminary approval for issuance of the bonds or is an intent to sell bonds. The bonds will be paid by revenues generated from the senior housing project. They are not general obligation bonds. The City Council, at a later date, will approve another resolution for the actual sale of the bonds. The principal amount of the bonds is estimated to be up to $3,500,000. However, this is the only public hearing associated with the sale of the bonds. The housing plan was prepared on short notice in an effort to meet statutory requirements without benefit from input by the Planning Commission or City Council. Public Resource Group, Inc. did receive assistance from staff with plan preparation. It is very possible that the housing plan will be updated in the near future in conjunction with completion of the comprehensive plan. The updated plan will benefit from the public input provided during the comprehensive plan update process. Approval of the financial package is in its final stages. At a joint meeting on Wednesday evening, the Hospital District representatives presented their financial assistance in the senior housing project which was outlined in the Council Agenda - 2/27/95 previous agenda item. Official action will be taken by members of the Hospital District Board on March 9. Assuming the Council approved the Plan for TIF District No. 1-19 in the prior agenda item, the remaining piece of the senior housing financial package is the approval of the intent to issue revenue bonds. Following any comments from the general public, the public hearing should be dosed and, thereafter, the Council should consider the following alternative actions. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. A motion to approve the resolution adopting the housing plan and program for issuance of the multi -family housing revenue bonds. 2. A motion to deny approval of the resolution adopting the housing plan and program for issuance of the multi -family housing reveue bonds. 3. A motion to table action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City Staff and HRA Attorney Bubul recommend alternative #1, as the senior housing project and financial package have been defined and agreed upon by members of the City Council, Hospital Board, and HRA. Approval of this resolution authorizes continued preparation and review of the documents necessary for issuance of the bonds. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the public hearing notice; Resolution for approval; Copy of the housing plan and program for adoption. State of minnesota ) PRINTER'S AFFIDAVIT j )ss. OF PUBLICATION County of Wright ) i Donald 0. Smith, being duly swam, on oath Lays that be Is the publisher of the newspaper kntown'La The Monticello Times, and bn full knowledge of the facta, which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has compiled with all of the requirements eomtituting qualities- Ilon as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, shamended. /� (B) The printed 1) , which Is attached, W23 cut from he eotumos of Laid apaper, and was printed and published once each week fcr 1 successive weeks; It was first published on T1leraday, the a day oL,AQQ_ 1915and and was Brcreafter piloted and published on every Thursday to and Including Thursday, the day of ,19_; and piloted below is a copy of the lower case alph*W from A to Z. bah Inclusive, which is hereby, acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used In the composition and publics. tion of the rake: I sbcd0V9trn ncPWstUVWXP MIM: Editor/publisher Subscribed and swam to before me on Mg= E��dsy 0f�19�W.0OTATYNotary Public. Wright County, MltlneaAraN My Commission e:pirea--10-4 .19 RATS INFORMATION (1) Lowest classified tate paid by commerelal users for comparable space f 11.00 column inch (2) MWoutm late allowed by law for the above tatter f 7.Wcolumn Inch (2) Rate actually charged for the Above molter f 7.3glcolumn inch 1 ®OtIMA CITY NOTICE OF Put= HE OF PLAN AND ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BOMBS TO MANN A NOU811101 PROQRAM UNDER MSINBEOTA STATUTESa,, MIAPTBR setC FOR THE ACOUtartMN AND CONSTRUCTION OFA MULTIFIWdY IMWSUW DEVELOPMENT NOTICE is HEREBY OMEN ser ft Mcranb Cfy Caactl (1As'Co� aA held a p boa h Bw q on Monday, Feb. 1 s, 1888. a 7 p.m. a1 Gb .0 tae Ent Broedwayt Yaanao, fimeaota, to confider a hauskV plans and • proprem eo Na tawanee or raYefane bores under Minnesota Stables. Chaphar �6�C, sa amended. to anMas*a MuldiaMhy housing development (the'Proaraml. At the' pmUc lamina, the Co mcu ww consider Samoan of a reeahNon approMnp the bonds w1�r Nfe Pct or foal and �nbWoaanb W IM Montk� Senior Noua ft Ansa Pr=ml The saarepsts baa amard or rev Maw Dales proposed to be Msuad ro Mame the Props Is praantlr astlrtatad nor to exceed 63AW.Dob. The Protect tornDM of a 4640111 m AU* radal tamry InlNteed pohnai for died and Operatbe ed by M at tMonficalio at � Hglndadge �eYonacahe � ene bade as be Issued by fe Cb of Maraosau end rafbe limited ObUGGOoru o1 the Bauer payable from to reveres pledged to the payment sereot. and Will nor be a psrwal ob4stlon or of be seared by the tadrV porran or de C✓h of 6110111101100. ol tie �!Q p� gnus desbI to be feeN vo PLanc henna aQ a an Is an Me In Gopnpor�bmllyMeodo ed. Dtled; Jan, I II,1905 -BV ORDER �� A*WftVUW THE CITU OF MOMTICfLLO, WCIESOTA O. 1a. NSM . THE CITY OF MONTICRT.r , MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTING A HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAM FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Housing Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City") ash uthorized to adopt a housing plan and carry out programs for the financing of multifamily housing which Is intended primarily for elderly persons or is affordable to persona of low and moderate income; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a housing plan (the "Plan") , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, in accordance with the requirements of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Authority has prepared a financing program (the "Program") , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, providing for the acquisition and construction of a 48 -unit multifamily rental housing facility for elderly persona (the "Project") to be located in the City; and WHEREAS, the City has on this date conducted a public hearing on the Plan and the Program, following publication of notice at least 30 days prior to the date hereof, all in conformance with the requirements of the Act; and WHEREAS, the City is not located within the area of jurisdiction of either the Metropolitan Council or any currently active regional development commission, and therefore the Plan and Program have not been submitted for review and comment by such bodies as would otherwise be required under the Act; and WHEREAS, the Program provides for the issuance by the City of up to $3,800,000 in revenue bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: That the Plan and Program are hereby in all respects adopted. 2. That the staff of the City is hereby authorised to do all other things and take all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Program in accordance with the Act and any other applicable laws and regulations. 3. That the issuance of housing revenue bonds by the City pursuant to the Program is preliminarily approved subject to a final determination by the City that such issuance Is in the beat interest of the City and this Resolution shall not be deemed to obligate the City to issue such bonds. Adopted this 13th day of February, 1999. Mayor City Administrator 9J9919:7 0190.17 Ciro; EN311BIT B PROGRAM FOR THE FINANCING OF MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), the City of Monticello (the "City") has been authorized to develop and administer programs of multifamily housing developments under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth in the Act. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 provides that such programs for multifamily housing developments may be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City. The City has determined that it is in the best interests of the residents of the City to create a program of financing to encourage and facilitate the development of multifamily rental housing developments for families in the City (the "Program"). The City has received a proposal from representatives of Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc. (the "Developer"), that, pursuant to the authority found in the Act, the City approves a program providing for the acquisition and construction of the Senior Housing Alliance Project, a multifamily housing development located at 1215 Hart Boulevard in the City (the "Project"). The acquisition and construction of the Project is to be funded through the issuance of up to $3,500,000 in revenue bonds issued by the City (the "Bonds") . The Project will be designed for rental primarily to elderly persons. The City, in establishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program"), has considered the information contained in the City's 462C Housing Plan (the "Housing Plan") , including particularly (i) the availability and affordability of other government housing programs; (11) the availability and affordability of private marketing financing for the construction of multifamily housing units; (111) an analysis of population, unemployment trends and projections of future population trends and future employment needs; (tv) the recent housing trends and future housing needs of the City; and (v) an analysis of how the Program will meet the needs of persons and families residing and expected to reside in the City. The City, in adopting the Program, has further considered (i) the amount, timing and sale of Bonds to finance the estimated costs of the housing units, to fund the appropriate reserves and to pay the cost of issuance; (ii) the method of monitoring and implementation of the Program to insure compliance with the City's housing plan and its objectives; (iii) the method of administering, servicing and supervising the Program; (iv) the costs of the City, including future administrative expenses; (v) the restrictions on the multifamily development to be financed under the Program; and (vi) certain other limitations. The City, in adopting the Program, considered the potential financing impact of a bond issuance on affected public agencies. In addition, the City reviewed the method of marketing the Program. Such review examined the equal opportunity for participation by (i) minorities; (11) households with incomes at the lower end of the range that can be served by the Program; (iii) households displaced by public or private actions; (iv) elderly persons; and (v) accessibility to the handicapped. The Project will be constructed and financed pursuant to Subdivisions 1 and 4 of Section 462C.05 of the Act. amlmooe Nalco -47 6� Subsection A. Definitions. The following terms used in this Program shall have the following meanings, respectively: (1) "Act" shall mean Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.01, et seq., as currently in effect and as the same may be from time to time amended. (2) "Bonds" shall mean the revenue bonds to be issued by the City to finance the Program. (3) "City" shall mean the City of Monticello, State of Minnesota. (4) "Developer" shall mean Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. (S) "Housing Plan" shall mean the City of Monticello 462C Housing Plan, as amended, setting forth certain information required by the Act. (6) "Housing Unit" shall mean any one of the 48 units located in the Project, occupied by one person or family, and containing complete living facilities. (7) "Land" shall mean the real property upon which each Project is situated. (8) "Program" shall mean the program for the financing of the Projects pursuant to the Act. (9) "Project" shell mean the Senior Housing Alliance Project. Subsection B. Proeram For Financing, the Protect. It is proposed that the City establish this Program to provide financing for acquisition of the Project to be owned by the Developer, or a related entity, at a cost and upon such other terms and conditions as are set forth herein and as may be agreed upon in writing between the City, the initial purchaser of the Bonds and the respective Developer. To do this, the City expects to issue Bonds the proceeds of which will be loaned to the Developer for financing the acquisition and construction of the Project. It is expected that a trustee will be appointed by the City to monitor the construction of the Project and payments of principal and interest on the Bonds. The cost of any additional security devices for the Bonds will be borne by the Developer and payable in addition to the principal and interest on the Bonds except as otherwise provided by resolution of the City. It is contemplated that the Bonds shall have a maturity of thirty (30) years and will be priced to the market at the time of issuance. The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the Program. The City intends to select and contract with a financial institution or trustee, experienced in trust matters to administer the Bonds. Insofar as the City will be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel, bond counael, the trustee, and others, all of whom will be reimbursed from bond proceeds and revenues generated by the Program, no administrative costs will be paid from the City's budget with respect to this Program except as otherwise provided by resolution of the City. The Bonds will not be genoral obligation bonds of the City, but are to be paid only from properties pledged to the payment thereof, which may r.nuoon 6D include additional security such as additional collateral, insurance or a letter of credit. Subsection C. Local Contributions To The Procram. The City through its Housing and Redevelopment Authority ("HRA"), will provfde certain tax increment financing assistance for the Project in accordance with a Contract for Private Redevelopment between the HRA and the Developer. Subsection D. Standards and Requirements Relating to the Financing of the, gll Projects Pursuant to the Program. The following standards and requirements shall apply with respect to the operation of the Project by the Developer pursuant to this Program: (1) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used to provide funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project. The funds will be made available to the Developer pursuant to the terms of the Bond offering, which may include certain covenants to be entered into between the City and the Developer. (2) The Developer or subsequent owner of the Project will not arbitrarily reject an application from a proposed tenant because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance or disability. (3) No Housing Unit may be in violation of applicable zoning ordinances or other applicable land use regulations, including any urban renewal plan or development district plan, and including the state building code as set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.83, et seq. Subsection E. Evidence of Compliance. The City may require from the Developer or such other person deemed necessary at or before the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of the ability and intention of the Developer to complete the Project, and evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the standards and requirements for the making of the financing established by the City, as set forth herein; and in connection therewith, the City or its representatives may inspect the relevant books and records of the Developer in order to confirm such ability, intention and compliance. In addition, the City may periodically require certification from either the Developer or such other person deemed necessary concerning compliance with various aspects of the Program. Subsection F. Issuance of Bonds. To finance the Program authorized by this Section, the City may by resolution authorize, issue and sell its revenue Bonds in one or mores series, and using any additional credit enhancement devices determined by the City to be necessary or desirable for each such series, in an aggregate principal amount estimated to be up to $3,500,000. The Bonds shall be issued pursuant to Section 482C.07, Subdivision 1 of the Act, and shall be payable primarily from the revenues of the Program authorized by this Section. The City anticipates the issuance of such amount prior to the end of 1885. SubsectionG. Severability,. The provisions of this Program are severable and if any of its provisions, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of ouch court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. W381901 IO390-fit & V. Subsection H. Amendment. The City shall not amend this Program while Bonds authorized hereby are outstanding, to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds. g110•Il CHAPTER 462C HOUSING PLAN CITY OF MONTICELLO JANUARY 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION II. DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS A. POPULATION - CITY AND COUNTY B. EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS C. AGE DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME OF RESIDENTS D. NUMBER AND TYPE OF DWELLING UNITS E. TENURE OF ROUSING STOCK F. SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING COSTS AND MARKET G. MULTI -FAMILY RENTAL RANGES AND MARKET M. HOUSING NEEDS, HOUSING POLICY PLAN AND TARGET AREAS IV. SENIOR HOUSING PROGRAMS AND FINANCIAL TOOLS I. INTRODUCTION This Housing Plan undertaken pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the 'Act') provides data and data analysis of the city's population and housing conditions; sets forth the housing goals and polices which guide the decision making process, and identifies programs and efforts the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "AuthoritY) will pursue to conserve, preserve, enhance and expand the city's residential environment. II. DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS A. POPULATION - CITY AND COUNTY Monticello's population has steadily increased in the past and has been conservatively forecasted to grow over the next 20 years at an average rate of 40%. The county growth rate is estimated conservatively at 20 percent per decade. Table I Monticello Population and Households 1970 1980 % 1990 % 2000 2010 1 Change Change Population 1,477 2,830 91.6 3,045 78.2 7,330 10,000 County 38,933 58,681 50.7 68,710 17.1 82,452 98,942 Monticello households projected prorata growth 1,908 2,779 3,782 rate Sources: Bureau of Census, U.S. Census of Pop. and Housing, 1970, 1980, and 1990 B. EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS Table lI shows major employers in Monticello with the total number of employees as of July 1993. Total employees includes hill and part-time woriters and average number of seasonal employees. Table II reveals that in total, the companies listed employ approximately 1,224 people. Of these employees, an estimated 75 percent live in Monticello or within a 15 mile radius of the city. Table 11 Monticello Moor Employers July 1993 EEplover 1=1 City of Monticello 36 Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc. 180 Fulfillment Systems,Inc. 165 Bondhus Corporation 90 Fingerhut Corporation 79 ABK, Inc. 45 M k P Transports, Inc. 38 Electro Industries 35 Jona Manufacturing 25 Geaereux Fine Wood Products 23 Rainbow Enterprises, Inc. 12 NSP Service Center 11 Automatic Garage Door Company 11 Tiro Service Equipment Mfg. Company 9 Northern States Power 330 Remmele Engineering, Inc. 60 Northern States Power Training Center 45 The A -Window Company __N 1,224 Source: Monticello Community Profile As can be seen in Table III, the employment in the region and the local economy is still widely diversified. Average production wages range between 57.00 and $13.00 per hour. Employment is expected to continue to glow over the nest five yeas. The last three yeah have been particularly strong with the Monticello Industrial base adding approximately 300 iobL Table III City Employment by Industry Sources: Bureau of the Census, 1980 - 1990. *Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate C. AGE DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME OF RESIDENTS Monticello, like other communities across the country, is finding that senior citizens are among the fastest growing segment of its population. In addition, persons 25 years of age and over saw significant increases in numbers from 1980 to 1990. The sheer numerical inaeases in this housing market points to a significant need to offer new types of housing for citizens with a wide array of incomes and needs for services. Secondarily, the 'baby -boomers' or persons from 25 to 44 years old were the sector of population to most increase its share from 1980 to 1990. Table IV Monticello Area Age Distribution Ap 12$4 1m Total 1,123 2,323 Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing Mining 26 31 Construction — 70 — 131 Manu&cuuing 216 487 Transpottation, Comm. & Public Utilities 97 244 Trade 282 553 F.I.R.E.• 38 125 Services 360 702 Government 34 50 Sources: Bureau of the Census, 1980 - 1990. *Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate C. AGE DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME OF RESIDENTS Monticello, like other communities across the country, is finding that senior citizens are among the fastest growing segment of its population. In addition, persons 25 years of age and over saw significant increases in numbers from 1980 to 1990. The sheer numerical inaeases in this housing market points to a significant need to offer new types of housing for citizens with a wide array of incomes and needs for services. Secondarily, the 'baby -boomers' or persons from 25 to 44 years old were the sector of population to most increase its share from 1980 to 1990. Table IV Monticello Area Age Distribution Ap AP Abe Abe Abs Total Pop dadw 17 a ®def 18-24 23 - M 43-" 65 & ova 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 1930 1990 1,980 1990 ` Number 2.820 5.043 959 1.287 737 563 702 1.601 793 709 019 882 Peremt 100% t00% 77.9% 23.5% 12.6% 11.2% 24.8% 31.8% 13.9% 14.1% 16.373 17.5% Somers: Bureau of the Ceamm U.S. Cosa+a of Population acid Ho umj, 1980 and 1990. Household and family income in the Monticello are have shown steady increases and diversification over the past decade. Again, these data point to a need to diversify the housing options for the community. Table V Monticello Area Family Income 1979 and 1989 1979 Lm than S10,000- S15,000- 523.000 - SM.000 Grater than Median $10,000 514,999 524,999 S34,999 $74,999 S75.000 Income Number 170 lag 241 208 110 9 517.941 Pexeeat 17.9% 19.0% 23.28 21.76 11.7% .68 m 1999 Lena than S10,000- S 11,000 - 523.000 - $33,000 - Grow Om Median $10.000 514.999 524,999 534.999 574.999 $71.000 lneome Number 118 136 191 244 487 101 533.202 Permat 9.38 10.78 138 19.28 37.98 7.9% m Nom: Number my cot equal 100.0 due to rounding. Soerree> Bureau of the Census U.S. Coos m of Population and homing, 1980 & 1990. Table V1 Monticello New Household income 1989 Lou tban 510.000- S15.000- 523.000 - S71.000 - Greases than Median 510.000 514.999 $24.999 534.999 574.999 $71.000 Income Number 218 244 236 319 S97 101 $29.383 Percent 14.58 13.7% 14.48 18.08 33.68 5.78 as Note: Number may am equal 100.0 due to rounding. Beuroea Buren of the Comm, U.S. Ceu m of Pop daft and HoadAg, 1980 & 1990. D. NUMBER AND TYPE OF DWELLING UNITS Monticello is a city with a majority of owner occupied housing units. However, a significant share of the total housing stock is multi -family rental units as evidenced by the following table: Table VII Dwelling Units 1994 Dwelling Type — ^ Percent of Total Numbers , Single Family - Detached 53.8% 1,192 i Townhouse 3.6% 79 Duplex 3.3% 74 Other Multifamily 30.7% 679 Mobile Home 8.1% 180 Other .5% 11 Source: 1994 Utility Billing Information, City of Monticello E. TENURE OF HOUSING STOCK The age of the housing units varies widely in Monticello. However, over otle-third of the owner -occupied housing was built from 1980 - 1989 and over 75 ptxsetlt of all housing units were built after 1960. This trend shows the tremendous growth of the community. Table VM Monticello Area Age of Occupied Housing Units (Percent of Total Occupied Structures Owned and Rented) 1990 uth. cera spa &a main &a &a a" 9Mo11G 1910 194-190 1070. 1630 1960-199 IVIG. 1970 19 1919 AAW 1900 t6lW 2207 177 65 IA 129 so 111 266 , - !betas 100% 11.6% 29% 6.11 AAs 12.616 16.7% Isis 20m 1 (Crew of 6» Gm, u.1. Cam of 9quWla tad 800de- 1"0&1"0. cmv SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING COSTS AND MARKET Monticello has a wide variety of housing, from older, pre -World War II housing to 1950s ramblers to split-level design of the 1960s and 1970s. The newest housing also reflects architectural designs of the 1980s, with bay windows, gabled roofs, and two -stories. The vast majority of the housing stock has bees well-maintained and pride of ownership is evident. The Monticello School District has an excellent reputation and Monticello is perceived as a very desirable community is which to live. Housing is affordable, with average home values between $70,000 and S90,000. However, homes in this price range are in high demand. In addition, the lack of available alternatives for other marlax segments (partiea My . ,, -w_. and senior) has resulted in persons remaining in their homes longer than necessary. If these people had been able to move, their homes could have been purchased by other households. The following are the key factors at work in the for -sale marftr t Substantial shortage of resale homes in as price ranges due to recent strong sales activity, and older homeowners not selling. Loral real estate agents have buyers who are looking to buy. Much of the reason for the lack of available homes for sale is tied directly to the number of senior citizens who continue to reside in their own homes. Homes in Monticello are generally well-maintained and in good condition. Greatest demand is for homes priced between 570,000 and 590,000 and homes priced between $110,000 and $130,000. There is limited demand for homes priced $170,000 and over. G. MULTI -FAMILY RENTAL RANGES AND MARKET Most of the rental housing in Monticello was built in the 1970: and 1980s. Much of the tectal product lacks features and amenities desired by today's renters. Market rate netts in Monticello are affordable, however, with one -bedroom unit rents ranging from over 5200 per mach to $400 per month in a larger cental complex built more recently. Two-bedroom unit resits range f4om $290 per month to $384 per month. The following key facto. summarize the rental housing marltst situation in Monticello: General occupancy rectal housing on average has kept pace Monticello'I needs ova the past twelve years; Existing market rate rental housing does not offer =wet features and amenities desired by today's renters; Shortage of market rate housing for several senior market segments; Usage of income restricted rental housing when: residents are paying market tent; Non-traditional housing (i.e. rented mobile homes, cabins, garage apartments) which offer affordable rental housing, but tend to be less visible and less easily monitored for maintenance and upkeep. M. HOUSING NEEDS, HOUSING POLICY PLAN AND TARGET AREAS Table XI Projected Housing Needs Year Year 2000 2010 Number of Units • Single Family/Two Family 390 650 • Market Rate Rental 120 195 • Total New Units 510 845 An analysis of the data clearly indicates that there is a need for additional single-family and multi -family housing development in the City of Monticello. Single-family needs appear to lie within a moderate price range and a higher end price range. The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and the City have found that the higher -end housing should be driven by market forces and assisted by public entities only in the typical governmental roles of providing utilities to lots and maintaining and expanding other public improvements. Home- ownership of moderately priced housing can be promoted through a variety of existing homes. The HRA and the City have also found that moderately priced homes could be made available by increasing the opportunities for senior citizens. Because the private market has not independently provided rental housing in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the senior citizens, the HRA and the City have found that public intervention is necessary to provide safe and decent housing. The City recognizes that there are a variety of housing needs within the community including blighted housing, home energy and insulation improvements, toad improvements, and utility upgrades. These needs will be addressed concurrently with the other emphases of the Housing Plan. 'Ile development of the multi -family housing in the community is expected to be one of the most efficient means to increasing available housing units, increasing employment, and improving the health and welfare of its residents while maintaining the lowest cost and least risk to the taxpayers of the City. The City and HRA currently intend to target the senior segment of the population for housing programs. Administration of housing programs will be handled by the HRA through its Executive Director in concert with City staff and community organizations. All housing assisted by the City or HRA will be professionally and independently managed and will be subject to the HRA's review on an annual or bi-annual basis. C60 IV. SENIOR HOUSING PROGRAMS AND FINANCIAL TOOLS Currently the City and HRA are planning to provide financial aita to the Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc. who will construct and own 48 units of senior housing located adjacent to the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. Construction is expected to begin in Apel of 1995 and be c mpb ted in October of 1995. Rents per unit are anticipated to be between 5595 and 3870 per unit including all utilities and furnishings depending on one -bedroom or two-bedroom units. For more details, see the program for the financing of muld-family cental housing development, approved concurrently with this housing plan. 'r Y 6P ` Council Agenda - 2/27/95 Revievy of bids end consideration of award of contract for Citv Proiect, 9"C, Public Works Deuartment Expansion and Renovation, Pbase U. as.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In December of last year, the City Council reviewed proposed changes and cost saving measures for Phase II of the Public Works Expansion to bring it more in line with the proposed funding. The lowest bid received in May of 1994 was $486,000. The estimated construction cost after redesign of the three portions of Phase II was $396,000. On Wednesday, February 22, 1995, we received eight bids for Phase II construction. The base bids ranged from a low of $379,000 to a high of $438,000. The cost of an enclosure around the roof heating and air conditioning system on the front portion of the building ranged from a low of $500 to a high of $1,750. The addition of a 60 mil thick rubber roof in lieu of the 45 mil roof in the base bid ranged from a low of $1,927 to a high of $4,016. The contractors alternate using a wood truss for the sand/salt shed, which was thought would result in a deduct, actually resulted in an add ranging from $1,662 to $6,400. The low bid was received from Shingobee Builders, Inc. This firm built the Subway Sandwich Shop and Standard Iron in Monticello. Their low base bid was $379,000, the add for the enclosure around the heating and air conditioning unit was $1,750 and the addition for the 60 mil roof was $3,000. It should be noted that Shingobee Builders, Inc. did not provide a project schedule with their bid, but I expect them to provide it prior to Monday evening's meeting. It is my understanding that we have the right to waive that informality. A copy of the bid tabulation for all the bidders is enclosed for your review. A copy of proposed expenditures for the project for 1995 are also enclosed for your review. Based upon the low bid from Shingobee Builders, Inc., including alternates 1 and 2, the construction contract would be $383,750; adding the new water service, soil correction, soil and concrete testing, construction engineering and redesign costs, expenditures of $399,460 are expected for 1995. This does not include any contingencies nor does it include paving and curbing in the parking areas and paving of the driveway areas. The paving, curbing and gutter were estimated by OSM to cost $32,800. The amount of paving is more than that originally required by our conditional use permit. The expected amount available in the liquor store fund through the end of October 1995, is $520,000. This is separate from the $100,000 act aside for the EDA revolving loan fund. Of this money, $400,000 has been earmarked for the Public Works Phase 11 project based upon the 1995 Budget. In addition, there is $20,800 in the shop and garage fund for 1993 and 1994 fbr paving and 10 Council Agenda - 2/27/95 equipment which was not spent. In addition, the sealooat project for 1994 budgeted at $20,000 was deleted and re -scheduled for 1995 due to the limited size of the 1994 and 1995 projects. Lastly, there is $40,000 in State Aid Maintenance funds that can be used for this purpose. Based upon the bids and the funding sources, there are ample monies available to move ahead with the project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative after review of the bids would be to award a contract to Shingobee Builders, Inc. for the base amount of $379,000 and include alternate Ml for the mechanical roof enclosure at $1,750 and alternate Y2 for the 60 mil roof at $3,000, for a total of $383,750. 2. The second alternative after review of the bids would be to award a contract to Shingobee Builders, Inc. for the base bid of $379,000 excluding the two alternates. 3. The third alternative would be not to award a contract. 19 After reviewing the bids, the City Staff recommends that we award the project to Shingobee Builders, Inc., finding them a responsible contractor and waiving the informality of receiving the project schedule after the bid opening. The award would be made to Shingobee Builders, Inc., including the addition of the mechanical enclosure and the 60 mil roof as outlined above in alternative #I. The staff is of the opinion that the mechanical enclosure is needed and, although it appears to be somewhat costly, it would be difficult to add later as the supports for the enclosure penetrate the roof of the front portion of the building in several locations. Staff also recommends going to the 60 mil roof, which is the roof which was installed on the vehicle storage building. The additional thickness of the material will result in a much longer lasting and more durable roof and is well with the $3,000 of additional funds. City staff feels we have reduced the scope of the project to the baro minimum and fhnds are available to complete the project; consequently, we should move ahead. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of estimated expenditures for 1995; Copy of the bid tabulation; Copy of estimated costs for paving, curb and gutter, map of additions. 1995 ESTIMATED SEPSES PUBLIC IDEM PHASE II CITY PROJECT 93-040 CONS Shingobee Builders, Inc.., including alternates 1 and 2 $383,750 Crater Service for Sprinklers 2,000 Soil Correction for South Addition 2,000 Soil 8 Concrete Testing, All 3 Sections 2,000 Construction Engineering - OSM 5,200 Re -Design Costs - OSM 4.500 SOB TOTAL $399,450 Site Grading and Paving Est. 32.880 TOTAL BST. COST $432.250 Liquor Store $520,008 -- Mount Allocated $400,000 1993 - 1994 Shop E Garage Paving & Equip. not Spent 20,800 1994 Seal Coat Project, Street Dept. not Spent 20,000 Annual State Aid Maintenance Funds Onallocatedl 40.000 FUNDS AVAILABLE $ IHIUM1U Mp."s 1/16/9i O PUBLIC WORKS PEASE II SITE GRADING AND PAVING COST ESTIMATE PROJECT TITLE. PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING OSM COlDf. NO.$ 5088.20 Item Spec Estimated No. No. Description Ooaatit► 1 Saw Cutting Bituminous 60 2 Site Grading 325 3 Sub -grade Preparation 2600 4 Aggregate Base Class 5 875 5 Type 31 Base Course Mixture 380 6 Type 41 Wear Course Mixture 300 7 Bituminous Material for Tack 148 8 Concrete Curb and Gutter 250 9 Random Riprap Class 3 5 wilu0DWWRTATi 1/111" BYl DMO DATEt 6 -Dec -94 unit Unit Price Total Amount LP $3.00 $180.80 Cy $4.00 $1.300.00 SY $1.00 $2.600.00 TON $5.50 $4.812.50 TON $28.80 $8.480.80 TON $29.50 $8.850.00 GAL $1.50 $210.00 LP $7.00 $1.750.00 Cy $60.80 SN88.00 Estimated Construction Cost $28.402.50 (+) 5% Contingency 21.420.13 Sub -Total $29.822.63 (+) 10% Indirect 52.977.38 Total Project Cost 2.800.08 BIDS OPENED: 3:00 P.M. February 22, 1995 OSM Project No. 5088.10 CONTRACTOR Gopher State Contractors ATTN: Zany Shlnpobso Bu110we he. ATTN: John Stomlleld Constructlon ATTN: John W. Oohrnan Comauctim Co. ATTN: Mks United Contractors Corpastbn ATTN: Bob/Annette Msrrknao Construction Company ATTN: Mika DEH Construction ATTN: Jerry KUE Contractors kn. ATTN: Joe HIII Assodates ATTN: Greg Environ -Con, Mo. ATTN: Bob BID TABULA'. A FOR CITY OF MONTICELLO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EXPANSION RENOVATION MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA BID PROJECT ADDENDUM SECURITY SCHEDULE NO ORRSCHEUEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. BASE ADD ADD CONTRACTOR BID ALT.1 ALT.2 ALT. TOTAL *407.595 6 500 92.135 ADD $3.375 $378.000 $1.750 $3.000 NO BID 9397,000 $ 500 $2.500 AM $8,100 *429.800 saw $2.000 ADD $2700 *425.158 low 62200 NO BID NO $138&800 *4.0DO 62A00 NO Go NO $.M1,811 $ 519 $1.015 ADD 92.650 NO *40.31000 91.079 $1.827 ADD OR DEDUCT 7 $1,687 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUB AND CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED OW DATE: t BY: o.. 21. a. o2..ur .... ..... ►01 ... .1. ,., .1..a.r .o... ...ac tM1.t tl .r •...w •ram �.rrlr r—.•rra.. I OI w1.•.t tt r,.a—� I — aar rs,r r, 4.10.1 t1 wIG { ��,�'�'Z'�•4'iili +Aui'it Tin — I Ilfu-inli�� U 1--•twr...... ..nt�ptrt 1 LJ 1 ISRL., I 4an1 rla. �.� warm Mdd.r • 4 ".of to �� r rte.• I 1-10 •—IM p•.• 0,� Dut1� Cm.r. .t 6•.iy Iit4 Ci3x�%LII.. t VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY Dow WAY 9J 509eoo��••'•^ SCHEJATI DESIGN 'Al' PHASE 2 -«• _ MONTICELLO, MN. SN'l - t1 FEE'-2-r-1?35 13 3 OPP ;O_HELEN MANEP.ON 612 595 5773 P.02 Orr trK. 300 Park Place Fest 5775 Waytall Baukvonl Wnneapdb. MN 551161221 612-5%-5776 14100.751.5775 FAX 595.6173 Enoneem Ami OecLs Playmm Surveyors Fabruary 24, 1996 Mr. Jotm Slash City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello. MN 66362 Re: Old Tabulation Monticello Pudic Works Department Expansion and Renovallon OSM Project No. 6088.10 John, Upon evaluation of the bid tabulation sumffmri21ng bids received February 22. 1995 for the above referenced project, the following contractor is the apparent low bidder with base and allmM bid costs notod: S"obee Builders. Inc. • Loretto, MN Bess Bid $379.000.00 Alternate No. 1 - 60 rM. rod membrane • ADD 1.750.00 Alternate No. 2 - Mechanics! egtdpn nt enclosure - ADD 3.000.00 Contractors Alternate - W000 structure at Solt/Sand - ADD no bid TOTAL BID COST $383.760.00 Please also find attachod the requested submittal regarding project schedule. Contractors Ouniffimlon Statement. and project refffort . We have reviewed the Contractors OLdilication Smtemort (A-305). reforenees and project schedule. Our oonrereatlonl; with the reforoncoa (6 of them for projects currently In construction) have Indicatod - without exception • Shingobee to be a very capoblo eonttador addressing pro)OcM with a high degree of protessionallem. Judging from the tin dines, neatness, and quality of Shingobee's submittal. we aro Inclined to agree with this determination. We rocorttrnend aecaptaftee of ShIngobee Buildon. Inc. as the low bidder and, contingent upon the Council's datormtrmtlon, acceptance d the aftemetes. We also note that although Shingoboo'O bid did not Include tho spoetlled projoet schedule, the contract documents Indksno the Owner has the right to walvo any Imfornmiltim In bidding'. and to'awsrd the cordw in the bast Interest of the Owner.' nmol �p,o,,,o,y Pum- C7-0) 13:49 OPP SCHFL 4 vk(EPW 612 595 5773 P.03 Mr. John Simefa February 24, 1996 Page 2 Upon your notlllcaW an, we wIll prepare approp we contracts and notices to proceed. Thank you for your time and please call If you should have any questkxm Sfraeerely. -I OR - ERON 8 �I D. Wad, AIA re DOW/rns x: WJZ/13AW/Re Attachrrwd 1: \arch\ddw\lettere\2791 hr.ddw �I TOT 03 Council Agenda - 2/27/95 e. Consideration of P purchase offer on Lots 5 and 6. Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition. -Paragon Holdings. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As I mentioned at the last meeting, the City had received a purchase offer on Lots 5 and 6 of the Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition in the amount of $61,700. The offer was made by Mr. Ron Johnson, who currently operates a firm known as Quality Welding in Rogers, Minnesota. Mr. Johnson is looking to move this business, along with his partner's business known as Rogen Corporation, to a new building in Monticello in the near future. The initial proposal would be to construct a 15,000 sq ft building that would have sufficient room for expansion in the future if needed. From the information provided by Mr. Johnson, he has indicated that Quality Welding may employee 13 people by the year 1997 and the Rogen Corporation 12 people in 1997. The remaining two lots owned by the City total 3.27 acres. The asking price we were using in 1994 was $31,600 for Lot 5 and $30,200 for Lot 6 for a total of $61,700. This asking price amounted to $18,859 per acre. In 1995, I had adjusted the prices to reflect the 4.5% increase as our holding cost, and this would increase the price to $64,485, or $19,711 per acre. Mr. Johnson was aware of these asking prices both in 1994 and 1995; and based on this information, he submitted an offer of $61,700, which was our asking price last fall. Although the price appears to be reasonable due to the fact that it does equal our asking price established for 1994, I did have a number of concerns in the purchase agreement that was submitted, which were also concerns of our City Attorney, Paul Weingarden. Some areas in the agreement we felt were not agreeable included provisions allowing Mr. Johnson to do hazardous waste soil testing with the City being responsible for all the cost. Another area of concern was the requirement for the City to provide a survey of the parcel at our expense when one is typically required by the eventual builder on the property. Another main issue regarded a request that this property not be subject to any future assessments for storm sewer or other improvements. Since it is uncertain how any storm sewer improvements or storm sower area charges might affect this property in the future, I do not think it would be wise to grant an exclusion to this property agreeing never to assess it in the future. Other than a few other minor language changes, the above three areas were noted as being likely to be unacceptable to the City. I think Mr. Johnson understands the City's concerns regarding the language in the purchase agreement, as he did note 12 Council Agenda - 2127/95 that his attorney drafted the agreement without his knowledge concerning some of these issues. The bottom line is, I think if we agree on a price and Mr. Johnson and his partner do decide to locate in Monticello, I don't think the above -noted items will be a problem if we eliminate them from the agreement. Preliminarily, the HRA has given approval to the concept of using TIF assistance in the amount not to exceed $40,000 present value. The HRA appears to be supportive of a pay-as-you-go tax increment district for this company, which would pay up to $40,000 over 9 years with an additional 8% interest added to this amount. Based on preliminary construction data, the project could generate up to $144,000 in tax increments; but, likewise, the city general fund would be penalized $48,000 over the 9 years. If the company continues to pursue tax increment financing through the HRA, more information will be available for the Council to review later. As an alternate to an outright sale of these tote to Quality Welding, the Council could always look at reducing the cost of the land if tax increment assistance was not going to be used for this project. Since the City will ultimately lose some revenue through LGA loss if a TEF district is established, there is rationale for simply lowering the sale price up front and not providing TIF assistance, as the City's loss will be the same in either case. The estimated LGA loss could amount to $30,000 in today's dollars, although there is a way for the City to recapture up to possibly $20,000 over the next 9 years to offset part of this LGA loss. If the Council does not wish to explore this option further, the action needed is simply to indicate if the purchase offer amount is adequate and whether we need to amend a possible purchase agreement by eliminating certain conditions in their offer. Mr. Johnson and his partner have not yet discussed whether the City's concerns would be agreeable to them, but they did ask if the City Council would at least address whether the $81,700 amount is sufficient. Any final purchase offer would also be contingent upon them obtaining proper financing through either TIF assistance or other methods to proceed with the project. Council could agree to accept the purchase price offered of $81,700, which equals our 1994 asking price for Lots 5 and 8, contingent upon the purchase agreement being amended as recommended by the Administrator and City Attorney. Council Agenda - 2/27/95 The amendments proposed would eliminate the City being responsible for any hazardous waste testing on the site or being responsible for providing a certificate of survey on the site, and would also eliminate reference to the property not being subject to a future storm sewer assessment. Council could reject the offer as inadequate and counter with the 1995 asking price of $64,485. In addition, the counteroffer would be subject to the amendments as noted in the purchase agreement. Council could accept the offer as presented, including the requirements for survey, hazardous waste testing, and elimination of storm sewer assessments. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As far as the dollar amount offered, it does meet our 1994 asking price but is 4.5% short of what we had increased it to for 1995. Although I don't think the dollar amount is a problem, I would not recommend selling at this price if we are responsible for all hazardous waste testing, providing a certificate of survey, and agreeing to eliminate any future storm sewer assessments. Tm not sure whether this makes any difference or not, but I do believe Quality Welding is proposing a metal building similar to those in the area such as Polycast, NSP, and the adjacent sprinkler business building owned by Miley Gjertsen. D. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of proposed purchase agreement offer with recommended changes noted by City Attorney. f .TD n'.no- rvr ti RTANDARI) PURCHASE AGREEMENT �h^ - AECENEDOF _PBLD9DriAgIdia91., I,I.0 ne wm d Dell -(1 I In n .Nnen mv.er b d depos lod the ern I-1- Sr ahw .rcrpunp .n l accoun of I W g lve . Itmnne otlre..vne .peedud m wn.gl and .n pnl p.yrnrern ry lhr p.nerr.ew d the pwara 1pelly de.v.betl n Lot/ 5-6_6_ _p1QCk 1 Oakwood Induatrial Park Second Addition bcw.d n (SIrM Adben) - - CnYel_ffon21cs110 .Corrnhot Wrlqht Slav d A.r.yr.eAot.. mclud"V aR Manta aMub..rtd nen. MI Wol m w hde, s "Im nnwta mm door.. w thihs. w.mrry., v ndow aM1.de.. W ht%, n mn. .e.btowvrobot. wtt d hw-vhvurnwehdylu, ohm" Imhrn, www luww,lre.l..p avnwn. Irrrrnlblw, rwrlral ave cdrdyonrq, ldrnnronc nr nM-..ulan.lc pwap. dov ooehW -11 -'eh, waive .oh-. Mle llM-ph owl r.ble V. 91ALT.INS Io w= dnbwWwr. 9arb.pn bwoul, Imh tune . ownls) C Awp Vl mw.p Peen. own. -I fan. miwcan..Weled rarpe .V, IF ANY, bread m IM pMnr!. wb,ch Are the pooe ly of Seller and etr rh• lolbwmp ie.scnel ww". vacant land ' Nld whcn ptyotlY Selw Malts day add mBurw la ltle wmd { 61,200..0^ _ ' Doan. ., when Buyw ew.e. m pev m 1M tdler•9 mAruw Ewnnt mwrY d 1 SA• NJ- erd on v bele• ..Me dm of downy, "IM bete - 10 1 by Ln h lv n wwl —See addend= AN.cA•dar. 0#016 .head. w. nub•pan dlM.pwrrw. SUBJECT TO Wwm.rc. by Buyw. Sellar awm m...eul. and deln.t A W-wMV Died, M be pmd m br apwp, d anY. o thwWq mwewade Illb m the pwnru..ublact .nh te the tobwwp •uept-t 111 Bt.lbrgab aonrrry lwn.ondmance. 61rM wdlM.w repdwone x71 Raver clvnrAlmprouuw.rpeueiewwhem Mwheehwlvlenuapwnon 171 mwI41 Utd"W,M d,W,.pw .[hmrrp rdnlwn w+lh peaty. +rpowne..b tbl Rp1n. d Iw4N. dam REAL ESIATE TARE B S.IIw .p•..lo pry 1 Z_ Y 121M aM 0uyw ap.eep to pAy s2- 12m. d lem tM.M pey.W n lM ww 10 95 sell« .pen Io 1uy � Z_ / 121b .b Burw q•a. ro IrY TIO / 171b d Annul +ralalerrrn d Ap.cul Iaie..m.nis ave nd paved. m Me yie. 19 95 _8¢110x_ wea.lo .p¢y-- m IM aw•d clowrp aR Aortal .naieem.nl. Iwnrd.w p•rd+v Durr stun Ile, w du. And vembl• .n the M 1996 .rd any ahold velwlm.n. of a W aarunrn. om,.bW Iho,-h .M lhte-h. 9.I1er rgrr.nn Ilw tem du. rd pMW n R.. yur 1996 _ _ _ ww be0n hm.w.ad rbswrcw.on Aw Neal- S. - S.IIw'. Apd main •rry r.p..wnwwr Ivytwmnp pre amotrrll d Mu. rW n1aU I.m WARRANTIES Sd4n wwrenb IMI bu.k%.p darty• We en..N wnhrn The bx dwy I.- d the p.mo.. S.R. r.wrarrl. IMI all M.r Mworrp•nd.wcorrblwrp,ry.rwp wd urMrrplrW.rdbcatedmlMpAmr.n w.npOpw wgllrrpaM ar d.l.dtb.rrq p nayeclpemrie.pw locbup uya shin un.ly hmien I"u,". h. 1hw.spme. Ihel vel ap hm-es, Mean wdwr y demerp,ywwV. plumdnp•Ienpr9ww ngwb bOm,ce urp Bdlw w4r.nsIMllM p.rnan q.rdvucl.d to rny.ewar 11 Yee d roc www O w. m ro R IM pwnn.s .1. d..Mowd v .ubnanr.ly Nnuped W h. v .IrY other uu.e bel.. IM rbwrp dale. the ap.wrrnc "It Mavn. h ll er.d rad w 0- s T Md M ...heal mmey Pull M rwund. l to aww POSSESSION 5.Ibr .p.m m delnw pounlar rot blw IMP Onto P C . _ cle.mp All mlwnl. c.h .wive veld)).wwv��rr nnyr9a. .bclrc Mn.luwpe.dwpn,lu.I nlwd loud pwrobum 0" he po .veal IMlM.nihe ry.linnd d¢L0 ol_C1o01¢Q__ SlMw pp•nlo,wlnn vel dlydY.rd.p yww>W prY.rn nu lrcntdM Mrwn ndn nu We- Mtve po.u..nn dal. I'M BEXAMINATION Sell. AMI, wnhe, . --W- Ahw A pt-te d IM q.wrrn, lur.ah An AbU,- d lel., p . RopnlwwlA�.rly AbauM.crmdud mdweronrn.Y POOw rwclr..mwrrgpwAnpco.. Emu ww red nrlN.nd M^. Bmw 4u11 be t4 -.d 10 I,= d.H ehw rn.p b WW- Inb.rrd rt.L.V wry ohlMlpn, w0,e h h.0 be made .n -Aug p tl.•rr.ed •n.d n.nY d>Iw'1.•• a ver rMW, 5.4n.M4 d.Ibw.d 120dAw m mAL. htl. -a.". Pw.WV -.--d Inb, patphW,l. rw.uMw pu.I.d .MRM I-nporwl hot - -Mon ot Inb wd wren 10 dey..hr w.m.n nwwm Io flow.. 1M ..n{ppI•..pw.rmmdw.amMA wwdd.cdmwTpngnrpsllIOrnlw..e.mtwIw.lwlmlpl.IdwnRIMwhInlepbmwMm.rMwc.rlyndr.d IlMd..rw.pnIrwrhvindt.eo1.7nl0 yW ByI I.rdwwdrer.prIrld.rwb a.owB.1rewd , w.w.ddmAm•pn wrrld.M.w..n[mIwdunMrr..elyMr.Wep..ptprl laa.Mw.l.r. ✓l M k" 1.bmp.W,hdWmTheveALTMmrWhe www.lu.e.rMrd..MctlnlalVlm..roN.IByvnuwumywqll luaM ." Met pw11' p111r...p1A d wdaC.rV IM M.ardrrpwrarrNrce dIM1r,ap.•.mat pw.M IMaq•eemvtlaMIwmm.ud.b.ynron to enh.re.p.cac pwlotm.rc•.. cr.r..WwlN Ir o C eI1sj Mw Iter t, mthe 0,",m InIM IoM!Ouwr 71. thll..n ha parl0 ehr .of 1he Iwm.( 0)Apriepe 11" unit•d.C.Mell.l USA raved upon IM Du W r par. W nl Io M0A bbB 21, IM Iwmmngn pwod seen M u.rtY x70) days a. iermlll.d br Bubdlnwpn .OI4SA AC 1 ACC[►TANG! Apra ...w lubb p r..pory..bb en .nYnlr. d IM .p Wrurrl, •.rept Ip rwun d wcpu.l Ipr IM.M nen rrc.yy AOENCY DISCLOwaE sn/1/.ae. M w.11e b rpr.wdMq Ur. w a.. bwrrclW. I Me baw9 we w brpaw nbrAMe. M a the b "Itee" M rllw w pile bwr.IcaM 1, the evens o11M p.m .crap. IN. W-. ..d IeoiempurrI-,h.Wwru.ierp drW-Welonthe,--who The ub hwmy made-dillons rl Wh arwie CELLER yTR Par O .1191d1n9 city -or aent1ca110 BV(J(f�ry��Jyp �l�J Q��// D.Iwwr of OR pwwl .rd nrww..hall be reale w the dile d !/ Convent S.tnrp April Adb.e. _ _ _ Lay THIS 19 A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. lE NOi UNDERSTOOD, SEER COMPETENT ADVICE, l 07 ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT PA ey ARTICLE I Purchase and sale 1) Sellet hereby agrees to sell and convey unto Purchaser and Purchaser hereby agrees to buy and pay for the following: a) The Property together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances pertaining to such real property, including any right, title and interest of Seller in and to vacated streets, adjacent streets, alleys, rights-of-way, vacated rights-of-way and easements, if any; and b) All improvements now constructed and completed or under construction with respect to and situated on the Property described in Exhibit A, if any; and c) All copies of existing architectural and engineering plans, soil studies, market reports and surveys and all other plans, studies, reports and surveys which have been heretofore prepared by the Seller or its agents and which are currently in Seller's possession, and which pertain to the Property or the improvements thereon. ARTICLE II Covenants and Agreements 1) Seller hereby covenants and agrees with Purchaser as follows: a) From the date of execution of this Purchase Agreement by Seller through the Date of Closing, Seller shall not, directly or indirectly, do or fail to do any act which might reasonably be excepted to result in the creation of any lien, charge or encumbrance of any nature whatsoever on the Property or otherwise affect the marketability of the title to the Property. 2) From and after the date of this Purchase Agreement, Purchaser and Seller shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of their respective employees, agents and subcontractors and agree to indemnify and hold harmless each other from any claims, costs or expenses arising from such acts or omissions. ARTICLE III REPR_E.SENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER AND PURCHASER 1. Seller represents and warrants to Purchaser as follows: a) This Purchase Agreement is valid and binding upon Seller in accordance with its torms. b) Seller has the authority and power to enter into this Purchase Agreement and to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby, and neither the execution or delivery of this Purchase Agreement by Seller nor its performance by Seller will, to the best of Seller's knowledge, conflict with or result in a violation of breach of any law, regulation, order, writ, or injunction or any court or governmental agency, app116able to Seller, or to the Property nor of any term, condition, or an indenture, or other contract or agreement to which Seller is a party nor cause a default thereunder nor result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or encumbrance of any nature whatsoever on the Property pursuant to the terms of any such agreement. c) No other person or entity has the right to purchase all or a portion of the Property pursuant to any written or oral agreements or options. Seller will convey title to the Property by Contract for Warranty Deed, free and clear of any and all liens, mortgages, pledges, security interests, leases, charges, encumbrances, easements, joint ownerships, or restrictions of any kind, except for permitted Title Exceptions as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. d) Seller represents and warrants that, to Seller's best knowledge and belief, there is no litigation, proceeding, claim, or investigation, pending or threatened, and there is no contract or agreement to which Seller is currently a party which, at or after Closing, would adversely affect the Property or might result in a materially adverse effect on the Property. e) Seller has received no notice of nor has Seller reason to believe there exists: 1) Any violation of any law, municipal ordinance or other governmental requirement affecting the Property; 2) Any condemnation proceedings affecting the Property; 3) Any claim for which a mechanic's lien may be filed against the Property; or 6) Any right claimed by a third party in the Property adverse to Seller's interest therein. f) Seller has not used the Property for or engaged in the business of, thegeneration, transportation, storing, treating or disposing of any 'hazardous substance" or "pollutant or contaminant" included within the definition of such terms under Federal, State or local statute or ordinance now existing or hereafter enacted or amended. Seller has no knowledge and could not reasonably have had a% knowledge or belief that any other person has used the Property for any of the uses aforementioned. Seller has not used the Property for the disposal of waste and has not knowingly permitted any person to so use the Property. 0 U The Pro ort does of con in any " za bus substance" or "po u nt or co ant" include within the definit of such under Feder4N,%,State or local statu o ordina a no xistin r her ter enacted or nded. g) Seller hereby agrees that the truthfulness of each of th arranties containe herei is a d on precede to th erformanc b urchaser its obligatio sunder. Up6n a breach an such warranties rchaser may cl a this rchas Agreeme to a null and old an re er any a est mons aid her oder, Purchaser y elect to c ose th sale. 2) Purchaser represents and warrants to Seller: a) Neither the execution or delivery of this Purchase Agreement by Purchaser nor its performance by Purchaser will conflict with or result in a violation or breach of any law, regulation, order, writ, or injunction of any court orgovernmental agency, applicable to Purchaser or o the Property nor of any term, condition or any indenture, mortgage, leases or other contract or agreement to which Purchaser is aparty nor cause a default thereunder nor result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or encumbrance of any nature whatsoever on the Property pursuant to the terms of any such agreement. b) Purchaser has the authority and power to enter into this Purchase Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. ARTICLE IV Title CommitmeL 1) Within thirty (30) days following the date of this Purchase Agreement, Seller, at Seller's sole cost and expense shall cause to be furnished to Purchaser a current title commitment for an Owner's Title Policy issued by the Title Company, showing the status of title yo all of the Property and all exceptions, including easements, restrictions, rights-of-way, covenants, reservations and other conditions, if any, affecting the Property which would appear in an Owner's Title Policy, if used, and committing to issue such Owner's Title Policy to Purchaser in the full amount of the Purchase Price for the Property at the Closing. Such title commitment shall contain an extended coverage endorsement insuring over all of the standard exceptions. Accompanying such title commitment, Seller shall also furnish Purchaser with legible copies of all documents affecting all of the Property and referred to in the title commitment. The premium for such Owner's Title Policy shall be Purchaser's sole cost and expense. 2) If such commitment for title insurance described in paragraph 1 above shows exceptions to title (other than those listed pn Exhibit C), Seller shall have ninety (90) days after the date of delivery of such title commitment to Purchaser to cure such defects and to present a title commitment on the basis of which the closing of the transaction contemplated hereby may occur as 4rovidod herein. Seller shall use its best efforts sod. .w - .., to cure such defector. If such defects have not D been cured within such ninety (90) day period, Purchaser shall have the option of: a) declaring this Purchase Agreement null and void, and in such event, any earnest money shall be refunded to Purchaser; or b) waiving any defect in title, and, in such event, troceeding to close the transaction contemplated by his Purchase Agreement. ARTICLE V Survey Seller shall provide to Purchaser a survey of the Property AJ prepared by a registered land surveyor registered in Minnesota, showing and certifying (i) boundary lines; (ii legal description; /)�� (iii) location of all adjacent roadways and railroad right -of- Sf ways and any limitation of access; (iv) location of all utilities /1 located on or adjacent to the Property; (v) location of all Bore r easements; (vi) area of (a) the Property; (b) roadway easements Ys and right-of-ways, and (c) railroad right -of -was to the nearest 1/1,000 the of an acre- (vii) location of all visible encroachments; (viii) location of all improvements and (ix) all F► C setback lines. The survey shall be in accordance with the current MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND TITLE s'W�Pt�r SURVEYS AS ADOPTED BY THE AMERICAN TITLE ASSOCIATION AND THE / AMERICAN CONGRESS OF SURVEYING AND MAPPING. Seller shall pay all costs associated with such survey. ARTICLE VI Development of Property 1)Seller agrees to permit Purchaser, through its su or ze employees and representatives to conduct such investigations and examinations of the Property prior to Date of Closing as it deems necessary or advisable and Seller will cooperate fully with such investigation. Such investigation may include, but is not limited to, surveying, soil testing, hazardous waste testing, studies of utility availability and other various studies. Ssr___ _....4 WaJ •U. aia •eabon uie cob Cs NO ��• 416.•ti/L tAAc� ttr Ai / •19 APy , FT(I�t'n1f,wq it G�.pI•�• , 2) Costs. Purchaser shall not be liable for any trunk anitary sewer assessment: $1,250.00 per Acre.aod..4... p oo.,..... ..�yis 7a we a�11'i�ou iivu. y , T B-fA-f1,!�e r acre, O4'r. c an s ire that ere ill do ion of a In the event is asse or any d11'ZiedicatiPur shall hay a right to o t the dedi es �'V'w r aga ARTICLE VIZ w.T Qt- Ab CL0 SXH *?o r-}U*t f 1) The consummation of the Purchase and sale contemplated 941AP1 hereby (horein referred to as the Closing" or Date of Closing') Saw H shall be mutually agreed upon by Seller and Purchaser and shall be held no later than mm r i - . rr r- and shall bo held in CW1 e4 the offices of c... CPa �r , , or at such other place anS 'Elmo as 5eiier anc Purcnasor snail mutually agree upon in writing. 2) At the Closing: a) Subject to Purchaser's performance, Seller shall: i) Deliver to Purchaser a duly completed, executed, acknowledged and recordable Contract for Warranty Deed conveying the Property subject only to the Permitted Title Exceptions. ii) Deliver to Purchaser an affidavit indicating that, on the Date of Closing, there are no outstanding, unsatisfied judgments, tax liens or bankruptcies against or involving Seller or the Property, that there has been no skill, labor or material furnished to the Property for which a mechanic's lien could be filed, and that there are no other unrecorded interests in the Property of any kind. iii) Deliver to Purchaser an affidavit in form and substance satisfactory to Purchaser's counsel certifying Seller is not a foreign corporation and complying with Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code. b) Subject to Seller's performance, Purchaser shall deliver o Seller by certified or cashier's check in the sum of Sixty One Thousand Seven Hundred and 00/100 Dollars (561,700.00). ARTICLE VIII 1) The obligations of Seller or Purchaser to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby are subject to the following conditions: a) The representations and warranties made by Seller or Purchaser herein shall be true and correct as of the date of the execution of this Purchase Agreement and as of the Closing Date with the same force and effect as though such representations and warranties had been made as of the Closing Date; and Seller or Purchaser shall have performed all covenants and obligations and complied with all conditions required by this Purchase Agreement to be performed or complied with by Seller or Purchaser, respectively, prior to the Closing Date. 2) The obligation of Purchaser to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby is subject to the following conditions: a) Purchaser determining that the soil conditions of the Property are satisfactory for the desired development by Purchaser. b) Purchaser determining, in its solo discretion, that no hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants exist on the property. c) Purchaser determining, in its sole discretion, 9 that sewer, water, storm sewer and other utilities necessary for the development of the Property. Property is or will be available to meet Purchaser's development plans. d) Purchaser determining, suitable financing, in its sole discretion. t��tr fere♦ eR. j In th vent that the abo contingencies are not satisfied byy &!tL 111 , 1995, chaser may elect to terminate this cch se Agreement in which case any earnest money, including all interest accrued thereon, paid by Purchaser shall be refunded to Purchaser. Concurrent with the release of any earnest money to Purchaser shall execute and deliver to Seller a Quit Claim Deed to the Property, and thereafter, neither party shall have any further rights or obligations under this Purchase Agreement. Seller hereby Agrees that Purchaser does not waive its right NO to object to items (a)-(c) listed above in the event Purchaser elects to close rather than terminate this Purchase Agreement. 0 C ARTICLE IR fl Termination and Remedies 1) Termination and Remedies. a) Purchaser's Remedies. If Seller defaults in performing any of Sellers Closing obligations under the terms of this Purchase Agreement by the Closing Date for any reason, other than Purchaser's default, Purchaser shall be entitled to terminate this Purchase Agreement and a refund of any earnestmoneyy, including earned interest thereon, or enforce specific performance of this Purchase Agreement. (b) Seller's Remedies. If Purchaser defaults in performing any of Purchaser's Closing obligations under the terms of this Purchase Agreement by the Closing Date ' for any reason other than the Sgller's default, Seller's sole remedy shall be termination of this . Purchase Agreement and the retention of any earnest money, including earned interest thereon as liquidated damages. fi 9 ARTICLE XII MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 This Purchase Agreement embodies the entire agreement between the parties :and cannot be waived except by the written agreement of the Parties. 12.2 The representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the Seller and Purchaser herein contained shall survive the Closing. 12.3 Any notice required or permitted hereunder shall be deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to Seller or Purchaser, as the case may be, at the address set forth in the first paragraph of this Purchase 1 Agreement. 12.4 Words of any gender used in this Purchase Agreement shall be held and construed to include any other gender, and words of a singular number shallNbe held to include the plural, and vice versa, unless the context requires otherwise. 12.5 The captions used in connection with the Articles of this Purchase Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be deemed to construe or to limit the meaning of the language of this Purchase Agreement. 12.6 Nothing in this Purchase Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer upon any person, other than the parties hereto and their heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns, any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Purchase Agreement. =� 12.7 This Purchase Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by Seller and Purchaser. J 12.8 This Purchase` Agreement embodies the entire agreement between the parties with relation to the transactions contemplated hereby, and there have been and are no covenants, agreements, representations, warranties or restrictions between the parties with regard thereto other than those set forth herein or herein provided for. 12.9 Seller and Purchaser agree that they will, at any time and from time to time after the Closing Date, upon the request of the other party, execute, acknowledge and deliver all such further acts, deeds, assignments, transfers, conveyances, powers of attorney and assurances as may be reasonably required for the effective assigning, transferring, y granting, conveying, assuring and confirming to them their heirs, legal representatives or assigns the Property, at the cost of the requesting party. 12.10 All references in this Purchase Agreement to "the date of this Purchase Agreement' shall be deemed to refer to that date set forth in the introductory clause hereinabove. 12.11 This Purchase Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. ' 8 9 — .�4 iuia rurcuase Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 12.13 It is expressly understood and agreed that in the event that either Purchaser or Seller hereto should employ the J services of an attorney iq connection with a breach of this Purchase Agreement or the enforcement of the terms hereof, the defpulting or losing party shall pay, in addition to any other sums due hereunder, the prevailing party's reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. 12.14 Purchaser may assign this Purchase Agreement without consent of Seller. V V — B4jC ILC— IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Purchase Agreement has been signed on the day and year first above written. SELLER: CITY OF MONTICELLO By: FOYER: PARAGON HOLDINGS, LLC. gy:��` J d onto o6r}�on 9 gK EXHIBIT C PERMITTED TITLE EXCEPTIONS (1) Reservations of mineral rights by the State of Minnesota, if any. l (2) Building, zoning, ordinances and subdivision laws and state and federal regulations, which do not interfere with Purchaser's development of the Property. (3) Covenants, restrictions, and easements which do not materially interfere with Purchaser's development of the Property. (4) Existing roadways. Council Agenda - 2/27/95 Consideration of a resolption gc cepting feasibility study gnd ordering plans anti gnedfications for phase V of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Council is asked to consider accepting the feasibility study and authorizing preparation of plans and specifications for phase V of the Cardinal Hills subdivision. This action follows the recent decision by Council to approve the preliminary plat for phase V, which consists of 34 lots. The feasibility study estimates the total project cost at $474,100, which is broken down as follows: streets $204,600; storm sewer, $44,000; water main, $82,000; sanitary sewer, $67,000; and site grading, $76,600. As with all previous phases of the Cardinal Hills subdivision, the developer is required to provide a cash deposit in an amount equal to the cost of preparation of plans and specifications, which is estimated at $13,000. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt a resolution accepting feasibility study and ordering plans and specifications for phase V of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision contingent on Value Plus Homes, Inc., of Monticello providing a deposit in an amount equal to the estimated cost to prepare plans and specifications as defined by the City Engineer. Under this alternative, the City Engineer will prepare plans and specifications for Council review on March 27, 1995. 2. Motion to deny adoption of the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff' recommends alternative 111. The feasibility study does not reveal any particular issue or problem that would appear to justify denial or tabling of this item. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of feasibility study; Resolution for adoption. CARDINAL HILLS STH ADDITION GRADING, STREETS, UTILITIES AND APPURTENANT WORK CITY PROJECT NO. 954W MONT ICELLO, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY, 1995 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS, 300 PARK PLACE EAST 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416.1228 (612) 595-5775 OSM Project No. 4892.60 log February 27, 1995 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Monticello P.O. Box 1147 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Re: Feasibility Report Cardinal Hills 5th Addition Grading, Streets, Utilities and Appurtenant Work City Project No. 95-060 Monticello, Minnesota OSM Project No. 4892.60 Dear Mayor and Council: r Transmitted herewith is a Feasibility Report covering street grading and utility improvements for Cardinal Hills 5th Addition. We would like to discuss this report with all Interested parties at your convenience. Please give us a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN•MAYERON & ASSOCIATEz- Bret �, A. Weiss, P.E. City Engineer ram Enclosure Ia+>aava%Mmcvmawe 9 CERTIFICATION SHEET I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Date: February 27, 1995 Reg. No. 20753 OSM Project No. 4892.60 e i 9� TABLE OF CONTENIS TITLE SHEET LETTER OF TRANSMTITAL CERTIFICATION TYPE OF WORK ................................................ 1 REASON FOR PROJECT ......................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ..................................... 1 TDVMG...................................................... 1 SCOPE............... ........................................ 2 SANITARY SEWER 2 WATERMAIN 2 STORM SEWER 2 STREET CONSTRUCTION 2 SITE GRADING 2 OSM Project No. 4842.40 U 90 CARDINAL HILLS 4TH ADDITION GRADING, STREETS, UTILITIES AND APPURTENANT WORK CITY PROJECP NO. 95-06C + MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK This report examines the construction of streets and utilities for a proposed residential subdivision located in the southwest quarter of Section 13. The work, as proposed, includes site grading, street construction, extension of utilities, construction of stormwater drainage facilities, and appurtenant work IL REASON FOR PROJECT This report was requested by the City staff in response to a petition for a public improvement project for the area. Value Plus Homes, the developer and petitioner, is proposing to construct 32 low-density residential housing units in the east portion of the 109 acre parcel. This development is the fifth of the proposed six -phase development. M. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The proposed subdivision is bordered by Cardinal Hills 3rd and 4th Additions on the west, the city corporate limits on the south, Cardinal Hills 6th Addition on the east, and School Boulevard on the north. With the construction of the 5th Addition, 216 of the proposed 252 lou will be developed. IV. TIMING The developer would like to have the Sth Addition available for home construction near the end of August. The schedule, as proposed, should accommodate that request. OSM Project No. 4892.40 1 9E V. SCOPE A. SANITARY SEWER - The sanitary sewer service to the 5th Addition is proposed to be extended from the 3rd Addition along Falcon Avenue, and from the 4th Addition along Pelican Lane and Mallard lane. The sanitary sewer design is in line with the overall plan for the area and will consist of 8 -inch diameter pipe. Stubs for future additions are proposed to the east along Mallard Lane and Falcon Avenue. (See Figure A) B WATUMAIN - The watermain will be extended from the 3rd Addition along Falcon Avenue and from the 4th Addition along Pelican Lane and Mallard Lane, and will be stubbed to the future additions parallel to the sanitary sewer. The watermain will consist of 8 -inch and 6 -inch diameter pipe. (See Figure B) C- STORM SEWER - The storm sewer system for the 5th Addition incorporates the previously -constructed 4th Addition storm sewer located along Mallard Lane and a proposed pond located in the northeast corner of the development which discharges into the School Boulevard/CR 118 storm sewer system. The proposed outlet system will also serve as the street storm sewer network for all 10 -year rainfall events. (See Figure C) D. STREET CONSTRUCTION - The proposed bituminous street section is a 36 -foot wide face-to-face section with surmountable concrete curb and gutter. This report includes a street section designed with 3.1/2 inches of bituminous. 8 inches of aggregate base, and a 2 -foot layer of granular borrow for stabilization. The section may be able to be reduced during construction depending on actual field conditions. (See Figure D) E SITE GRADING - The site grading will be included in the bidding documents for this project, but will not be assessed with the other Improvements. The developer will pay the grading costs as they accrue during the construction phase. 'Rte grading for both the Sth and 6th phases will be completed as a part of the Sth phase. (See Figure E) OSM Project No. 4892.40 e 2 9� VI. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION From an engineering standpoint, the project is feasible, can be accomplished as proposed, and need not be in conjunction with any other projects. It is the recommendation of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc., that the City undertake a construction project as outlined herein. ViL ESTIMATED COSTS Detailed cost estimates can be found in the back of this report in Appendix A. A summary of these costs is shown below. A. Sanitary Sewer $67,000 B. Watermain $82,000 C. Storm Sewer $44,000 D. Street Construction $204,500 E Site Grading $76,600 Total $474,100 The above -referenced total estimated project cost includes a contingency factor and all related indirect costs. Indirect costs are estimated at 28% and include legal, engineering, administrative, and fiscal costs. •The site grading indirect costs are estimated at 5% due to the construction costs being paid directly by the developer. VII. RIGHT-OF•WAY/EASEMENT/PERNM The right-ofway and easements will be acquired with the acceptance of the final plat. The Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permits will be acquired by the City after completion of the plans and specifications. OSM Project No. 4892.40 P e 3 9s IX ASSESSABLE AREAS The areas that benefit from these improvements and which are proposed to be assessed for these improvements are as follows: The details of the assessment arrangement are outlined in the developer's agreement, but essentially, include 100 percent of the project costs for street, sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer construction. The grading costs are being paid on an ongoing basis during construction by the developer. K ASSESSMENTS All project costs associated with street and utility construction will be assessed in full to the developer. XI. PROJECT' SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report ......................... February 27, 1995 Order Plans & Specifications ....................... February 27, 1995 Approve Plans & Specifications and Order Ads for Bids .............................. March 27, 1995 Open Bids........................................April 21, 1995 Award Contract .................................... Apra 27, 1995 Substantial Completion ............................... August, 1995 FinalCompletion ..................................... June, 1996 OSM Project No. 489240 P 4 99 APPENDIX A OSM Project No. 4892.40 9s I Cardinal Hills Sth AddlUm Ct4 Project No. 9S06C Monticello MN OSM Project Na 892.60 DESCRIPTION QTY uNR UNR' PRICE TOTAL , 1 V PVC Sanituy Sean SDR35 1,810 LF. S16M s28,960m 2 rr a r PVC Sewer Wyes SDR26 32 Each Woo si=m 3 P PVC Sewer Wym SDR26 1,120 LF. spm K720m 4 STD INmholo (4' dia) (0.10' deep) 8 Ead s1,100.00 s8,800m S Emma Manhole Depth over 10' m LF. 570m s1,400m 6 Connect to Elistiog Manhole/Stub 3 Foch SSOOm s1.500m 7 Ormuhr Foundation Material 100 Tom am S800m 8 Remove and Relocate Etdsting Cleanout 2 Each $100m $200.00 Subtotal WA60A0 S% Cootinj a SZ483m U7143.00 28% Incilmd 314ACOX Total s67,000m OSM Project No. 4892.40 9T I Cardinal Hills Sth Addition City Project Na 954K Monticello, MN OSM Project Na 4892.60 WATERMAIN DESCRIPTION QW UNI' UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8' DIP Class 52 830 LF. 515.00 $12,750.00 2 W DIP Class S2 1,467 L.F. $13.00 519071.00 3 Hydrants (mdudmg 6' gate valve) 3 Each 11,500.00 $41500.00 4 8' Gate Valve 4 Each $550.00 52,200.00 S 6' One Valve 4 Each $373.00 S1500.00 6 Fittings 2,200 Lbs. Sim $3,300.00 7 1' Corporation Cocks 32 Each 533.00 31,120.00 8 1' Curb Stop B Bas 32 Each 185.00 52,72D.00 9 1' Copper Service Pipe 1,120 L.F. 5730 58,400.00 10 Coantxt to Prld g Watermain 3 Each 5400.00 $1,200.00 Subtotal SK76L00 5% Cantwgeac7 $2,838.03 Subtotal 564,220.00 28% ludireet 517,981.60 Told 187,000.00 P 7 OSM Project No. 4892.40 Cardlaal RHb Stb Addition G9q Project No. 93-W M,MN OSM PraJat No. 4893.60 OSM Project No. 489240 Page 8 99 UNIT DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 17 RCP 145 LF. =00 52,900.00 2 W RCP 30 LF. S2L50 $645.00 3 I8' RCP 125 LF. S23.00 52,875.00 4 21' RCP 75 L.1'. S26.00 S1,950.00 5 24' RCP 370 LF. 530.00 S11,100.00 6 Std. C Dia. Stm. Manhole (0'-1(r) 4 Each 11,100.00 $4,400.00 7 Catch Basica 6 Each 5850.00 $5,100.00 8 Rip Rap 9 C.Y. 55000 $450.00 9 2C Apron Wfrmsh Guard 1 Each S1,000.00 S1,000.00 10 PVC Sub Drain 2 LF. $10.00 521).00 Subtotal 53$420.00 5% Contingency S1,62L00 S"L00 29% Ind S9.S31.48 Total 541400.00 OSM Project No. 489240 Page 8 99 Cardinal Hula stn Ad&dw City Project No. 934W Monticello. MN OSM Project No. 4891.60 STRMCONMUCn DESCRIMON QTY UNrr UNrr PRICE - TOTAL 1 Sabgrade Preparation 23.4 R.S. (123.00 (2,923.00 2 Place Y Select Grander Borrow 13,100 Toa SS.OD $65300A0 3 8' AWtpte Bate, Class 4,423 Toa $4.70 520,79730 S 4 T 2331 Typo 31 1,030 Ton 519.00 5193711.00 Bituminous Base Course S 1S 2131 Typo 41 800 Toa M.50 S16,400.00 Bituminous wear comae 6 Bituminous Material for 430 GaL Sim $450.00 Task Cost 7 Concrete Curb R Gutter- 4,423 LF. 430 519,90330 Surmountable 8 Remove k Relocate 3 Pak 5500.00 51300.00 Permanent Barticade 9 Sod 2,040 S.Y. 52 50 SS IMM Subtotal 5357146.00 5% Cantlgary S7AW 30 5159,75330 28% Indirea 544,730.92 Total 5204,800.00 A OSM Project No. 4892.40 i C4rdbW HMs Stb Addltloo City Prgjal No. 9S -06C MoaHedlo, MN OSM Project Na 4892.60 DSSCRIMON QTY UNIT UNff PR1C6 TOTAL I Site Grading Complete 1 LS. (551000.00 S55,000.00 2 Silt Fence 1,000 LF. 52.50 112.500.00 3 Seeding 24 AC 11500.00 1117,000.00 Subtotal $69300.00 5% Condripaq 3,425.00 Subtotal 72,975.00 5% Induct 53,648.75 Total 57600.00 OSM Project No. 4892.40 POR&IO 9N I 1 II 1 1 >v PEL. I CAN LANE l) 3 KlNG81�0 �PNE Mo 0 0 U r t Q 50 Q t00 200 SCALE IN FEET Drown eye Dotes Comm. No. C ISA 8eheiep Title Figureing DrawQ SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMA I N 7 CITY PROJECT NO. 95-06C Meyeron 16 R. G.O. 2/27/95 4892.60 Aesoeietee, Inc. CARDINAL HILLS 5TH ADDITION Entla..r» AreAiteet. . . Pbanm s IIurseren eoor.rt Pt... cw . bm V.jss. b"l...ro MONT I CELLO, MINNESOTA V11M.P.IU. 00 6el.16.1=4' . IMI-M-bT a -._. g •y; , g{r.0 i V IL+CAU.r . A j.bAN. ULN J Drown 8y: Dote: Comm. No, Schelen R.G.D. 2/27/95 4892.50 Meyeron Assoctstes, Inc. tntlnern v AreAll.ole . plennrr. • Surveyors 6a, ►u/ " .. s a • 615 t.r•.t. 9-4. 'd Yu..•Wn. r/ Wirit2e a. 61ID61C1615 Ale PELICAN LANE I � 5 am 0 0 U l- 3 aNEme- GIB 100 50 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Droving Title Figure CITY PROJECT NO. 95-06C STORM SEWER 9 CARDINAL HILLS 5TH ADDITION AND STREET CONSTRUCTION 2 MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA J; 48�l . ttl*C IV I L +CAU+t' CA $*S I W OCC RESOLUTION 95• RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASD3ILITY REPORT AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted January 23, 1995, directed the City Engineer to complete a feasibility study examining the cost to provide utilities to phase V of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision, which consists of 34 residential lots; sad WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a feasibility report to the City which outlines the scope of the project and estimates total project costs at $ LET IT, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: The feasibility study is hereby accepted. Bret Weiss of OSM is hereby designated as the City Engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement pursuant to petition of the affected property owner, contingent on the property owner providing a deposit with the City in an amount equal to the cost to prepare plans and specifications. Adopted this 27th day of February, 1995. Mayor City Administrator Council Agenda - 2/27!95 ro. Consideration of adoodna an grdinance amendment establishing buffer vard reouirements. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: After considerable review and discussion, the Planning Commission ordered a public hearing on final adoption of ordinance amendments regulating development of buffer yards. The hearing was conducted on February 7, 1995, and featured positive input from Jay Morrell on the proposed ordinance. After discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the ordinance as outlined in your packet. The purpose of the ordinance amendment is to establish landscaping and screening requirements designed to separate incompatible land uses. The need for the ordinance amendment stemmed from the recent City Council decision (May 1994) to allow development of residential land uses at the Klein property directly adjacent to an industrial district. Please review the attached information for detailed information regarding the proposed amendment. Steve Grittman will be in attendance to answer questions. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt the toning ordinance amendment establishing buffer yard requirements. As with every toning ordinance amendment, a motion to adopt the ordinance amendment must include a "finding" that provides specific reasons why the amendment is appropriate. The finding must relate to the criteria noted below. Consistency with the comprehensive plan Compatibility with the geography or character of the area Effect on land values Demonstrated need for the amendment The Planning Commission selected this alternative based on consistency of the toning ordinance amendment with the criteria above. Motion to deny adoption of the zoning ordinance amendment establishing buffer yard requirements. Council Agenda - 2127/95 This alternative should be selected if the City Council cannot make a finding that supports the zoning ordinance amendment following the criteria noted under alternative #1. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. It is our view that the amendment as proposed will establish a clear standard for buffering incompatible uses. Staff understands the ordinance amendment is somewhat complex and may deserve a longer look. Please note that the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance on three occasions before passing it on to the Council. D. SUPPORTING DATA Planner's report; Proposed ordinance amendment; Copy of meeting minutes and agenda items pertaining to this topic from May 1894 to present; Excerpt from comprehensive plan. 17 5tr-L3 I Ja tlG:v .,11 . ...` -- IryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Cj URBAN P L ANN I MG - O E i'l ON - MARKET N E a E A N C N MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill PRcm. Dan Licht/Stephen Grittmaa DATE: 29 September 1994 RE: Monticello - Huffer Yard Ordinance FILE NO: 191.06 - 94.11 BACKGROUND Recently, the City has considered adopting a buffer yard ordinance requiring buffer yards separating incompatible uses. This memorandum will outline the current Zoalag Ordinance standards for separating incompatible uses and outline the components of an attached draft ordinance amendment requiring buffer yards. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance ANALYES A+w cwt �wwwee� am". The Current Monticello Zoning Ordinance does not establish specific requiremente for abutting incompatible uses regarding setbacks or landscaping. Section 3-2 (01 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the required screening and landscaping standard . This is a blanket ordinance which does not take into consideration adjoining uses and potential Inpets. Lilo the required landscaping ordinance, the setback ordinance is a blanket ordinance with standards that do not increase dependent on the adjoining use, such as when an industrial use abuts a residential use. 5775 Wayzata Blvd - Suite 555 - Sc Louis Park, MN 55418 • (612) 595.9836 -Fax. 585-9837 - 4 f� Draft SAffer Yard Ordinance. The draft ordinance establishes a matrix of land use interfaces and applies a specified buffer yard requirement based on the degree of conflict. The concept of a buffer yard involves a horizontal component and a vertical component. The horizontal component of a buffer yard involves the use of setbacks to separate incompatible uses. The vertical component of a buffer yard is the landscaping and screening used to separate the incompatible uses. The draft ordinance has four buffer yard types which are defined by the width and intensity of landscaping required. This system of having buffer yards is intended to accommodate different types of conflicts by anticipating all possible combinations of conflict. In terms of required vegetation, the draft ordinance requires a number of plant units. A plant unit is simply a measurement that translates the amount of vegetation required into a quantitative unit. Various types of vegetation have been assigned a plant unit value. under the draft ordinance, evergreen trees are assigned a plant unit value of 15. Thus, in a Type A buffer yard, where 40 plant units per 100 feet of property line is required, three pine trees would be required per 100 feet. However, because the ordinance does not specify what types of trees must be planted, the developer is free to create a unique landscape plan. The only requirement is that the plant unite of the proposed landscaping must equal or exceed the number required for the type of buffer yard. The number of required plant units may be reduced two ways. The first involves the preservation of existing vegetation. The number of plant units will be reduced proportionately to the number of trees and shrubs preserved. The second reduction of plant units and buffer yard width as a credit for berms or fences. Plant units may be reduced to 74 percent or buffer yard width may be reduced to 5o percent of the ordinance requirement if a fence or berm is used to screen the incompatible uses. The draft ordinance is written so that in areas of vacant land, the required landscape yard is overlaid on the abutting property line, with half of the area on each side. The property owners on each side are responsible for 40 percent of the required planting units for the required landscaped yard. To protect existing developments from undue hardship when a new development establishes on an abutting property, the draft ordinance has a provision which exempts existing development from the requirements of the ordinance until such time as the existing development in significantly changed, altered, or expanded. In addition, the draft ordinance requires that where a developer of vacant land must install a buffer yard adjacent to property which is 40 percent developed (by footage), the new developer must install the entire buffer yard on tho now property. The draft ordinance is designed as an amendment to Section 3-3, Yard Requirements, of the Zoning ordinance. The amendment involves adding the buffer yard language as additional yard requirements. The draft ordinance uses the current required landscaping ordinance, Section 3-2 Ia) for regulating the area designated to be landscaped. Therefore, the landscaped portion of the buffer yard can be regulated and administered as would any other required landscaping. Call) Z100 F, W) CO) ZI In response to the City of Monticello's interest in a buffer yard ordinance, our office has drafted such an ordinance. This ordinance seeks to anticipate negative' impacts that may arise between adjoining uses. To reduce those impacts, the draft ordinance assigns one of four buffer yard requirements based upon the intensity of conflict between the uses. The City should consider how the ordinance will of feet each land use interface, and whether the intensity of the buffer yard should be increased, decreased, or left as proposed. Under the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is to consider five factors in its consideration of an amendment. The Planning Cc=ission is to then make a finding of fact and recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed amendment. The five factors are as follows: 1. Rolationship to the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Geographic area involved in the request. 3. Tendency of the proposal to depreciate the area. 4. Character of the surrounding area. S. Demonstrated need for the use. In this case, the intent of the Ordinance amendment is to effect a compatible transition between differing (and potentially conflicting) land uses. This action should have the effect of enhancing the subject areas, rather than depreciating them. In addition, a major concern of the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate land use transitions, and concern over this possibility in the Klein Parma/Oakwood Industrial Park area gave rise to the need for the Ordinance. The Planning Commission may make a finding of fact that the buffer yard ordinance positively impacts tba affected areae and complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. AA.- pouDe.l'artAt. bi w - i P 3 aST. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCEL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT CHAPTER 3, SECTION S. OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO YARD REQUIREMENTS BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING: 3-3: YARD REQUIREMENTS (G) Requured Buffer Yards 1. PURPOSE: Buffer yards are required as to reduce the negative impacts that result when incompatible uses abut one another. 2. The following table lists the minimum buffer yard requirements dependent upon the intensity of the conflict of the abutting uses: Intensity Minimum Minimum No. Plant Unite Of Building Landscape Required -100 Feet Conflict t 1 Yard sf Prooertv Line, Minimal A 30 feet 10 feet 40 Moderate B 30 feet 20 feet s0 Significant C 40 feet so feet 120 Severe D 50 feet 40 feet 160 (a) Minimum building setback measured from the abutting property line. (b) Minimum landscaped yard measured as extending perpendicular from the abutting property line and extending along length of property line. Half of the required distance on each aide of the property line and extending the length of the property line. (c) Plant units aro a quantitative measure of the required plantings for the minimum landscaped yard. D Plant unit value shall be assigned as follows: Plant Veeetation Unit Value Evergreen Trees 15 Deciduous Tree 10 Evergreen/Coniferous Shrubs B Shrubs/Bushes 1 Ordinance Amendment No. Page 2 ii) The number of plantings required shall equal or exceed the number of required plant units based upon the values assigned in Section 3-3 [G] 2(c) of this ordinance. iii) The property owners on both sides of the abutting property line for which the buffer yard overlays shall each be responsible for fifty (60) percent of the required planting required for the length of the abutting property line. 3. Minimum Required Buffer Yard: The following table represents the type as specified by Section 3-3 (F) 2 of buffer yard required for abutting incompatible uses: MEgDWM REQUIRED BUFFER YARD Low -Density High -Density Insti- i1 es Residential Residential tutionol Commercial Industrial Low Density Residential None A B C D High Density Residential A None A B D Institutional B A None A C Commercial C B A None B Industrial D D C B None 4. The size and type of required plantings shall be according to Section 3-2 [G] 4 and Section 3.2 [G] 6 of this ordinance. 6. Existing trees or vegetation within a required minimum landscape yard preservation may substitute for required plants. The number of plant units required shall be proportionately reduced according to the number of trees or vegetation preserved. 6. Tho location of an opaque fence or earth berm of at least 6 feet in height within a required landscaped yard shall be considered credit toward the plant unit requirement. The number of required plant units shall be reduced by fifty (60) percent. i) All fences shell be subject to the requirements of Section 3-2 [G] of this ordinance. 0 Ordinance Amendment No. Page 3 ii) All berms shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3-2 [G] of this ordinance. i) Development of a Vacant Property. The owner of a vacant property which would require a buffer yard under the terms of this ordinance shall be required to install one-half of the width and intensity of the required buffer yard along the entire length of the abutting property line in all cases except for the following- ii) ollowing ii) Where development of abutting property exceeds fifty (50) percent of the length of the abutting property line by footage, the owner/developer will be required to install the entire width and intensity of buffer yard as determined in this ordinance. 8. Existing Development. Any existing development adjacent to property developed in accordance with Section 3-3 [G) 7 i) shall be considered exempt from the provisions of said ordinance until such time as the property or development is substantially altered, remodeled, or expanded. At such time, the existing development shall provide the remaining one-half of the buffer yard improvement. 9. The criteria for the submission requirements and approval of a buffer yard landscape plan shall be according to Section 3-2 [G) of this ordinance. Adopted this 27th day of February, 1995. Mayor City Administrator 9 After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Patty Olsen to authorize City staff to address the items as follows. a. Complete comprehensive plan update. Identify future industrial areas. Work closely with the Township on this matter. b. Update zoning district regulations. Maintain diversity of industrial land types for various industrial/office uses. C. Develop plans for pending utilities to existing industrial lands, including the Gladys Hoglund site. d. Update B-4 district regulations governing development in regional commercial district. e. Require intense benning by ordinance to separate industrial T from residential uses. f. Complete transportation system designs and subdivision designs in a manner separating conflicting uses. g. Improve linkages between commercial areae: 1) Work with the State Highway Department to improve traffic flow on Hwy 26 via improved signal timing. 2) Realign Cedar Street to improve land utilization. 3) Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass. 4) Pursue upgrading Highwy 26 to a 4 -lane highway. Motion carried unanimously. 1. Conaideration of contracting for assistance with building insaeciions. Assistant Administrator O'Neill outlined a proposal to contract out for short-term building inspection needs while the City develops a plan for addressing its overall work force. Under the proposal, the City would hire an inspector through Paul Waldron Associates at Cho rate of $24 an hour. This rate includes all expenses, including liability insurance and transportation. There is no charge to the City for transportation time to and from the city. O'Neill outlined reasons supporting the proposal. The inspector assigned to Monticello would be completely trained in residential construction and would have complete familiarity with the building code. Training Limo for this individual would be minimal, thereby providing our current Building Inspector with immediate assistance. Page 10 FSI aN .td,, / Do.�l<B�fG., c.iri / community. The community goals are preferences as toe (1) the general type of community that future physical development should help produce; and (2) the character and location of the major physical elements forming the urban environment. Before the Comprehensive Plan can be carried Into effect, thc:o community goals must be stated clearly and general agreement on them must be reached, otherwise, the plan cannot be conceived of as the community's policy concerning physical development. Investigating community attitudes and formulating a publicly acceptable statement of broad community goals is a basic part of the planning process. A 'goal' is a desired objective to be reached. 1. Tb develop and emphasise Monticello as a community that can offer the advantages of being near a metropolitan area for the enjoyment of major cultural, sports, and business assets and yet be completely and distinctly separate from the metropolitan area and its suburbs. 2. To encourage steady, careful growth by maintaining reasonably high standares. , #L ]. Tb utilize the inherent advantages of the community in terms of location, existing population, school system, available land, etc., to gain the beet possible advantage from these assets so as to develop a reputation as a community combining all the desirable elements for living in Minnesota. a. To develop the City according to an officially adopted Comprehensive Plan for land use, transportation, and community facilities. while the plan should not be inflexible, neither should it be amended indiocriminantly. S. To develop urban land uses according to a set of uniform standards applicable to the City. Such standards should govern land use, public improvements, health conditions, safety features, aesthetic considerations, and other elements of the urban environment foe purposes of safeguarding the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. 6. To maintain a public image which associates Monticello with excellence in planning, design, and structural Quality. 7. To coordinate local plans with those of the school district, adjacent and nearby communities, and others, is essential to the well-being of local residents. S. Tb develop a sound and broad tax base for the City and the school district to essential in order to provide revenue for adequate public facilities and services without creating undue burdens upon property owners. 9. To base all development decisions upon compliance with the City Plan, appropriate planning methods and procedures, and development standards that help to assure the beat possible results within the realm of economic and legal feasibility. -38- ( SOX U P y /0A p plan G/vC'. IIV INDUSTRIAL POLICIES 1 1. All land suitable for industrial development in the City should be zoned to preserve it for said use ani to avoid needless harm to homes which might dev-lop in potential industrial areas. land used by industry is entitled to protection against residential encroachment. 2. Through proper land use planning, certain types of industry can be good neighbors with areas used for residential and other purposes, the type of industry, screening (green planting, fencing, etc.), required building design, and other factors greatly affect the compatibility of such uses. 3. Industries which produce undesirable affects injurious to the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare will be discouraged. 4. Excellence of site and building design will be a major factor in approving oc disapproving industrial development proposals within the City. S. Performance standards will be utilised to judge industrial proposals rather than the more rigid policy of judging industrial uses by type, any industrial type use will be permitted provided it can prove compliance with standards governing smoke emission, noise, odors, vibrations, and the like. 6. Encourage design and development of industrial parks with exposure to Interstate 94 rather than scattering such uses indiscriminately through the community. 7. The City Public Mocks Division shall review, with respect to sewer and water use, the impact each particular industry has on those utilities and their expected life. -so- /A Council Agenda - 2127/95 11, C— idgrption9f a resolution ADWOVing DI%OB and sDeeMpations. authorigina adverti"ment for bid& and callina for a Dublic hearinq on Gould Brothers Cbevrolet/D & D Bus_polity extension Droiect. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Council is asked to take the action noted above in conjunction with extending sewer and water service to Gould Brothers Chevrolet and D & D Bus Company. This action follows Council action in November 1994 to approve the feasibility study. For the sake of efficiency and to bring the new Council members up to date, I have attached the staff report provided for the November 14, 1994, meeting at which time Council accepted the feasibility study and authorized preparation of plans and specifications. The plans and specifications will be reviewed by the City Engineer at the meeting. Please note that Gould Brothers Chevrolet has provided the funds necessary to complete the plans and the bidding process ($10,000). Items that remain to be completed include acquisition of easements and annexation of Gould Brothers and D & D Bus. Given preliminary discussion with property owners and given discussion with the Township, it appears that these items can be taken care of by March 27, 1895. The annexation issue will be reviewed with the next agenda item. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt a resolution approving plans and specifications, authorizing advertisement for bids, and calling for a public hearing on Gould Brothers Chevrolet/D & D Bus utility extension project. 2. Motion to deny adoption of the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval under alternative #1 assuming that the now Council is comfortable with the project and associated finance plan as supported by the previous Council. Resolution for adoption; Excerpt from November agenda, which includes complete project description and finance plan. Please note that the finance plan has been modified to reflect action taken by Council at the November 14 meeting. Is RESOLUTION 85 - RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEXMNT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the City Council on November 14, 1994, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the extension of sewer and water facilities from the present location at Sandberg Road to the Gould Brothers Chevrolet and D & D Bus Company properties and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 21 days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the Clerk until 10 a.m. on March 24, 1995, at which time they will be publicly opened in the council chambers of the city hall by the Public Works Director and City Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7 p.m. on March 27, 1995, in the council chambers. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and Sled with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5% of the amount of such bid. Adopted by the Council this 27th day of February, 1995. Mayor City Administrator (0. cbq Council Agenda - 11/14/94 > to. Consideration of a resolution accenting feasibility studv. ordering public hearing, and ordering preparation of plans and specifications for sewer and water utWty extensions to the southwest area. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND City Council is asked to review a feasibility study, order a public hearing on the improvement, and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for a project that proposes the extension of sewer and water services to an area referred to as the southwest area. Specifically, the improvement calls for development of a lift station and other trunk sanitary sewer improvements necessary to provide sanitary sewer access to a large area bounded to the north by the freeway, to the east by Sandberg Road and Highway 25, to the south by Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park, and to the west by Oakwood Drive as it turns south. The lift station proposed for development at this time will provide trunk service to the area mentioned. Additional lateral sanitary sewer and water lines are proposed for extension to five parcels owned by Gehardt Everson, Milton Olson (located in city), Stuart Hoglund, Dean Carlson, and John Michaelis (located in the township). The feasibility study was prepared at the request of Stuart Hoglund and John Michaelis with authorization from the City Council in 1992. The need to move the project along stems primarily from pressure by the Environmental Protection Agency on Goulds Chevrolet and D & D Bus. The ability of Goulds and D & D Bus to operate in compliance with EPA rules is greatly improved if connected to city sewer. In addition, Goulds Chevrolet has received approval from the OAA to expand the facility in the Township and has obtained a building permit allowing construction to begin. However, John Michaelis has indicated that he prefers to develop his facility with access to city water and sewer. He prefers a sprinkler system for fire protection and the benefits of access to a public sewer system. However, in the event that the city utility project does not proceed, he has indicated that he will build a private sewer and water system to serve his needs. D & D Bus has also indicated a need to have access to city utilities stemming from pressure by the EPA. Stuart Hoglund has indicated that he has o purchase agreement on the sale of land to Value Plus Developers, Inc. of Monticello. It is my understanding that he supports extension of utilities as proposed; however, at the time of preparation of this memo, 1 have not received a petition for improvements to his property. 0 Council Agenda - 1v14194 Milton Olson, owner of Olson Electric, has expressed some interest in obtaining access to city sewer and water, however, staff has not received a petition for services at this time. Gehardt Everson owns approximately 5 acres in the city located south of Olson's property. Everson has petitioned for the improvements and has indicated his support of the preliminary finance plan as outlined in the attached spreadsheet. In summary, of the five property owners benefiting from the project, three support the project and associated finance plan. The other two have indicated general support. 1 hope to have direct confirmation of Hoglund and Olson's position by meeting time. Please see the attached worksheet for information on project costs and the proposed distribution of costs. Following is an outline of the steps necessary to complete the project. 1. Accept feasibility and associated finance plan, order public hearing on improvement, authorize preparation of plans and specifications contingent on contribution by Goulds and others ($10,000 eat cost to prepare plans and specs), notice of public hearing provided to all property owners. 2. D & D Bus and Goulds submit petition for annexation to city. 3. Township reviews annexation requebt and makes comments to City. 4. City receives Township comments and acts to approve annexations and/or respond to Township comments. 5. Municipal Board acts on annexation request. 6. Public hearing on improvement is conducted, plans and specifications approved along with authorization to advertise for bids. 7. Bids opened, contract awarded, project ordered—Feasibility study expense and plans and specs deposit refunded and incorporated into project costs for assessment back against all property owners benefiting from the project. S. Project completed. 9. Assessment hearing conducted. Assessment levied against properties in city, deferred assessment levied against Hoglund property if not in the city by the time the project is completed Council Agenda - 11114/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt a resolution accepting feasibility study, ordering public hearing, and ordering preparation of plans and specifications for sewer and water utility extensions to the southwest area. Under this alternative, the City Engineer will begin preparation of plans and specifications at such time that a deposit of $10,000 is received to cover the cost of preparation of plans and specifications. The petitions for annexation and the associated feasibility study will be submitted to the Township for comment. 2. Motion to deny adoption of the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution as proposed under alternative #1. It is our view that the time is ripe for installation of the lift station necessary to serve the Southwest Area for the following reasons: 1. Goulds Chevrolet and D & D Bus have a critical need for sanitary sewer and water systems. 2. City systems have been designed and sized to serve the areas that now need such service. 3. If the City does not extend utilities at this time, it will be faced with fewer property owners to share the initial relatively high cost of development of the lift station. 4. At a minimum, three of the five property owners desire service immediately. The other two, though not petitioning, have not objected to the project or the finance plan. b. According to the joint agreement with the Township, D & D Bus and Goulds Chovrolet are located in the "urban service area; therefore, there should be no objection by the Township to annexation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Southwest Area Feasibility Study and addendum; Copy of preliminary finance plan. 0 PRELIMINARY FINANCE PLAN SOUTHWEST AREA TRUNK SEWER AND TRUNK WATERMAIN IWJECT EXPENSE/FE SUMMARY len Shom Letoral ..Trudt latmw and Force Slow water wet. Tocol Acres Nsm E>mertn Ever" Etmeree cost PMIM 23,123 Etmmsn Vol= $211=0 2120.000 330.000 smbw TrwltFw lateral Trudt labtel Tow San Bot. Aunt Foe Ben. Aum Facie Savor Sora Water water WA78 PROPERTIES ohm 4 $5A00 $5.700 so SOM $18.7170 Everson B so 260 25.700 23,123 $8.000 $21070 Oatb 8.1 $0.370 25.700 $3.188 $SAW w= D and D Btn 4.6 $5.780 $5.700 WA78 (8.000 220.320 IloM, 25 $1.250 $8.700 218,826 $8.000 266.676 Tnrdt fan AsfOsmoeft $51.825 22$,600 $24,612 $30.= $137" ctlyllwo $48.275 $0 $86,188 W $141,683 Pans, 46% 0% 70% 0% 61% (Toto cost $IOIA00 $26= I $120A00 $30.000 $27Y.600 1ph=I Tote! $101.000 1126,800 20 130A00 2156,600 IPhon I Fulls S101A75 Pwaam ofnat pftan I ftmVononb futdad b7 osssmortb Or up ftm fus. 60% Imorast Rab 7.60% Termryews 10 ' Sardwy sewn trunk In ansoM w Wm of use. •• Tmk water system snproner is M nocessa y at dtb tens. ReprnsM Hera cost lo loop sywsm eases basway. ^'Cly stun loberaoovarad vIa Mmes of tru* ten nvwIftd slat eon danlOpsortt. NOTE: PMn I fads k clu0s to sunk boWassourwits ko phos 14as 20 ten stegm wd lotus mein costs to Oteon a Everson. Thar cosh will be awsod Ww souse tea. FI LE0001. W K4: 02/24185 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 R the improvements requested: x Sanitary Sewer x Mater Storm Sewer Bituminous Surfacing Curb and Gutter Street Lighting I (We) agree to pay 100• of .the cost of the feasibility study. I (Ne) 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: see attached. I hereby petition for public improvemants as identified and funded via the attached finance plan. I understand that cost estimates are preliminary, and final costs will be based on actual costs. Signature of Owners: INPFEAS.PET: 9/16/97 Council Minutes - 11/14/94 10. Consideration of a resolution acceDtine feasibilitv study, orderine oablic C0 hearine. and orderine DreDaration of plans and specification§ for sewer and water utility extensions to the southwest area. Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that a feasibility study was prepared by the City Engineer in 1992 at the request of Stuart Hoglund and John Michaelis for a project that proposes development of a lift station and other trunk sanitary sewer improvements necessary to provide sanitary sewer access to a large area referred to as the Southwest Area. The study proposed two preliminary alternatives for providing sewer and water service to this area. Subsequent to completion of the study, a third alternative was proposed which allows lateral extension of sewer and water to be run on property lines rather than on the Oakwood Drive right-of-way. O'Neill stated that the area benefited directly by the project includes parcels owned by Gehardt Everson, Milton Olson, Stuart Hoglund, Dean Carlson, and John Michaelis. The general area that the lift station will be capable of serving is bounded on the north by I-94, on the east by Sandberg Road and Highway 25, on the south by Fjellberg West Mobile Home Park, and on the west by Oakwood Drive as it turns south. The John Michaelis, Stuart Hoglund, and Dean Carlson properties are located in Monticello Township. Petitions for the improvement have not yet been received from Stuart Hoglund and Milton Olson; however, they have expressed an interest in obtaining access to city sewer and water. O'Neill went on to report that Gould Brothers Chevrolet has received approval from the OAA to expand their facility; however, John Michaelis has indicated that he prefers to develop his facility with access to city water and sewer. He has also stated, however, that in the event the city project does not proceed, he will build a private sewer and water system to serve his needs. ONeill also noted that D & D Bus has also indicated a need to access city utilities in order to be in compliance with EPA regulations. ' O'Neill then reviewed the preliminary finance plan for the project and noted that the figures are subject to the assessment hearing process. He noted the lift station and force main cost is $101,000 and is proposed to be paid through the trunk sanitary sewer fee. It is proposed that the trunk sanitary sewer fee be assessed at the time of development, which results in a higher up -front cost for the City but will be recovered over time as the Southwest Area develops. The total proposed trunk fee assessment from the five parcels amounts to $64,625, with the City's share at $46,375. O'Neill went on to review the lateral sewer expense at a total of $28,600. This cost is proposed to be divided overly among the five properties. O'Neill noted that access to city water is immediately available to the area; however, in the future, it will be necessary to construct a trunk water main to serve the area at a cost of $12000. Council went on to discuss trunk water fees. Public Works Director John Simola noted that in the past, the City has picked up some looping and oversizing cost. He noted that this project is small enough that it may be easier for the City to absorb the cost of the trunk water expense. It was I I G noted that the City has an established trunk sewer fee and trunk water fee Council Minutes - 11/14194 of $1,250 per acre; however, the trunk water fee has not been charged in the past due to the fact that many developers have been paying the entire cost of extending water service to their development. Simola also stated that the City has used excess funds from water access fees to fund oversizing in the past. Councilmember Herbst expressed his concerns regarding the City paying for utility extensions to new developments. It was his view that the developers should be paying their share of the cost associated with obtaining services. He also noted that there are unique circumstances in this case that may justify a reduction in the trunk water main charge. Perhaps the fee should be lowered to half of the present $1,250 per acre charge. The City Engineer suggested that the trunk water fee be charged to the property owners at the time they tie into the trunk water service in order to build up ftmds necessary for future projects, as it would be very difficult to collect the fees once properties are tied in to the system. He also suggested that the trunk water fee be lowered to approximately $625 per acre, and Council could review and raise the fee in the future as needed. Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested guidance from Council on establishing a policy for charging the trunk water fee for developed and undeveloped township parcels that petition to be annexed, and also for developed parcels currently located in the city and now requesting access to services. He suggested that the trunk water fee charged could be phased in with phase I of this project. Council could consider increasing the fee at such time that new development occurs. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council that the Milton Olson property should not be charged the trunk water fee, as he has been paying city taxes for many years and yet has no access to utility services. Lastly, O'Neill noted that the lateral water expense estimated at $30,000 is also proposed to be split evenly between the five property owners. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that it is his understanding that John Michaelis is agreeable to paying a deposit of $10,000 for the plans and specifications in anticipation of the project moving forward; however, O'Neill noted that he will need to verify this with Michaelis. Atter further discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst to adopt a resolution accepting the feasibility study, ordering a public hearing, and ordering preparation of plans and specifications for sewer and water utility extensions to the southwest area, with City staff implementing a trunk water fee of $625, excluding the Milton Olson property. Motion is contingent upon receipt of a $10,000 deposit from Michaelis to cover the cost of preparation of plans and specifications. Motion was seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried, with Shirley Anderson absent. SEE RESOLUTION 94-35. /' Council Agenda • 2/27/95 Consideration of amending urbanization plan text and adoi*na joint resolution su000rtbw annexation of Gould Brothers Chevrolet and D & D Bus Comnanv. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, at the previous meeting Council reviewed a request by the Township to amend the urbanization plan by allowing tax revenue from Gould Brothers and D & D Bus to remain with the Township for a period of three years after the year of annexation. The current agreement requires that all taxes be paid to the City at the time that a property has access to city services. At the previous meeting, I informed you that Township support of the present annexation request did not depend on City acceptance of the amendment proposed by the Township. Since then, the Township position has changed. At the Township meeting on February 21, 1995, I reported to the Township that Council agreed to review the request in conjunction with the review of other changes that may need to be made to the agreement. I explained that it was anticipated that such changes would be considered months from now in conjunction with completion of the comprehensive plan. I also noted that changes to the language which would allow the Township to retain taxes from annexed businesses for a period of three years could possibly be made retroactive to the present annexation request. In response to this position, the Township reiterated the amendment request and made approval of the joint resolution contingent on City adoption of the change as requested. The change request by the Township would allow the Township share of the taxes to be paid to the Township for 1998, 1997, and 1998. The taxes that Gould Brothers will pay in 1998 will double because the city tax capacity rate is twice the township rate. Under the amendment as proposed by the Township, the amount of the increase in taxes paid due to the higher tax capacity rate will be paid to the City. Attached is a table which outlines projected tax revenue coming to each jurisdiction under the amended agreement. Although the position taken by the Township appears adversarial, the request is somewhat reasonable and could be viewed as a refinement in the original agreement. The original agreement was drafted at a time when the Township was concerned about annexation of large vacant tracts of land that were not ripe for development. I was involved in writing the agreement, and I cannot recall discussing the process associated with annexation of existing businesses. If we had discussed the present situation Council Agenda - 2/27/95 before the fact, it is very likely that the annexation agreement would have included a provision allowing the Township to retain taxes from existing businesses for a period of years. Also, under current state law, the City has the right to annex via the annexation by ordinance process. This process is available in the event that the Township does not sign the joint resolution. This is a relatively quick and easy process that would create a relatively short delay in commencement of the associated utility project; however, the tax distribution program under annexation by ordinance calls for a slow transition or shift of taxes from the Township to the City. In fact, the annexation by ordinance tax shift would net the City $9,318 over six years versus $13,361 under the amendment proposed by the Township. In short, the City would be cutting off its nose to spite its face by holding to the existing agreement because doing so would force the City into the annexation by ordinance, which would net the City $4,000 less over three years than had it accepted the Township's request to amend the agreement. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt changes to the urbanization plan as proposed and approve the joint resolution supporting annexation of Gould Brothers Chevrolet and D & D Bus. Under this alternative, it is my understanding, based on what I heard at the Township meeting on February 21, 1995, that the Township will sign the joint resolution supporting annexation. The annexation of the two properties provides the City with the capacity to assess the annexed properties for costs associated with extending sewer and water. Please note that the Monte Club and AME Redi-Mix are two other township properties that will be affected in the future. Also, the recent Hawks Bar annexation occurred before any changes were made to the existing agreement, which means that the City will be receiving full benefit from Hawks Bar taxes starting the year that Hawks connects to city services. Although the City will not retain all of the taxes from the Gould Brothers' site immediately as defined in the original agreement, it will retain considerably more in fazes than it would if the annexation by ordinance process was necessary. Motion to deny approval of requested changes and authorize City staff to implement process of annexation by ordinance. 20 Council Agenda - 2/27/95 Under this alternative, the urbanization plan would remain the same; consequently, the Township would not sign the joint resolution, which then would require annexation by ordinance. This alternative would delay the project at least two months and, from a tax standpoint, yield fewer dollars than alternative 111. C. STAFF RECOMIENDATION: Staff recommends alternative &1. D. SUPPORTIN4 DATA Excerpt from urbanization plan outlining proposed change; Letter from Township; Table outlining tax distribution program under each annexation process; Copy of joint resolutions. RESOLUTION 98 - URBANIZATION PLAN JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO CONCERNING THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA WHEREAS, reoccurring boundary adjustments have occurred between the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello for the last 20 years and uncertainty as to future adjustments has resulted; and WHEREAS, responding to requests for boundary adjustments on a case-by-case basis, apart from an overall plan for urbanization, is expensive, time consuming, and counterproductive; and WHEREAS, it has been difficult for the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello and property owners within the Orderly Annexation Area to plan separately for development and growth; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Board has requested that the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board, the City, and the Town work cooperatively in re- examining the future of the Orderly Annexation Area to determine if development is being properly focused; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Board has urged the City and Town to approach the orderly annexation issue with a spirit of cooperation; and WHEREAS, it appears to be in the best interest of both parties that joint cooperation and planning between the parties be conducted; and WHEREAS, the parties want to stabilize and enhance the predictability of boundary adjustments; and WHEREAS, there is a basis for agreement between the parties for accomplishing these goals, and the parties hereto do set forth the terms of this agreement by the following: The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly agree to the following. CONTINUING THE MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA That the following Orderly Annexation Area in the Town of Monticello was established by a Minnesota Municipal Board Order on December 8, 1972, as in need of orderly annexation pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 414, et al. URBANPLN.RES: 2MV98 page I LAND USE GUIDE PLAN The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello, upon their adoption of this policy, approve the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Plan, which is attached as Exhibit "B" (hereinafter referred to as the Guide Plan). URBAN SERVICE AREA The area identified within the Guide Plan as the "Urban Service Area" is an area that abuts the City of Monticello and is presently urban or suburban in nature or is about to become urban or suburban. Further, the City of Monticello is now capable of providing municipal water and sanitary sewer to this area. 4. ANNEXATION PROCESS Annexation should be allowed to occur upon the following terms and conditions: A. The property must be located within the above-described "Urban Service Area"; B. The property owner must petition both the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello for annexation; C. The property owner shall submit a development plan to the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello showing the need for municipal water and sanitary sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned for annexation; D. The development plan must be of sufficient detail to show it will meet the standards and requirements of the City of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use plan, comprehensive plan, utilities plan, assessment procedures, and financing plan; E. Municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and ready for use within two (2) years from the date of annexation; and F. There shall be no ihture petitions for annexation until all previous conditions in the development plan have been complied with. Prior to final City approval of the development plan, said plan shall be submitted to the Town of Monticello for review. Concerns expressed by the Town of Monticello shall be addressed prior to formal approval of the development plan by the City of Monticello. All efforts will be made to establish development plans that incorporate the land use planning efforts of both the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello. No development plan shall be considered by the City under this agreement without URBANPLN.RES: 2124/98 Page 2 9 written summary of comments submitted by the Town of Monticello to the City of Monticello. If the City receives written approval of the development plan from the Town, a joint petition for annexation shall be submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board. If the Town of Monticello does not approve the development plan, the City shall then either reject the development plan, or the issue may be submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to Minne to Statute, Chapter 414. b. TERMS The term of this agreement shall be ten (10) years from the effective date of this agreement. Both parties reserve the right to terminate this agreement upon sixty (60) days' written notice. The effective date shall be upon the approval of the City Council of the City of Monticello and the Town Board of the Town of Monticello and acceptance by the Minnesota Municipal Board and said subsequent order approving this agreement. LAND USE/ZONING AND PLANNING The zoning and planning throughout the Orderly Annexation Area as described above shall be under the control of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board until annexed to the City of Monticello. If the property is annexed to the City of Monticello, the property shall be designated as agricultural according to the City of Monticello Zoning and Planning Ordinances. Any alteration or change to the zoning classification shall be subject to a public hearing to be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission. The City of Monticello shall notify the Town of Monticello of said land use classification hearing. TAXES Any and all of the property taxes collected in the Orderly Annexation Area shall remain the property of the Town of Monticello. With the exception of existing commercial and industrial properties, any and all property taxes collected from annexed properties shall be the property of the City of Monticello after such time that said property actually receives city sewer and water service or after expiration of a period of three (3) years, whichever occurs sooner. For existing commercial and industrial propertieg taxes calculated at the township tax capacity rate /br the year in which the annexation occurred should remain with the Township for a period of three years after the year in which annexation of these types of properties takes place. (For clarification purposes, the amendment above has been modified slightly from the letter provided by the Township.) URBANPLN.RES: 2/24/88 Page 3 9 8. ISOLATED TOWN PROPERTY Any property within the "Urban Service Area" that becomes or is about to become isolated as a result of annexation proposed under Section 4 shall be submitted for consideration to the Minnesota Municipal Board along with the proposed annexation for consideration by the Minnesota Municipal Board. In general, the creation of such isolated parcels should be avoided DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED ON THE ANNEXATION PLAN AS THE AGRICULTURAL AREA No development should occur within the orderly annexation area which is outside the "Urban Service Area" as described in the MORA Annexation Plan unless said development meets the standards of the zoning and subdivision requirements of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board, the City of Monticello, and the Town of Monticello. Said development can only occur if all local government standards are complied with or are capable of being complied with in the future. The intent of this paragraph is to strongly discourage development outside the "Urban Service Area" as identified in the Orderly Annexation Plan, CITY OF MONTICELLO TOWN OF MONTICELLO Passed and adopted by the City Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Monticello Town Board of the Town of this _ day of Monticello this _ day of 19_ , 19 By By Mayor Chairman Attest: Attest: City Administrator Town Board Clerk URBANPLN.RES: V24/88 Page 4 ' = D Monticello Township County Road 117 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 February 22, 1995 Monticello City Council City of Monticello East Broadway Monticello, Mn. 55362 Mayor Fyfe and Council Members: The following action was taken by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting of Monday, February 21st. A motion by Holthaus, seconded by Scadden and carried unanimously "that Monticello Township approves the annexation request of the Gould's Bros. Chevrolet and the D&D Bus Company properties with the stipulation that the taxes from these commercial properties for the years of 1996, 1997 and 1998 remain with the township." Further, at the time the current Urbanization Plan between the City and the Township was brought about, the aspects of commercial and industrial properties located in the township were overlooked. We are now asking that consideration be given to amend Paragraph #7 of the Plan to include "that the existing commercial and industrial properties taxes at the township tax capacity rate ohould remain with the township for a period of 3 years after annexation of those typo properties take place." Sincerely, MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP BOARD Ace— by clerk, Darlene Savatzko. Tax Distribution Under Various Annexation Process Alternatives om I'19951 19961 99 I 19981 19991 200011 Total Tax Revenue - City Rate $3,727 $3,727 53,727 53,727 $3,727 Township Rate $1,758 ALTERNATIVES •1 Annexation by City $0 $3.727 $3.727 $3,727 $3,727 $3,727 $18,635 Current Agreement Township $1,758 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,758 %City 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% % Town 10096 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% i •2 Annexation by City $373 $1.118 $1,864 $2,609 $3,354 $9.318 Ordinance Township $1,758 $3.354 $2,609 $1,864 $1,118 $373 $11,076 % City 0% 10% 30% 50% 70% 190% % Town 100% 90% 70% 50% 30% 10% •3 Annexation by City $1,969 $1,96951,969 $3,727 $3,727 $13,361 Modified Aoreement TownShlo $1.758 $1.758 $1.758 51.758 $7,0,92 JLfhaq8nn x _tlon ITownshlo L$1.7581 51.7581 51.7581 StS1.768 7 10 W • i This ahemative is not really an option because Township said no to signing a Jolni resolution under the terms of the existing urbanization plan. If Council desires to follow the agreement under this alternative, annexation would need to occur under the *annexation by ordinance• option outlined below. •2 Under the annexation by ordinance alternative, for the six-year perlod. the Township actually ends up with more taxes In the cotters than If the land had not been annexed to the city at all. This Is because tax paid try the annexed property Is greater because the City has a higher tax Capacity rete than the Township. •3 In terms of tax revenue to the City, over six years this option Is better than annexation by ordinance to the tune of 54.000. GLOTAX.WK4: 02/24/95 IN THE MATTER OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION BETWEEN THE TOVN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO M3NNES0TA STATUTES 414.0328, SUBD. 1 TO: Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 56101 The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly agree that the joint resolution between the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello designating an area for orderly annexation dated December 8, 1972, be amended to include the following: Both the Town and the City agree that no alteration of the stated boundaries of this agreement is appropriate. Furthermore, both parties agree that no consideration by the Board is necessary. Upon receipt of this resolution, the Municipal Board may review and comment but shall, within 30 days, order the annexation of the following -described property in accordance with the terms of the joint resolution. Property known as Gould Brothers Chevrolet: That part of the W 1/2 of SW 1/4 of Section 11 and that part of the E 1/2 of SE 1/4 of Section 10, all in Township 121, Range 25, desc. as follows: Commencing at the SW corner of said Section 11; thence N. along the W. line of said Section 11, 861.29 R. to the actual point of beginning; thence Southeasterly deflecting 104 degrees 22 feet 23 inches to the right, 548.85 ft, to the center line of Marvin Road; thence Northerly along said center line deflecting 108 degrees 48 feet to the lett, 600 R. to the Southerly right -of --way line of Interstate Highway No. 94; thence Northwesterly along said right-of-way line, 992.60 ft.; thence -South parallel with the Easterly line of said Section 10, 488.62 ft.; thence Southeasterly 483.55 fL to the point of beginning, con. 11.0 acres and subject to the right-of-way of said Marvin Road, the above described tract being a part of Lot A of Lot 4 of the W 1/2 of SW 1/4 of said Section 11, Lot A of the NW U4 of SW 1/4 of said Section 11, Lot C of the N 112 of SE 1/4 of said Section 10 and Lot A of the S 1/2 of SE 1/4 of said Section 10, according to plate of record excepting that part of the W 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 11, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said W 1/2 of the SW 1/4; thence north along the West line of said W 1/2 of the SW U4 a distance of 861.29 feet; thence southeasterly deflecting 104 degrees 22 feet 23 inches to the right a distance of 160.67 fact to the actual point of beginning; thence continue southeasterly along the last described line a distance of 388.28 feet to the centerline of Marvin Road; thence northerly along said centerline deflecting 108 degrees 48 feet to the left a distance of 600.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway Number 94; thence Northwesterly along said right-of-way lino deflecting 71 degrees 12 feet left a distance of 348.44 feet; thence south a distance of 488.62 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 4.0 acres and subject to the right-of-way of said Marvin Road. GOULDANN.AMD: 2121/98 ZG Page 1 The above-described tract is also a part of Lot A of Lot 4 of the W 1/2 of the SW V4 of said Section 11 according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, Wright County, Minnesota Approved by the City of Monticello this _ day of , 19_ City Administrator Mayor Approved by the Town of Monticello this _ day of 119 -- Town 19_ Town Chair Town Clerk GOULDANN.AMD: 2/21/98 IN THE MATTER OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ORDERLY ANNESATION BETWEEN THE 'VOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MD(NESOTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.0326, SURD. 1 TO: Minnesota Municipal Board 166 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 66101 The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly agree that the joint resolution between the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello designating an area for orderly annexation dated December 8, 1972, be amended to include the following. Both the Town and the City agree that no alteration of the stated boundaries of this agreement is appropriate. Furthermore, both parties agree that no consideration by the Board is necessary. Upon receipt of this resolution, the Municipal Board may review and comment but shall, within 30 days, order the annexation of the following -described property in accordance with the terms of the joint resolution. Property known as D & D Bus Company: That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 121, Range 23, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the east line thereof, a distance of 861.29 feet; thence North 76 degrees 37 feet 37 inches West, parallel with the southerly right-of- way line of Interstate Highway Number 94, a distance of 681.68 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A; thence continue North 76 degrees 37 feet 37 inches West, a distance of 40.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continue North 76 degrees 37 feet 37 inches West, a distance of 420.16 feet; thence on a bearing of North 488.62 feet more or less to the southerly right -of --way line of Interstate Highway Number 94; thence South 76 degrees 37 feet 37 inches East, a distance of 460.16 feet more or less along said southerly right -0f --way line to ita intersection with a line drawn parallel with the east line of said Southeast Quarter and bearing North from the aforesaid Point A; thence on a bearing of South along said parallel line a distance of 338.62 feet; thence South 18 degrees 27 feet 47 inches West, a distance of 146.33 feet, more or leas, to the point of beginning. Also a 66 -foot easement for ingress and egress over a four rod strip of land lying Easterly of the East line of the above-described tract of land and running in a Northerly and Southerly direction. Approved by the City of Monticello this _ day of '19— City Administrator Mayor Approved by the Town of Monticello this _ day of 19— Town Chair Town Clerk IZ Z Council Agenda - 2127/95 13. Consideration of adopting an ordinance amendment reaulatin¢ Dole building design and construction. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, staff informed the Planning Commission that there has been growing interest in development of commercial and industrial facilities that utilize pole construction. Recent examples include the construction of the vacant facility north of Little Mountain School, and the Polycast manufacturing site. In recent months, City staff has received inquiries regarding City regulations governing pole building construction from applicants interested in building in Monticello in commercial and industrial districts. One inquiry came from a person interested in locating a business on the Pfeffer property on Fallon Avenue near Custom Canopy. Another party was interested in a site for a pole building near Wendy's. These requests come on the heels of recent concern expressed by the Industrial Development Committee regarding the proliferation of pole building construction. The Industrial Development Committee was not specific in outlining its concern regarding pole building construction, and there were mixed opinions as to the level of regulation that is appropriate. 1t was clear, however, that the level of concern was significant enough to warrant requesting that the Planning Commission review current regulations and determine whether or not tightening regulations is appropriate. In light of the trends noted above, the Planning Commission requested that the City Planner prepare a report outlining the positive and negative aspects of pole construction and requested that the Planner prepare a zoning ordinance amendment regulating pole building construction. At the February 6, 1995, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning ordinance amendment and approved the ordinance amendment that, if adopted by City Council, would result in stricter regulation of polo buildings and steel framed buildings in the commercial zone and would result in prohibition of pole buildings in the business campus zone. The amendment would not change regulations governing pole or steel structures in industrial zones. According to the City Planner, his greatest concern is regarding the potential for pole construction in the &3 and B-4 (commercial) zones. Pole building construction has the potential for significant negative impact on commercial areae; therefore, it may make sense to act soon to adopt ordinance amendments accordingly. He noted that no other cities that he 22 Council Agenda - 2/27/95 knows of allow pole buildings in commensal zoning districts. In terms of industrial areas, it may be more difficult to establish a clear consensus that pole buildings should be fiuther regulated in industrial areas; therefore, the City Council may wish to wait until completion of the comprehensive plan to regulate pole building construction in industrial areas. Attached are excerpts from the comprehensive plan that may apply to the decision at hand. Please review the ordinance amendment in teras of the comprehensive plan and determine whether or not the ordinance amendment meets the zoning ordinance amendment criteria under alternative #1 below. Also attached is a summary identifying property value information on sample pole and steel structures in Monticello's commercial districts. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment regulating construction of pole and steel framed buildings in commercial and business campus districts as proposed by the Planning Commission. As with every zoning ordinance amendment, a motion to adopt the ordinance amendment must include a "finding" that provides specific reasons why the amendment is appropriate. The finding must relate to the criteria noted below. Consistency with the comprehensive plan Compatibility with the geography or character of the area Effect on land values Demonstrated need for the amendment The report provided by Steve Grittman should assist you in applying the criteria above to the decision at hand. Please note that Council has some flexibility to modify the ordinance presented by the Planning Commission. Motion to deny adoption of an amendment regulating construction of pole buildings. This alternative should be selected if the City Council does not believe that an ordinance amendment is necessary after reviewing the decision criteria noted above in alternative il. 23 Council Agenda - 2/27/95 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. It was the view of the Planning Commission that pole buildings and steel framed construction should be prohibited in commercial areas. In addition, only pole buildings should be prohibited in the business campus zones. The Planning Commission based its action on the finding that stricter regulation of this type of construction is consistent with the comprehensive plan goal to maintain quality commercial areas. In terms of the business campus industrial zone, the ordinance would continue to allow steel framed structures (example: Suburban Machine & Manufacturing) but would prohibit pole buildings. The Planning Commission did not believe it was necessary to regulate steel framed structures in the BC district beyond the current regulation which prohibits more than 50% of business campus structures to be covered by steel/metal siding. JD. SUPPORTING DATA: Planner's report from 1994; Proposed ordinance amendment governing pole buildings in commercial zones; Excerpts from the comprehensive plan; List of buildings in the commercial zones that would not be allowed under the proposed ordinance. 24 PLANNING REPORT TO: FILE FROM: Bob xirmis/Cary Teague/Stephen Grittman DATE: 16 March 1994 RE: Monticello - pole Building Study FILE N0: 191.06 - 94.06 BACKGROUND At your request, we have assembled a variety of information relating to pole building construction and their regulation within the City of Monticello. Hopefully, this report can serve an educational role and contribute to the City's decision-making process in regard to the regulation of -ouch a building type. ISSUES ANALYSIS Pole Build a nerinition. An obvious question to be answered in regard to potential pole building regulation is what are the characteristics of such a building type. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance does not include a definition of the term polo building. As such, a review of other municipal Zoning Ordinances was conducted to identify conmmoa definition of the term. The City of Albertville provides what is considered to be a standard definition of the term pole building su reiterated below: Pole Buildings: Any structure possessing the following characteristics: structural wood poles or timbers buried in ground on individual footings' metal wall coverings hung vertically of less than twenty-eight (28) gauge. Such definition shall not include or apply to decks, sign supports, earth retention structuree, playground equipment, electric utilities, or any similar structure lot covering or enclosing a specific area. To be specifically noted from the above definition is that a pole building is characterized by its rood pole framing system and lack of a perimeter foundation. Thus a simple metal sided building may not technically be considered a pole building. Esiatiac Rego &Lien. Currently, the City's building material performance standards are relatively limited and do not specifically address the issue of pole building construction. In review of the City Zoning Ordinance, the following building type performance standards are established: Section 3-2.8.3 In R-1, R-2, R-3, and PZ -R Districts, all buildings must adhere to the following standards: (a) Mini== building width of 24 feet. (b) MI"I-- 3:11 roof pitch with -A"I-- siZ (6) tach soffit. (e.) Building must be anchored to a peramneat concrete or treated wood foundation. (d) No metal siding shall be permitted wider than 12 inches or without a one-half (1/2) inch or more overlap and relief. (e) Kinimum floor area shall be 1,000 square feet. (f) All dwellings shall meet all regulations of the Minnesota Uniform Building Code. Section 3.2.x.4 in all districts, all buildings shall be finished on all aides with consistent architectural quality, materials, and design. Based on the arormentioned, the construction of pole type commercial and iadnetrial buildings is currently permitted with'* the City. Generally speaking, a City's Zoning Ordinance is &tended to reflect and isplement established City policies. of particular consideration la this matter are policies which relate to the City's desired building quality. In review of the City's 1994 Comprehensive plan, the following established polices relate to the issue of building quality: C Aesthetics and good urban design shall be an important tactor in evaluating proposals although these will not be the sole determinants leading to rejection or approval of proposed projects. 0 The tax structure must be a factor in planning the industrial and commercial uses permitted by the City. Palo Bni]A" Va. Conventional Building - Cost D&fa=M"l_ Based on information from the Minnetrista, St. Bonifacius and Waconia Building Inspector, the laveragef square footage costs for Pole Buildings and Conventional Building for commercial or industrial type uses is as follows: Conventioaai Building $45.00 par aquaro foot. Pole Building $16.00 per square foot. Using the above figures the cost comparison for a 1,000 square foot building is as follows: Conventional Building $aS,000.00 Pole Building 016,000.00 P91a eniid•rg m�..ete�ist�ee. Pole building characteristics, as defined earlier in this report, hold both advantages and disadvantages when compared to other conventional construction types, such as stick built, precast concrete, concrete block, etc. advantages 1. Pole type buildings are typically mors affordable than other building types. 2. Pole buildings can be constructed in a relatively short period of time. 3. A high dopes of design flexibility and i• now available for Pole type construction. 4. pole buildings are more easily relocated than other building types. 5. Affordability pronts increased rate of dayslopment. 3 Diaadvaatagesr 1. Reflective of their construction costs, pole buildings typically generate lover property values than a comparable building of higher quality construction. 1. Pole buildings commonly hold a perception of being less visually appealing than alternative building types. Increased rate of development of such a building type may not be desirable. Pcle building construction may establish an •image' of the City which is inconsistent with the City'a development objectives. S. Pole building construction may raise compatibility concerns with regard to adjacent structures. 6. Typically pole buildings require extra maintenance, and do not have the life span of a building of conventional construction. The issue of pole building regulation is not new to developing cities. For your information, we have attached example regulations from a number of area communities. A summary of these regulations is provided below. Of the City's interviewed, those that do not allow pole buildings, or those which require extensive treatment to building facades, do so for the following reasons: Having aesthetically pleasing commercial, industrial or residential areas to attract new business, or residents to the community; Maintain* property values, and tax base in the city; Prevent maintenance or structural problems typically associated with pole buildings. 1. saver grow ssighta. Apes years of discussion, the City of Iaver Grove Heights adopted building type standards deli to address the issue of pole building construction. Spec fie provisions intended to address this matter included the following: a. Bxcepting agricultural accessory structures, require all buildings in all districts in excess of 1,000 square feet to be constructed with a full perimeter foundation. b. Except for accessory farm structures and residential accessory buildings of 120 square feet or less, prohibit sheet metal siding on all residential accessory buildings. C. All exterior facades of commercial, industrial or public buildings shall have the same or equally attractive facia as the front. At least 50 percent of the exterior vertical surface shall consist of one or a combination of the following: brick veneer, sculptured, textured, concrete block or panels, natural good siding, steel, aluminum or vinyl lap siding, natural stone or glass, sheet or corrugated steel or aluminum finish is permitted only in the upper one-third of the building mall height. 2. St. 9aaifacinB Nearly all of commercial development within the City of St. Hoaifacius' along State Highway 7 are pole buildings. These buildings became an issue for the City as they began to run down, became unsightly, and eventually many went out of businesses. G.. Zn an effort to make this commercial area aesthetically pleasing, and to prevent the commercial district from becoming run down in the future, the City passed an ordinance that prohibits construction of pole buildings in all commercial districts. b. pole buildings are allowed in the rural residential portions of the City. 3. Lakevill a. ra residential districts, accessory buildings in excess D of 150 s.f. must be constructed of the same or similar Quality oxterior building material as the principal building. b. Hxterior facades containing metal or fibbrglass finish of commercial, laduatrial oryvblic buildings are limited to 50 percent of any one wall. 4. r. 2-L21 . a. pole barna are only allowed in the rural portions of the City. pole barns or metal aided buildings are not allowed on residential property smaller than 5 acres in Giza. d�q y b. Construction of accessory buil ma not occur prior to or taller than the principal bulSding. Ntmiber of accessory buildings, construction standards, size, location, and height are each regulated depending on the size of lot on which the buildings ars located. C. All buildings constructed on commercial or industrial 5 land must be of wood frame, steel, reinforced concrete. masonry or an equivalent or better material. No building shall have pole barn type construction nor an exterior wall surface of sheet metal. Exterior wall surfaces of all buildings shall be face brick, glass, stone, decorative block, architectural concrete cast in place, or architectural metal panel. d. Pole building construction and sheet metal exteriors within commercial or industrial districts, are allowed by COP if the pole barn is an accessory structure, or as an expansion of an existing pole building. S. Wanonia a. The City of Vaconia prohibits pole buildings defined as: •Any building using wood or metal poles as a principle structural auppert where such supporta are not affixed to a floor slab but inserted directly into the ground to achieve alignment and bearing capability., b. Sheet metal, plastic or fiberglass siding is prohibited. C. All buildings in commercial and industrial districts must take on the exterior architectural appearance of exiting structure in the immediate area. Exterior building finish must consist of materials comparable to: Brick; Natural stone; Concrete; Finished wood such as cedar, redwood and cypress; class curtain wall panels; 6. ZQQUQXd a. Require a conditional use permit for any accessory structure. Standards include exterior siding material, finish, color, roofing, and the architecture must be similar to the principal building and general neighborhood environment or business area. b. No mention is made with regard to pole buildings. 7. Munaa a. Farm buildings ars asampt from regulation. b. Buildings must be compatible with principal structure. Height and setbacks are regulated by the underlying zoning district. C. If more than one accessory building is to be located oa a lot, a COP is required. 6 d. Other in association with farming operations, no galvanized or unf4-4-hed steel or unfinished all - 4 -buildings except those specifically intended to have a corrosive designed finish such as cortin steel is permitted in any zoning district. B. Aa.�lunl• a. Accessory buildings made of corrugated metal exterior are required to obtain a conditional use permit. size, heigqht and setbacks are regulated per the underlying coning district. b. Accessory buildings must be constructed on a concrete slab or floating foundation. 9. ALUXIMIUS a. Fan buildings are exempt from regulation. b. More than one accessory building or any such structure over 700 square feet, requires a CUP. C. The same or similar quality exterior building material shall be used in the accessory building and in the principal building. a. Farm buildings are ex mpt from regulation. b. Accessory buildings may not be useQ for commercial operations in a residential district. C. Any accessory building which exceeds i,000 square feet is required to obtain a CUP. d. Tho City dog not have any construction standards. Dole buildings are allowed in all :oaiag diotricts, including ccmasercial and ruidential. 7 TO Robert W. Schaefer, City Administrator FROM Alice Keppel, Planning Supervisor DATE May 17, 1991 SUSJ= ProposedurdinsnceCLrifyiag and Establishing RegulationsConcerning Pale Buildings, Accessory Structures to Single -Family Residences and Building Exterior Requirement& for Commercial, Indnstrial sad Iasritutional Buildings. IaUstdaadu Amchad is a copy of the proposed ordinance, referenced above. Planning Commission held the public hearing on May 7, 1"1. and recommended approval. A copy of their recomtaondation is attnehed. The proposed ordinance hes been scheduled for first reading by the City Council on May 2H, 1991. Planning Commission has discussed this item on numerous occasions and staff has prepared several informational reports. The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of the information provided to the Planning Commission which W culminated in the ataehed ordinance. The regulation of pole building and similar structures arose in July. 19U. from discussions between the Planning and Building laspaenons staff. Topics included: appropriateness of such structures for commercial/industrial use. compatibility of appearance with adjacent structures. relatively low value of constriction. Regulations were ultimately adopted which recognized that pole buildings are appropriate cold'sWago accaesory structure for agncnitaral uses, however not desirable for other types of development, such as commercial or ioduevial la addition• a maximum square fooaQa was established for accessary structures for single-family residences. In January, 1990, the City Council adopted the following amendments to the Zoning Code: Subd. 13 Feaed.rioa iteouiremeee Lull zoning districts, structures in excess of 1,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be constmcted with a full perimeter foundation. Exec dons to this requirement aro accessory stroaures to principal a cultural uses (in. I.,. ,ranches, sables, $reeehowes, nurseries and uses deomedssimiLr by the City Council) in the 'A' zoning district Solid. 16 Accessary Structures. Accessary structures to single • family reaideatial uses in all'A', 'E' and *R* zoning districts shad not exceed a masimam gross floor arae of 1.000 square fent Sheer and riding aIusU be prohibited as a siding material on all such samctnrcs. Exceptions to this requirement aro accessory structures to single-family residential uses in all W. 'E' and 'R' zoning districts with gross floor areas of 120 square lost or lees, and accessory structures to principal agricultural assn (ie. (arms, rwehes, stable, gmahoons, aurasries and aces deemed similar by the City Council) in the 'A' roniag districts. The apppproach is Sobd 13 wes chosen . sittu the, Zoning authority granted u the City by State Suture provfdn the opportunity to restrict building eonsnuedoo standards within the Zoning Code by reference I four -Est type. It was felt that by requiring a full perimeter foundation. a mors conventional type of eansancdoo would result. In practtea, however, this has not recurred for some types of commercial constrncdoa The basis for Solid. 16 was twofold. 'Pint 'amblishing a maximum of 1,000 agnate teat achieved comeietsomy with certain Sate Building Code provisions. Gan6a over 1,000 Attars fes ser rtaeqrfred by the Stan Huildlag Code m provide a hard -surf" floor with internal plumbing and flamrnabb wars traps. Second, the sirs of accessory stroctures was limited to a scale is proportion to the principal structure they related to Robert W. Schaefer, City Adminimator May 17, 1991 Page 2 id Since the so-called 'pole building' regulations wen adopted last year, the Phtaniag staff and Building Inspections staff have found that the current requirements do not address some types of construction and arca difficult to administer. The requirements are not clearly understood by bttiiden, and now construction methods which meet the letter of the ordinance, but cot the intent, have boon developed. The application of the requirements to commercial and industrial development has base the greatest source of difficulty, since pole -type buildings may be constructed with full -perimeter foundations. The requirement for a full perimeter foundation does not eliminate metal skinned buildings as originally intended During the summer of 1990, several requests for variances from the requirements were granted. The Pt ..ing Commission requested that the current regulations be brought back to the Commission for analysis, revision and clarification. Staff provided information regarding the perceived problems with the current ordinance, the practice of other cities, the requfrrmants of rho State Building Cods sad advice of the City Attorney its several reports to the Planning Commission. Ultimately, the Planning Comminian formed a consensus of opinion with respect to the proposed clarifications and revisions of the ordinance: o Clarify tho current raquiremant for 'fall perimeter foundation' by amending it to read: full, continuous sawraral Ind -baaringperimeter foundation. The City Sailding Offiafal advises this language is Moro accurate. a The current 1,000 square foot maximum for accessory structures to dngle-family reside— a is appropriate and should be rarnined. A clarification has made to apply the 1,000 sq. ft maximum to accessory structures to single-family development in the W. '8', 'R•1' and 'R -T district; it Would not apply to say of the R-3 districts. o Attached ganga should be exempted from rhe 1,000 square foot maximum. Attached garages may exceed 1.000 square feet, however will be mon expensive to coatruct because of Seta Building Code requiremanta o Specify a maximum lot coverage by sttucmres in the R-1 districts of 30% at 4,000 square fear, whichever is leas. This is consistent with exisdn{� res�uictious in the 8 -1 district (4,000 square feet maximum building coverage) and the Shorelaad Stegdadons (30% merlmum coverage by impervious swfaca). The lot coverage could be achieved by as many buildings as desired, provided sq detached taamry structure exceedad 1,000 ss. ft o A minimum space of 6 trot should be required bttwam principal and accasmry structure& and between accessory saurus to maintain consistency with Scats Building Code. This ado eliminates the potential of accessory bulldImp being constructed within Inches of one another. o The most effective way to limit the construction of pole type building for commercial sad industrial an is m specify building astetbr rsquirem&ste, similar to what has been adopted for multi -family rcaideatial and townhome development Inatitation" oats ware alae Included. The building exterior requirements gasify that &beet or cocruptod metal Worion are only permitted In the upper oat third of the building height This allows the an of metal for Mafia$ material. however restricts its exclusive an on exterior surfaces. /3x tiW-29-1994 1545 IAA bu :,» Jo , r. ♦i, u Robert W. Schaefer. City Ad=hdmator May 17, 1991 Page 3 The attached ordinance represents the combined efforts of the Planning Commisslea. Chy staff and City Attorney to clarify and revise the existing requirements into markable, reasonable regulations. If additional information, is desired please advise.. -11.M.. AR AL -29-1994 15:46 44C 01c D.z 1..c — CITY OF INVER GROVE EEIGRTS nAEOTA COuNTl, MIM=OTA ORDINANCE N0. 731 AN ORDINAMCE AMENDING SECTION 515.47, SUBDIVISION 15 and 16 OF TEM rum GROVE HEIGHTS CITY CODE PERTAINING TO FOLL PER32M? t FOUNUTIOH RBw., - -. • r .. io FOR STRUCTURES, MM REGM ATICIM PERTUNING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTMES To SINGLE- rinnY RESIDENTIAL AND PRINCIPAL AGRICDLTURAL USES BY: CLARIFYING THE PULL PERIMETER FOMMATION REQUIRMEENT) EXEMPTING ATTACHED GARAGES FROM THE 1,000 -SQ. FT. 2OIZIM M SIZE FOR aH ACCESSORY .)&".� d-" TO A SINGLH 7XKnY RESIDENCE: ESTAHLISHMZbiG A MAZIMOM LOT COVERAGE BY REQUIREMENT FOR THE It -1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; AND REQDIRZbMG A a..;== Z22C= OF c vawm BETON BUILDINGS: AND ADDING A SUBDIVISION 17 SPECIFYING BU=ING EXTERIOR REQUIREMENTS FOR COM29RCIBL, ZNDQSTRIAL AND—a4444w&i N21L STRUCTURES. The City Council of Inver Grove Heights ordains as follows: SECTION I. AMEND . Inver Grove Heights City Code Section 515.47, Subdivision 15, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 15 Foundation Recuirement. In pu zoning districts, structures in excess of 1,000 square Lees of gross floor area shall be constructed with a full continuous structural load-beari:iq perimeter foundation. Exceptions to this requirement are accessory structures to principal agricultural uses (i.e., farms, ranches, stables, grsenhouses, nurseries, and uses deemed similar by the City Council) in the 'A' Zoning District. SECTION M. UMMM. Inver Grove Heights City Code Section 515.47, Subdivision 16 is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 16 . Acenamory Strujetures. Each detached accessory structure to single-family residential uses in all 'A', -B', 'R-1' AND 'R-2- Zoning Districts shall not exceed a total maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square feet. Sheet or corrugated steel or aluminum metal shall be prohibited as a siding material on all such structures. Exceptions to this requirement are accessory structures to single-family residential uses in all 'A', 'E' and 'R' toning districts with groes floor areas of 120 square feet or lose, and accessory structures to principal agricultural uses (i.e. farms, ranches, stables, greenhouses, nurseries and uses deemed similar by the City Council) in the 'A' Zoning Districts. There shall be a minimum space of six (6) fast between the principal and accessory structure unless attached, and a minimum space of six (6) fact between all other Ordinance No. 731 Page 2 accessory structures. In all R-1 zoning districts, the total. -Axiom lot coverage by all structures shall not exceed 307r or 4,000 square feet, whichever is less. SECTION III. AUM10=. Inver Grove Heights City Code Section 515.47 is hereby amended to add the following subdivisions Subd. 17. Exterior vertical Surface Design For Con®arc_ial. IndLatrJAT anA Inatitntio:fnl Bnildtnea. All exterior vertical surfaces of any principal or accessory structure in any •e•, •I• or •P• zoning district shall have an equally attractive or the same fascia as the front. At least 50% of the exterior vertical surface shall consist of one or a combination of the following or similar materials: brick veneer; sculptured, textured concrete bloak or paaa..� ; i�tn•ru "- S+'� �►��1 . alumllmm or vinyl lap siding; natural stone or glass. Sheet or corrugated steel or aluminum finish is permitted only in the ¢pper one third of the building wall height. SECTION I9.d.... _:g Dasa. This Ordinance shall be in fall force and effect from aad niter its passage and publication according to law. Passed this 8th day of July , 1991 Ayes: 4 Nayes: 0 (2-Qa/-_O 1 4...42'-�. Rosemary . - ac , mayor ATTEST: ret a.oarrity, Clark FCA FEB-U 1139 NRC 612 595 9837 P.05i07 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U A a A N PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESIANCK T' MORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: 2 February 1994 RE: Monticello - pole Buildings in Business Mvtricu FEM NO: 191.06 - 95.01 Enclosed with this memorandum is a daft Zoning Ordinance amendment relating to the restriakm on the construction of pole buildings in commercial districts. As we dismssed, this issue has been raised again by the IDC, as well as the potential construction of tach a building in one of the community's commercial arts. Currently, Montloello's Zoning Ordinance permits any type of construction, regardless of its struawal characteristics or exterior finish, so long as the building meets the City's building code. In the past pole type construction and metal exterior finMea have been the target of discussion primarily in the Industrial Districts. Those previous discussieas have resulted in a decision to leave the Zoning Ordinance as it stood. The cuff= W us centers on eornmercial areas, and has been raised again to focus the Planning Commission's &mention to that aspect of pole building construction. As we trave rioted in relation to polo builXW& la mint= arras. pole conrctacdoa Is a cheaper ceaunrctwu of less durability which is most commonly utilized in agricultural and some industrial buildings. We are aware of few cities which permit pole moa in commercial districts. if the planning Camminion wishu to eliminate the possibility of pole construction from commercial areas, we have prepared a draft ordinance which would accomplish that result. This ordinance would apply only to Construction in B-1, 82, B-3, sad 84 Districts. The Business Campus District has a separate building materials requirements terxbrl. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9$32 F®-2-1995 1139 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 05/M Another aspect for regulations loch as this is the motivation. Most communities adopt restrictions based on reasons of valuation and aesthetics. As a result, other met3kiad structures are often inchtded in the restricted categories. We have bxbded metal buIldings in the erdmancce language so the Planning Comtairsion ria choose to pmbft such buildings as well as pole buildings. The Planning Commildan's dish should begin with this motivation issue, thea the ordinance can be tailored to suit the City's caacems. 61 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, EII MESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT THE GENERAL BUILDING AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 3, SECTION % OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO PROHIBITING POLE AND OTHER METAL•SIDED BUILDINGS IN THE BUSINESS DMWCTB, BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING: 101 In any business district (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and BC), all buildings shall be constructed upon full, permanent, perimeter foundations. No pole -type construction shall be permitted. In addition, with the exception of the BC district, no conventionally -framed metal clad buildings or pre-engineered steel or other metal buildings ahall be permitted regardless of foundation type. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of February, 1895. City Administrator Mayor community. The community goals are preferences as to: (1) the general type of community that future physical development should help produce; and (2) the character and location of the major physical elements forming the urban environment. Before the Comprehensive Plan can be carried into effect, these community goals must be stated clearly and general agreement on them must be reached. Otherwise, the plan cannot be conceived of as the community's policy concerning physical development. Investigating community attitudes and formulating a publicly acceptable statement of broad community goals is a basic part of the planning process. A 'goal' is a desired objective to be reached. 1. To develop and emphasize Monticello as a community that can offer the advantages of being near a metropolitan area for the enjoyment of major cultural, sports, and business assets and yet be completely and distinctly separate from the metropolitan area and its suburbs. 2. To encourage steady, careful growth by maintaining reasonably high standards. 1. To utilise the inherent advantages of the community in terms of location, existing population, school system, available land, etc., to gain the best possible advantage from these assets so as to develop a reputation as a community combining all the desirable elements for living in Minnesota. •. To develop the City according to an officially adopted Comprehensive plan for land use, transportation, and community `- facilities. While the plan should not be inflexible, neither should it be amended indiacriminantly. S. To develop urban land uses according to a set of uniform standards applicable to the City. Such standards should govern land use, public improvements, health conditions, safety features, aesthetic conaiderations, and other elements of the urban environment foe purposes of safeguarding the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. 6. To maintain a public image which associates Monticello with excellence in planning, design, and structural quality. 7. To coordinate local plans with those of the school district, adjacent and nearby communities, and others, is essential to the well-being of local residents. S. To develop a sound and broad tax base for the City and the school district is essential in order to provide revenue for adequate public facilities and services without creating undue burdens upon property owners. 9. To base all development decisions upon compliance with the City Plan, appropriate planning methods and procedures, and development standards that help to assure the best possible results within the realm of economic and legal feasibility. ►�,,. e"( C G M 9. Aesthetics and good urban design shall be an important factor in evaluating development proposals although these will not be the sole determinants leading to rejection or aoproval of proposed projects. In the making of urban development decisions, many factors will be taken into consideration including the following: (a) effect on adjacent and nearby property values; (b) safety factors; (c) health consideration; (d) landscaping; (a) light and air spaces (f) traffic generation and flow patterns; (g) density and intensity of use; and (h) other items •,QC* affecting the public welfare. 1 1 V I 0. Encourage the preservation of special scenic and/or historical , interest sites in their original state, if at all practicable +`..� and feasible. 11. The tax structure must be a factor in planning the industrial and commercial uses permitted by the City. 17. Flood plain zoning should be considered for areas subject to excessive water and run-off or potential flooding. The objective is to preserve space for proper storm drainage, avoid property damage, prevent soil erosion, and preserve scenic and recreational values. 13. The development and maintenance of public buildings and land should set a high standard and good example for private property owners to follow. 14. All land should be free from noxious weeds, litter, debris, inoperative vehicles, junk, hazards, and other undesirable influences. 1S. Require precautionary measures to insure that soil erosion will be minimised to the greatest extent possible during development _ construction. - 16. Smoke, noise, dust, litter, vibrations, weeds, soils, erosion, junk, and other undesirable elements suet be controlled by *Performance standards' in the zoning regulations and other = codes and ordinances. 11. Adopt an Official Map designating proposed major public spaces and corridors. _ F 130. i I P,iL ay _ n�P-?/", cc7ce eJf 10. To make major public expenditures according to a capital improvements program and budget which establishes priority schedules for five or six years in advance based on projections of need and estimated revenues. 11. To encourage suitable housing in good living environments for people of all ages, incomes, and racial and ethnic groups throughout Monticello. 12. To allow development of new housing only where it is in harmony with the natural environment and where adequate services and facilities ace available. 13. To eliminate all instances of housing blight (dilapidation, poor maintenance, etc.) as rapidly as possible. 14. To concentrate commercial enterprises into relatively compact and well-planned areas by discouraging *spot' and 'strip" business development. 14. To encourage the development of a strong industrial employment base so that persons can live and work in Monticello. 16. To develop hash aunty industrial erase which are tree from nuisance characteristics such as noise, smoke, odors, vibrations, glare, dust, and other objectionable features. 17. To purchase recreation sites for long-range needs at an early ! date in order that proper sites can be obtained before urban development or land costs render acquisition hopeless. 18. To develop public utilities and services that are well planned and cost-effective for present and future needs at the lowest possible operating and maintenance costs. 19. To evaluate present and future traffic flow volumes in order to develop various land use strategies to prevent congestion on the public streets. 20. To protect residential areas by channeling major traffic volumes onto a relatively few major streets. POLE BUILDING/STEEL-BUILDING/CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS Harry's Auto Steel 13200 $200200 VFW Steel Same StructurarSame Market value/ $124,300 Eristin Structure/Market Value/Taxes Paid Steel 13,500 Conventional Construction Champion Auto Steel 5,400 $85,700 Royal Tire Steel Market Percent Taxes Steel 3,600 $65.600 Current Market 8,830 Value Increase $3,159 $15 Const Square Market Valuar Taxes Comen- w th Conv Comen- $62.016 Tvoe Feet Value So Ft Current (tonal Const. tlonal Monticello RV Pole 3240 $75,800 $23 $2.6091 $156,100 205.94% $6,402 Rolling Wheels Pole 1,920 $34,900 $18 $1,201 $71,900 208.02% $2,474 Glass Hut Pole 5,472 $31200 $6 $1,074 $64,200 205.77% 52209 General Rental Pole 2.400 553,300 $22 $1,834 $109,700 205.82% $3.953 Fair's Garden Pole 6,494 $87,700 $14 $3,018 $180,600 205.93% $7,694 Subtotal 19,526 $282,900 $14 $9,736 $582,500 205.89% $22.732 Harry's Auto Steel 13200 $200200 VFW Steel 5,650 $124,300 Automatboarage Steel 13,500 $232200 Champion Auto Steel 5,400 $85,700 Royal Tire Steel 12,000 $167,200 The Plumbery Steel 3,600 $65.600 Larsons Ace Hrdware Steel 8,830 $135,100 /Subtotal 62.180 $1.010.300 Motels 81,7061 51,293,200 Constnxtlon costs per square toot: Pole butidings $17 Steel structure $25 Conventional $35 $15 $8,729 $280.300 140.01% $12,956 $22 $4,724 $174,000 139.98% $7,346 $17 $10.417 $326,500 140.61% $15.394 $16 $2,949 $120,000 140.02% $4500 $14 $6,987 $234,100 140.01% $10,518 $18 $2258 $91,800 139.94% $3,159 $15 $5.294 $169.100 139.97% $8,143 $161 $41.358 51.415.800 140.08% $62.016 $51,094 $1,998,300 I $84,748 It costs twice as much to build a pole building as It does to bull a cmmMlonal building, • The taxes generated by s pole building are one hall the emmmt generated by a conventional butilding. The cost to provide services to a pole building or steel structure is the same as the cost to provldo services to a conventional building. PO L ETAX. W K4: 02/23/95 Council Agenda - 2/27/95 14. Consideration of ptrantinp a seasonal 3.2 beer license to the Monticello Softball Association, (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Monticello Softball Association has again requested a 3.2 beer license to sell at the NSP softball field concession stand. The Softball Association will be presenting a letter of intent to acquire dram shop liquor liability insurance upon the approval of the City issuing the license; and as a result, the Council can approve this license contingent upon receipt of the certificate of insurance for liquor liability and the appropriate fees for the seasonal license. The fee for this license is $137.60. Also enclosed for the Council's review are copies of the 1994 Softball Association income reports that show the entire income and expenditures for the Association including a breakdown on the concession stand revenue and expenses only. The Softball Association has brought all their fees up to date with the City for the year 1994, including their contribution for the lighting of the softball complex and their agreement to pay all electrical costs for the softball lighting. Including the liquor license, team charges, and reimbursement for the light bill and contribution toward the lighting coat, the Association has paid a total of $4,799.71 to the City last year. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIO13 1) Grant the license contingent upon receipt of necessary insurance documents and appropriate fees. 2) Deny the license. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is the staff recommendation that the license be granted contingent upon proper insurance coverage being provided. The City has not been made aware of any problems with this license in the past and can see no reason why the Association should not be granted the license for the 1995 season. Copy of 1994 financial reports. 25 1994 MENS SOFTBALL INCOMFRMENSE REPORT (Concession Stand Only) Revenue Early Bird Tournament $4,012.00 River Fest Tournament 11609.00 ASA Class C District 4,300.75 Concessions - League Play 14,352.98 Total Concession Revenue $24,174.73 Dram Shop Insurance $700.00 Freezer 293.00 Lindenfelser - Meats 2,762.47 Maus Foods 690.61 Versa Vending - Candy 2,429.65 Viking Coke 1,768.50 Dahlheimer Distributing 6,014.11 Liquor License 137.50 Concession/Field Workers 4,603.76 Miscellaneous/propans for grill, ice, etc. 1,000.00 Total Concession Expenses $20,379.49 Net Income from Concession Stand Operations $3,795.24 0 1994 MONTICELLO MENS SLOWPITCH INCOME REPORT 19 TEAMS @ $375.00 $7,095.0( SALE OF USED BALLS 70.00 LEAGUE EARLY BIRD TOURNAMENT 6,172.00 LEAGUE RIVERFEST TOURNAMENT 2,409.00 MENS CLASS "C" ASA DISTRICTS 5,316.75 CONCESSIONS 14,352.98 TOTAL INCOME $35,415.73 EXPENSES DRAM SHOP INSURANCE 700.00 BALLS 1,470.98 TROPHIES FOR LEAGUE'S TOURNAMENTS 699.57 TRACTOR MAINTENANCE 186.19 FLICKERS- (FREEZER) 293.00 LINDENFELSER MEATS 2,752.47, MAUS FOODS 690.51 MARTIES FARM (LIME) 202.95 BRIDGEWATER PHONE 168.96 VERSA VEND (CANDY) 2,429.65 VIKING COKE 1,758.50. DAHLHEIMER DIST. 6,014.11 CITY OF MONTICELLO: LIQUOR LICENSE 137.50 ANNUAL FEE & LIGHT BILL 3,000.00 FIELD USE 375.00 ELECTRIC BILL FOR LIGHTS 1,287.21 UMPIRES 3,866.00 CONCESSION/FIELD WORKERS 4,603.75 MSF & MRPA SANCTION FEES 939.00 MSF DISTRICT SPOTS 20 $90.00 180.00 OFFICERS FEES 400.00 MISC: 1,831.031 propane for grill, gas for tractor checka,ice, schedules,postage, Times and other items purchased at various retailers TOTAL EXPENSES $33,986.38 TOTAL INCOME $35,415.73 TOTAL EXPENSES $33,986.38 NET INCOME $ 1,429,35 ESRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 01/24/95 08:20:51 ( WARRANT DATE VENDOR \ GENERAL CHECKING 37982 01/20/95 PUEI,IC EMPLOYEES RET 37986 01/20/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37987 01/20/95 U.S. POSTMASTER 37987 01/20/95 U.S. POSTMASTER 37988 01/20/95 DING'S DELI 37909 01/24/95 ARM EQUTPMENT & SLIPP 37990 01/24/95 ALCOTT/JUDY 37991 01/24/95 BARNES/KIM 37992 01/24/95 BRAUN iNTERTEC ENVIO 37993 01/24/95 HENRY R. ASSOCIATES 37993 01/24/95 HENRY & ASSOCIATES L 37994 01/24/95 HOLM93 @ GPAVFN 97994 01/24/95 HOLMES & GRAVEN ;7994 01/24/95 HOLMES 9.. GRAVEN ?7994 01/24/95 HOLMES & GFAVCN 37994 004/,15 HOLMES & GRAVI:N 37095 01/24/95 JACOBSON/DIANE 79i1C 01/24/95 MAMMENGA/MARGE 37997 01/24/95 MCDOHALL COMPANY 37)30 01/24/00 MN DEPT OF REVENUES 37999 01/24/95 MODIL 375rl9 01124/95 MODIL Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 176 *FY* 118 SNOW &. ATV REG 210 *FY* 210 *FY* 90219 LUNCHES/COUNCIL MTG 601 *FY* 884 *FY* 864 *FY* 638 *FY* 545 *FY* $45 *FY* 86 *FY* 03 *FY* 86 *FY* 06 *FV* O6 *FY* 92 *FY* 005 *FY* 111 *FV* 37 *FYV 131 *FY* 131 *FY* 30090 01/24/95 PUEILIC FMPLOVEES RET 17G *FV* )0001 01/24/95 PUBLIC NESOURCE GRUU 26 *FY* 10001 01/24/95 PUBLIC RESOUL4E GRUU 2G *FV* 30001 01/24/95 PUOLIC RF.SUURCI: f1SGU ?G *FV* GENCGAI. CH:f,KING 71'iAL 67-00CR 876.00 151.04 151.03 302.05 *CH 42.17 11,685.00 9.80 10.08 4.494.60 1.255.23 164.75 1,419.08 *CH• 633.R9 102.00 1.070.60 830.76 36.00 2.672.25 *•:'1 13.44 3.92 343.03 50.00 16.00 5.00 21.00 *Ch 67.03 (352.00 ?.000.00 3.0!'10.00 6.501.50 Oct. 10.421.G5 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 01/30/95 15:39:24 (_-WARRANT HATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37970 01/26/95 FRONTIINC PLUS FIRE 37970 01/26/95 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE 3000? 01/20/95 W C SOTL & WATER CON 39003 01/26/95 NORTHWEST MINNESOTA 31'004 01/2G/91, MN DEPART OF NATURAL 30005 01/26/95 MN COMMERCE OF.PARTME 3VOnki O1,`^G/1L PIi.HEN';/VICTORIA 3P0O7 01/46/95 VALUE PLUS HOME; 3(;00001/26/95 HO1 THAI15/10M 78009 01/20/95 MONTICELLII CHAMBER 0 700111 01/26/94 WRIGHT C01INTY AUDITO Ci OENFRAI. CHECKING 4 Disbursement Journal DESCkiPT1ON AMOUNT C1' SIO *FVg 510 *FY* 006 MISC CHCS/WWTP 3.096.0OCR 3.096.00 0.00 vc 25.00 150 REG FEE/GARY ANDERSON 10.00 110 WATER/SNOW/ATV RI:G 506.00 511 NOTARY APP FEE/DIANE J 40.00 .00302 RiFUND/SEWER& WATER 8 50.00 887 REFUND/SEWER & WATER BI 8.77 225 REFUND/SEWCR ✓k WATER 01 4.3§ 133 MEMBERSHIP DUES/OLLIE 350.00 219 NOTARY FILING FEF,/K 00 25.00 TOTA1. 994.12 0Rt FI1)AN 1AL SYSTEM 0'�/ 3 D/ 95 1'5:•4'0,::03 C ,RARRANT ,DATE VENDOR 'SEWERAL CHECKING 38011 02/01/95 ARAMARK 38012 02/01/95 CELLULAR 200.0 OF ST 30017 02/01/95 CF.LLULAP -000 OF ST 38012 02/01/95 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 38012 07/01/9& CEL'I11LAR 1000 OF ST 3801,3 02/01/95 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT !9014 02/01/95 CIT°Y OP ELK RIVER 3,8015 02/01/95 CONTINENTAL SAFETY E 38018 02/bl/95 EXECUTRAIN :,OOT7 02/01/95 FEOERAI EXPRF-15 CARP 10010 02/01/95 FEEO'RITE CONTROLS. I 300tO 02/01/95 FFEDRITE CONTROLS. I c.0(401^ 0P/01M Ft.AIICRTV I-OUYPMENT C. 30020 02/01/90 FRONTtILJP PLUS FIRC 30`)2.11 0?/01 /911 FROM! EW7 RLI_I'� rlPE 000'±1 0'/OIf9'') G r, tt ')ERVTrr 3003%' 03/01/95 HFNkY 1• A:ISCCIAIE5 0^0";,' 0S'/91 /95 HERMI WJr..t.RY '10024 03/01 W HOLIDAY (IR1110' OFF'IC '?00^', 02101/O) JI14 HATCH ^Al.4li CO 351025 02/111/95 JIM HAT07H `,AI,I''l �-O SCO -'. 00/01 /n') JIM HATCH ';A1 CO ')002'') 02/01/05 JIM HATCH (3AI,f'i 0) ]00`.!0 0'101195 1i0R0P(-HAK/f)LIVF 'J(',U!7 02/0105 I IT11 C FAl t(' MA('NINC ;00?!) 020I/95 MAR,', I111''.TNf;';'t PR1;1111 ,;'.); U; x111 IOC, MART , Illy YLJL ? 't iU1 Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CI 810 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 85.50 794 CAR PHONE CHG9/8LD IN$ 16.68 704 CAR PHONE CROS/FIRE DEP 0.A4 794 CTAP. PHONE CHGSIWATER D 1-2.20 784 (IAP, PHONE CHCS/PW INSPE 4.25 33.27 0?2 CMIF GRANT PAYMENT 1.100.21 784 ROAD SEALANT/STREET 6,200.77 256 *FY* 33.10 888 COMPUTER CLASS/WANOA 205.00' 394 RECVG SCANNER REPAIR 27,50 56 *FV* 12.00 56 MIRE ,PROF 3ERV/WATER 51.00 63.00 5.74 FUEL GAULIF/WA 'LiF DEPT 29.82 519 HELMET$/FIRE 0CPT 100.25 '110 AIFY* 1,219.09 1.404.30 OS 1 RII,; MAT$,/CFP kt 0 OLD M 70.41 545 PIMP A34FMRLY/SUNVY F 315.?4 ni LIAKARV PLFANING CONT 227.510 05 GA9/FIPE OF.PT 79.32 00^d FIRI'T AIL) KIT:,/�TRFFTO 50.71 003 tOAM ',tOUKRfiPIPARti', DrP 7O3 FOAM f,0I11 FGL/NATC.R DFP 44.7A 009 "UW PLOW MANKE:&0/NOW 01.'-)0 199.40 '17 P411 FAlili KWf)VW is 40.44 709 *FY* tn9.D0 106 01t YAFNt NLIP W,$Nk'; 9:-4.42 1 .0,115. Oil WC BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 01/30!95 15x.40:0.4 C4ARRA47 DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38029 02/01/95 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAF 38030 02/01/9S MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 38031 02/01/95 MONTICELLO SENIOR Cl 3-0032 02/01/95 PITNEY BOWES 38033 02/01/95 SCHWAAR. INC. 38034 02/01/95 STAR TRIBUNE 38035 0?/01/9S YAB PRO01ICTS CO. 18036 02/01/95 U.S. POSTMASTER 38037 UNIVO, LABORATORIF4 180)8 02/01/95 UNITED STATES SALT. 980"1 0?/O1/9r, VIKINI: PIPE 9FRVjr,FS X14039 02/01/135 VIKING PIPE SERVICES / 31.018 0l/0'1/95 VIKTt4G PIPE !EF.'VIGi3 38040 01/01/95 WATERPRO {AJPPLIE'i CO 36041 02/01/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 30042 07/01/05 WRIGI4T COUNTY SURVEY 30043 02/01/°19 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP OENLRAL CML(:KlNU Disb'u+%ement Journal DESCRIPTION AM6 NT 255 MISC SUPPLIE$/FIRE DEP 67.99 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 138 MONTHLY CONTRACT PY 2.833.33 168 POSTAGE MCH MTC AGRMT 84.00 884 NOTARY STAMP/K DOTY 30.89 197 NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION 42.90 671 CITY HALL OFFICE SUP 453.88 210 POST BOX RENTAL/FIRE DP 8.00 634 CIEANINO SUP/PARKS OF 172.98 432 SAND/SALT MIXTURE 1.000.74 114 •FV9 f.70.O0. 214 *FY* 570.00 214 *FY" 570.00 1.710.00 670 METER CONNECTION..^,/WAT 154.21 219 SCFRG GRANT PAYMENT 2.780.51 U32 AERIAL MAPS/PW IN;PECT 72.00 512 OTILYT.IE; 9.00 10(A1. vi lt6fl.09 *1 r,1: FINANCIAL SYSTEM (b!/02/95 151 1Ss1 30 h,A"'F VEN000 �NCRAL CH.ECttING, 3004, Ge/03/95 TNOUSTPIA_ MAIVT,. SO 36045 02/03/95 J M OIL COMPANY 38046 02/03/95 NEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN 36047 02/03/95 K'2AEWR/1JAN.A 30047 04/0?/95 KGAEMER/WAND A 3001se 02/-03/95 LUkACH/JOMu' 30048 02/03/05 LUKACH/JVgN 38040 0?/0?/95 LUKACH/J0�" 30040 02/031x5 LUKACH/.JOHN 00h9 U2/03/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL M`J *iEPAV Of TRANSPtr ;0--i ?/,) t/95 NF-RTHF.RN' S—A T.S Pi•NE '^J ;'ATC3 POWE ,18/09J rJ=?'1/e 3N "rt TES P::WI: ^/�:/OR NG�1'tit:; _''!'.'i:$ ➢131�Ir n.: =:+-08/95 NJ?,'ilJF N :TAid3 POW: 'IGr'}';tEi'J W)":C PVWG v0a^Fac.,>N .rAY 9 '✓uwl .�0Oa1 0?I0^ ✓�J�� C: �J StATC.^� 74W% rrJL NORTHERN 'i'i P 0 W C _'05P. i'!JOJ/95 PtiTPR81'N", V.�147 0YiD :00'.? t3?/03/95 PFt"E;,STOE OTS, 7D'd, U2/E9/Oq 5R`r.L"iar'r� 'III PLY CO. A%,F �h/� /99 S6FtYF-U� 'tl^"LY CO. �.^( � ,it/01/15 VTlttp•, ..'.'A P,Ic.G ra,-sAI t SanCKSr. ; Disbursement Journal OEv:jt1,T3:ON AMOUNT C $14 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 9.73 05 GAS/STREET DEPT 1,223.17 68W ANIMAL CONTROLSERVICES 63.91 358 MILEAGE EXPEN9F 30.5'4 394 MILEAGE EXPENSE 19.60 $0.14 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 11.57 327 MILEAGE E!PENSC 11.07 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 11.57 327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 11.57 46.28 110 WAT,cR/SNOW/A'IV RcG 013.00 5�0 V'eN INSPEC'ION DECALS 20.00 148 07I1_1iIE,� '3.?80.OJ 1'. U'iILITICS 303.07 '140 UiILI'r"--, 4,539.7 1t0 v—, ILITIC; 0rl0.00 V4 C1 UT1"LIT1 14.1 tL;; 0TrL71'r 514 00 140 9YTLIiI(:', 25rs.713 143 UYTLITIFG °)10.05 140 UYTLITIG;i 707.,:: 11.OU2.23 163 PARTS/;'fZii'_'T V[B)T Ii. CIO 40i; 0171 / Y f1EPT ?Oa.00 411 C7 Mr<r 7UPPLI�/`JYRCOY� 41,./J uJ^ MI':t rIJPVLIFSfPAPK 'C•9.J! "Ki. 41'; I' ,t ^.Cl C`XC0t.E/'_FMTVAi; (11.1, `,O)N9 15�,7ii yC '«C BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 02/14195 12':38':05 (--WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38002 02/10/95 W C SOIL & WATER CON 38056 02/1.0/95 MAUS FOODS 38058 02/1'0/95 MADS FOODS 38058 02/10/95 MAUS FOODS 38058 02/10/95 MAUS FOODS 38058 02/10/95 MAUS FOODS 38058 02/10/95 MAUS FOODS 38059 02/10/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 38060 02/10/95 BRIDGEWATER 'TELEPHON 38060 02/10/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38060 02/10/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 39060 02/10/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38050 02/10/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38060 02/10/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38060 02/P0/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON' 38060 02/10/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38080 02/'10'/'95 BRIOGEWATER TELEAHON 32060 02/10/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 3806b 02/10/86 'BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38061 02/10/95 PAGE LINK 30001 02/10/05 PAGE LINK 38081 0.2/10/95 PAGE LINK 30081 02/10/95 PAGE LINV 38061 02/10/05 PAGE LINK 30061 02/10/95 PAGE LINK 30061 02./10/95 PAGE LINK J0061 02/10/95 PAGE LINtt 38062 07/10/99 GREEN/ELI2ADETH 30003 02/10/85 O'NEILL/JEFF 30064 02/10/96 STATE OF MINNE30TA 38000 0.2/10/95 MN OFPART OF NATURAI, 30066 02/10/95 VASKO RUDDIL)H REMOVA 30066 02/10/95 VASKO RUDOISH 4EMOVA Disbursement Journal 'DESC,RIPTION AMOUNT CL 886 .CORRECT CODING 25.00 108 GLEANING SUP/ANIMAL CO 29.83 108 POP-/PARKS/CONCESS'ION,S 271,.31 108 SUPPLIESJECON DEV MTG 7..31 108 MISC SUP,PLIES%SHOP GAR 18,.90 108 MISC SUPPLIES/WATER DEP 6.02 108 MISC SUPPLIES/C HALL 9.18 342.61 118 *FY* 1,138.55 24 CREDIT DUE 1,3,t4.91CR 24 TELEPHONE CHG 104,20 24 TELEPHONE CHG 187.61 24 TELEPHONE CHG 1'7.08 24 TELEPHONE CHG 3:10.22 24 TELEPHONE CHG 61.09 24 TELEPHONE CHO 65.50 24 TELEPHONE CHG 90.00 24 TELEPHONE CNG 11.28.3 24 TELEPHONE CHG 787.71 24 TELEPHONE OHO 81.19 5f8,12 703 PAGER CHGS 42.60 70 PAGER CHGS 21 30 703 PAGER CHGS 24.60 70$ PAGER CHGS 2.1.30 703 PAGER CHGS 21.90 703 PAGER CHGS 21.90 107 PAGER CHGS 2A.30 703 PAGER CHGS 21.30 194, 90 009 MILEAGE EXPENSE 10.,08 161 TRAVEL EXPENSE 151.59 404 MAPS/PLAN 8 YON 0.30 118 WATER/4NOW/ATV REG 1,906.00 524 GARCAGE CONTRACT PY 9.910.04 524 SALES TAX/GARDAGE CON 643.30 10.561.40 C 39067 02/10/08 0 8 X REFUSE RF.CVr.LI 611 RECYCLING CONTRACT 2,532.75 ■CI lei 0RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 02114/95 12:38:05 'WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 30068 02/10/99 HOGLUND COACH LINES 38068 02/10/96 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SE -CU 38069 02/10/95 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU 380:70 02/1,0/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38070 02/10/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 380710 02/10/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 36071 02/10/95 WRIGHT'COUNTY AUOITO 38072 02/14/95 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 38073 02/14/95 BEN FRANKLIN 38074 02/14/95 COAST TO COAST 39074 62/14/95 COAST TO COAST 38074 02/14/95 COAST TO COAST 38074 92/14/95 COAST TO COAST 38074 02/14/95 COAST TO COAST 30074 02114/96 COAST TO COAST 30074 02/14/85 COAST TO COAST 38074 02/14/96 COAST TO COAST 3'0074 02/14/95 COAST TO COAST 30074 02/14/95 COAST TO COAST 38074 02/14/96 COAST TO COAST 380.15 02/14/85 COMMUNICATION AUDITO 30070 02/14195 COPY DUPUCATINR PROD 38017 02/14/95 CULLIGAN 30078 02/14/95 OOTY/KAREN 30079 02/14/95 FOREST CITY ROAD tAN 30000 02/14/05 GOVEP,NMCNT TRAINING 38080 02/14/95 GOVERNMENT TRAINING 30000 02/14/95 GOVEPNMENT TRAINING 30001 0?14/05 HARPY'S AU10 SUPPLY 80001 02/14/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 30001 07/14/95 HAPPY", AU10 CUPPLY 90001 02/14/09 HARRY'S AUTO yI1PPLY 30001 02/14/95 HAkRY'S AUTO .SUPPLY Disbursement Journals DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CI 483 HEARTLAND EXPRESS 5.194.25 879 ALARM SYSTEM MTE AGRMT 19.12 875 ALARM SYSTEM MTC AGRMT 15.•98 35.10 24 TELEPHONE CHGS 70.45 24 TELEPHONE CHGS 53.51 24 TELEPHONE CHGS 68.88 192.44 219 DEL TAXES(OUTLOT C 3.905.12 10 STREET SIGNS 396.49 20 FILM/P WORKS INSPECTIO 11.88 35 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 21.73 3.5 MISC SUPPLIESISHOP & GA 4.41 35 MISC SUPPLIES/ANIMAL C 69.88 )5 BLD REPAIRS/MATER DEPT 30. 1,0 35 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 34.82 35 DEP REG/BLD MTC 10.84 35 CHEMICALS/SEWER COLL 2.59 35 OLD REPAIRS/ANIMAL CON 55.15 35 SMALL TOOLS/STREETS 35.06, 35 CLEANING SUP/LIBRARY 14.57 35 MISC SUPPLfE6/WATER OE 24.90 308.74 36 PAGER REPAIR/FIRE DEPT 52.18 41 COPY MCH MTC/LIBRARY $4.40 753 WATER SOFTNER CHG/RENT 23.11 40 MILEAGE EXPENSE 52.64 663 LANOFItL CHGS/STREETS 45.00 72 REG FEE/GARY ANDERSON 30.00 72 RCG FEE/K DOTY 130.00 72 REG FEE/TOM PERRAULT 51100 211.00 70 MI -C GUPPLICS/FIRE DEP 37.22 70 MI5(; 9UPPL IF`,/SHUP & GA 4.90 70 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 34.35 18 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STRFF. 15.68 70 COUIP REPAIR PARTS/ONO 30.91 sCI ' Cl *o •ri 6RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 02/1,41/95 12:'38,:OS (--WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38081 02/14/95 HARRY'S AUTO 'SUPPLY 3800.1 02/14•-/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 38082 02/14/95 HERMES/•JERRV 38083 02/14/95 J M OIL COMPANY 38084 02/14/95 KOROPCHAK/OLIVE 381185 02/14/95 KOVICH'/PATQICq 38085 02/14/95 KOVICH/PATRIC'A 38085 02/14./95 KOVICH/PATR.ICA 38086 02/14/95 KRAMBER & ASSOCIATE'S 38086 02/14/95 KRAMBER & ASSOCIATES 38087 02/14/95 MACOUEEN EQUIPMENT I 38]080 02/14/95 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQU 38089 02/14/95 MN RURAL WATER ASSOC 30009 02%=14/95 MN. RURAL WATER ASSOC 30000 02/14/89 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 38091 02/14,/85 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 3009% 02/14/95 MONTIOCLLO OFFICE PR 30001 02/14/95 MONTICCLLO OFFICE PR 30091 02/14/05 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR •80091 02/14/95 MONTICELtO OFFICE PR 30091 02/14/05 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 30002 02/14/95 MONTICELLO-GIG LAKE 38093 O?/14/05 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 30093 02/14/95 NATIONAL COUCHING PAR 30093 02/1.4/05 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 30093 02/14/95 NATIONAL OUGHING PAR 30004 02/14/05 NORTHERNCTATEC POWE, 30034 02/14/00 NOFTHERN 84ATEG POWE Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 7.8MISC SUPPLIES/SNOW & IC 5.30' 76 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/ST 245.28 378.64 81 LIBRARY C -LEANING CONT 227.50 95 ADO'L DUE/GAS/'STREETS 50.01 97 MILEAGE EXPENSE 85.48 287 SFY* 5.86 287 *FY* 5.32 287 MILEAGE EXPENSE 1.82 '13.,02 688 ASSESSING CONTRACT 1'.245,96 688 AOD'L ASSESSING FEES 350.78 1,596:64 104 EQUIP PARTS/STREETS 1.291.76 803 MTC OF E-QUIP/STREETS 2.76.22 128 REG FEE/R CLINE/MATT 150.00 120 REG FEE/JOHN SIMOLA 75.00 225.00 18.5 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1.10,0..'00 136 OFFICE SUP/P WORKS 102.01 136 OFFICE. SUPIOEP REG $8.54 13'6 OFFICE SUP/CITV HALL 990.36 130 COPY MCH PAPER/CITY H 242.59 1'38 NQW GALC'UI ATORIC, MAIL 150.09 136 NEST CMATRICITY HALL 306.10 1.287.17 403 SUPPLIES/FERE 'DEPT 5.05 144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/SEM 47.01 144 VfH' REPAIR PARTS/STRCE 00.37 144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/'OTR 51.01 V44 OLD REPAIR GUP/WATER 0 24.07 101.26 140 UTILITIES 234.50 140 UTILITICO 30.99 208.5? *0 *CF •et *CI g61 •C ESRC 1'.1'NANC3-AL SYSTEM! 012/14/95 12:'38:05 WARRANT OAT VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38095 02/14/.85 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS 39098 02/14/95 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS 38096 02/14/95 PARK-EQUPMENT"COMPAN 38097 02/14/95 PE,RR'AULT/TOM 38098 02/14/95 PHOTO I 38099 02/14/65 PREUOSE'S"CLEANING S 38099 02/14/95 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 38400 02/14/95 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 381V1 02/14/85 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 381,02 02/14/95 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 30103 02/14/85 SENSIBLE LAND USE 00 138104 02/'1'4/9$ UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 301,04 02/14/99 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 38104 02/14/85 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 38104 02/14/95 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 38104 02/14195 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 30104 02/14/95 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 38105 02/14/95 UNOCAL 39106 02/14/95 WRIGHT COUNTY A,UDITO 30106 02/14/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AODIYO 38106 02%74/98-WkIGHT COUNTY AUOITO 30106 02/14/95 WRI�,HT COUNTY AUDITO 381,06 02/14/90 `WRIGHT COUNTY AUOItO 38107 02/14/53 V".N.C.A. OF MINNF.APO GENERAL CHECKING r4 Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 550 PLAN & ZONING FEES 162.00 350 sFY} 1;090:00 1 .252.00 184 MI'SC SUPPLIES/STREETS 20.00 890•MI1;'EAGE EXPENSE 41.44 743 'MISC PICTURES/PLAN & 2 12.08 L73 .FIRE HALL CLEANING CON 50:.00 17.3 CITY HALL CLEANING CO "400.00 450:00 175 WWTP,MONTALY CQNTR 32.926.08 227 REPAIRS/STREET OE -PT +,985.10 1,84 MTC OF E001P/SHOP & GA 68.89 869 REG FEE/JEFF ONEILL 35.00 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 13.64 211 UNIFOkM RENTAL 27,28 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 13.84 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 13..84 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 18.50 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 30.26 185.98 213 GAS/FIRE DEPT 22.$7 21.9 SFY; 12.00 219 AUDIT 8 ASSMT.LI&TING 40.82 21-9 SHERIFF'S CONTRACT 26.480.33 2113 OVERPYMT IN JAN 0.25CR 219 AOD'L LANDFILL GHGS 8.859.05 31.309.05 224 CONTRACT PAYMENT 033.00 TOTAL 102.939.0& *CF *ci- wCF RCF 6 ByC FINANCIAL SYSTEM •'1 7/85 11':03:09 WARRANT DATE VEWMR GENERAL CHECKING 38109 02/16/95 K MART STORE 3'8108 02/1'8/95 K MART STORE 38109 02/16/95 DEPT OF INTERIOR USG 38110 02/16/95 GOVERNMENT TRAINING 38111 02/16/95 WRIGNT COUNTY RECORD 38112 02/16/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 38113 02/17/95 BEN FRANKLIN 39114 02/17/95 COMPPESS AIR & EOUIP 38115 02/11/95 DEHMER FIRE PROTECTI 38110 02/17/95 DE2URIK C 117 02/11/95 FUROTHERM RECORDERS 30110 02/17195 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 30119 0$/17/95 FLICKF,R'S T.V, & APP 901?O 02417/95 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRC 10121 02/17/95 GLEASON PRINTING, IN 3013: 02/17/95 HENRY & ASSOCIATES 38123 02/17/95 M & P TRANSPORT. INC 80124 07/17!95 MARCO DUOTNES$ PRODU 30114 02/17/95 MARCO,.OU5INESS PRCDU 30125 02/11/93 MCDOWALL COMPANY iR1�C 02/17/136 MICI�10 1WOGTCO. 1017 30^31 02/11/05 MINNEGASCO Jii"27 02/17/135 MINNFGAS Q )^?7 0?/17/95 MINNEGA--. ^:7 0^/17/05 MiIjNFGACtirr " ,127 0?i 17/05 MINNFoiAG,:O "Y:1 .t2* 1, 1135 MINNEGA':4 0 U2/17r,• MINNPGA'.;170 ,1 i'7 9" f I'v59 MJ11W6A1-i:u Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 460 FIRE OEP'T OFFICE SUP 9.67 460 FIRE bEPT SUPPLIE'S 42..:27 51.94 893 MAPS/PLAN & ZON 6.00 77 REG FEE/PLAN ZON MEMS 550.00 254 REC B'RENNAN EASEMENT 19.50 116 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 1.030.00 20 FILM/P W INSPECTIONS 14.89 356 FIRE DEPT REPAIRS 152.49 674 EQUIP MTCIFIRE DEPT 34.25 892 REPAIR VALVE KITS/WAT 461.30 781 CHART PAPER/WATER DEP 180.79 394 RECYCLING SCAN REPAIRS 22.50 00 RADIO/CITY HALL 150..89 .510 *FY'h 2.290.00 8413 OLD PERMIT FORMS 91,00 $45 STREET/PATCH MATERIAL 231.62 265 FREIGHT/SALT/GNOW & I 130.22 106 CITY HALL OFFICE SUP 153.32 106 P WORKO OFFICE SUP 12.70 168.10 111 FURNACE REPAIR/C HAJ,L 00.00 001 WAYCR TESTING 00.00 772 VTILITIG^ 401.05 772 UTILIYIC5 2()P.14 771 OTI!.ITIk13 60.40 772 1!TII_` i IEC 129.00 77� UYIi-I 0,13 51.7 77? JT!. I,7C 381.0', 77? :"-(I IT IG 2.155.CJ 77: 0IIITIF, 17.63 CL 1. *CHI *C BRC ,FINANCIAL $-VSTEM r 17/95 11':03,:08 WARRANT DATE VfNDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38.128 02/17/95 MN GOV'FIN'ANCE OFICE 38128 02/17/95 MN GOV FINANCE OFICE 38125 02/17/95 MONTICELLO PRINTING 38129 02/17/85 MONTICELLO PRINTING 38'29 02/17/95 14ONTICELLO PRINTING 30123 022/1710'S MONTICELLO PPINTING 38130 02/17/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 39130 02/17/95 MONTICE1,10 TIMES 38130 02/17/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 36130 0?/17/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 38130 02/17/9 MONTICELLO TIMES 3C130 02/17/85 MONTICELLO TIMES 38-130 02/17/95 MONTICE,LLO TIMES 38130 02/17/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 130 02/17/99 MONTIC£LLO TIMES _'i130 02/17/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 38131 02/1.7/95 MONTICELLO VACUUM Of 90132 01/17/95 NORTH STAR TURF. INC 01)3 02/17/05 ONCL CALL CONCEPTS. I )3134 03/17/88 PAUL A WALDRON & ASO 50125 02/17/05 RE1.NC, 8 CONS INC./E 931)J 0?/17/95 SCHA.40ER & SONS. INC 1pt_� U:J17105 GG+1:.Y 3Y$TM; G1�0 02/17/95 VI.IQN ENERGY Dn1JQ 02J17J9Cj VISION EN:R4+Y 6I.NhPAL CHECKING r� L Disbursemant Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 3.554.96 122 MEMBERSHIP DUES/RICK W 15.00 122 MEMBE-RSHIP DUESICATHV 15.'00 30.00 131 ENVELOPES/ FORMS /C H 1.042'.69 137 VERIFIED ACCT FORMS/C 93.83 137 ACCIDENT FORMS/FIRE DE 46.75 137 LABELSICITY HALL 40.47 1,223.74 140' LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 1,143.-90 140 SNOWPLOWING INFO 60.00 140 SNOWMOBL/BLD PERM INF 140.00 140 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 235.39 140 DEL SEW/NAT ACCT PUB H 3-5.92 140 BUDGET PUBLICATION 151.28 140 DEP REG/PKS COMM HELP 77.40 140 EDA VACANCY AD 53.60 140 PUB HEARING/MISS SHQAE 29.S2 140 RECYC INFO/OIL FILTER 100.00 2.027-.02 141 VAC CLEANER/FIRE DEPT 298.09 161 SUPPLIES/PARKS DEPT 1.076.53 086 PROF SERVICES/WATER 96.00 030 BLD IN9P FF.i39 2.062.50 101 OIL & MTC SLIP/WAVER 145.10 220 VCH 2CPAIR PARTS/PARK 977.20 100 FIRV GCPT ALARM MTC 134.19 510 MISC 51JVp1.IF,S/WATUR 0.02 518 STReF1 5UVPLIEj 39.02 41.54 TOTAI. 101V91.10 *C11 *CN *CF =C1 *C' 'RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 01/30/95 12:•27:18 Disbursement Journal ff \s.4,IARRAaT DAT_ VENOOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL, LI0004 FUNO 17934 01/27/95 OUAI.ITV WI:4E & SPIRT 800040 IIOUOR PURCHASE 847.61 17935 01/27/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 'MIXES FOR RESALE 88•.37 171??5 01/27/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 90 00 12 WINE PURCHASE 080.163 969.00 +'CH 179.36 01/?7/95 JOHNSON B ROS WHOLESA 800022 LIC'UOR PURCHASE 231.07 17937 01/27/,95 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 =FY* 35.00Cfi 17937 01/27/95 PHILLIPS WINE t SPIR 800180 WINE PURCHASE 750.03 17937 01/27/96 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 808180 LIOUOA PURCHASE 811.87 1.926.30 *CWr 17938 01/2.7/95 CITY OF MONTICELLO 800003 +FY!� 21.97 17938 01/27/�5 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800018 LIOUOR PURCHASE 950.19 17940 01/37/95 +3ELL60Y CORPORATION 000098 LIQUOR PURCHA9f !22.M T7941 01/?1/93 EAGLE WINF COMPANY 0,10012 MIkCS FOR RESALE 47.42 17941 01/3'1/80 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 306012 WINE PURCHA5L 61.7-0 106.80 *CW 17942 J1/J1/95 ECONOMICS IIRL36 INC 80.0130 64TO & PIECES SUGSCRIP i0 -b0 t7--t,S J1/^1/55 Gft:GdS. COOP:P 0 COM 000010 LIQUOR PUR�7WA3C 11946 01/91/35 JOHNSON i)R09 W;AOLCJA 00-0022 L100OR PUV HASF. G00.07 +;�4& 49r9105 JOxN'CN P',:aC WHOLGOA 000092 ►VINs PURCNA—f 1.2013.vt 1.997.P0 +Ch 17065 -' t 1i9"i mc0a.WALI IO" •'Ar+Y 000060 +FYt 1 179c,0 -09/91/95 MC90WAL.L COMPANY 000005 NURNANiE 9FPAIR 50.1':0 707.91 •� :i 17946 09/91/00 Nt3RTHGa14 ITATI:13 PQW(i 0000)'i HYILITV—, 007.P,0 1704/ 01/31/95 PAl)ST?S 0 LO:J' 011010E W£N, PURC11AiF 65.00 17940 111/31/95 PHI1,L rP0 WINE 8-5PIR 000100 Z."idt4? PUQCHA'3i7 ?.147.211 17 'an tlt/lt/0'. FNZLl'.F W7,jC £ 1;PTW 0001nO W_NE PUFCHA�F 19£).00 173n0 01/31/90 ?:111.1 TPi WINP P ,i^3k GOD 100 FCOU GOk RCSAI.0 1?J.0'; ?.41i."1. 44 fit 11'14:1 •11 r; 1/ -0,3 U17p1.7.Y WINt: £• ,P3lZI 000041) WINI• PURCHA 1- 1.07 31/0t', OUA:I iV VJ L :0' ? O(QC60 11i,1'•',k P1+Ri NAGi :.cG9.'in ` ?• .0') 7 ... •kt1 'i BPC FINAP7f'ldl SVS`'EM 02/02/105 11:04:•Gb pi3�ur;em=nt Jounnn t v DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 4l WASRAN :oATt VENDOR LIQUOR FUND 17050 02/02/95 BELLBOY COPPORATION 800098 LI©UOR PURCHASE 314.51, 17961 02/02/95 BERNICK'S PCPZr COLA 8O'000-1 POP PURCHASE 53.44 17952 02/02/06 OAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 DEER PURCHASE 13.309.E0 17952 02/02/95 OARLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 N04 ALCOHOLIC BEER •19?.OS 13.562.65 ►"` 1765,§ 02/02/95 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM PDO0'10 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 51.60 17953 67;02/95 DAY 0ISTR:EUy7NG COM 800010 M k' PURCHASE 431.30 1,82.00 *C1 17P54 02/O7/S5 DICK WHOL65AL CO.. 030011 FEF? PURCHASE I.Fj05.29 17984 02/02/95 DICK WHOLESALE CC-.. 0000'11 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIdE 21.04 1.(127.09 17155 WOWS FLcSCH'S PA;+:, S --RVI f)DO116. PA?GR BAGSISUPPLIFS 35.34 �'C , 0?:02/S$ G 8 it Cc?.W.CC 000?n RUG MA'5/MTS OF IL0 40.3E 17^.`. i O1/02/90 977,7M4v --C-10A v 000107 'LTC47CRS FOR RISA! , 51.OU ( -lEFP ` 00O J O'f,,i:,•: GPCSSLf:lN DEV=RAGE I /0010 PUNCHASZ "!:0.0•`1 17909 02!02/35 HW JLIIc-C COCIJG JUICE FOR G,S!�A.i 32.Gp 3 0?f0^r/05 JV:)f CNJDY & TO'3ACCO 00021 CIC,-, Ft CIGARS FOE/ R£'SA 67.7L 17960 03/01/05 JUN (*MraY 8 TGOACGIJ 0"021 IIGUOR 'L1RC SOPPLV': 132.50 13901 03./0`/'.16 LAR5'WO ACE HA4OWAK 000104 TAPE/MS'-!, GUPPLIES 9.3! 1!9:,2 0^r'07/9(, MINNEGAGCO OC111GO VTILIT2C: 267.19 t•1^CtJ ® /®2/!G NUWYPN t1r.r}yrW:YURItiu 000140 MISC : 40i'L C[d`,/( r;q>a :?6-O.. "" r,^ %n2/95 r'A(I_ J, v, ''GN` l;UO1P? WIC' PM'V'AGC 31.7(, 17'!Ui 02/11+J',ti SL°+' , Itr CnM')r+P.}Y 00+0(141 (4,( `IlfciHA i. 7•i.n 1 -)UC; OM)2/00 .: V'OI'V i:NGfG '10005/ C115`.CRC/MI:% �tJF✓11/16 `'1.,:" I V.ou.-;00r iAfl)' 1.1004', 0,1 , + �, ',Ur, -. . � : f.;." _:i.'f?.',9 H�, I -r' Ct,: ;('G• .A! : .�G' .i ,l 8:'i- FINANCIAL SYSTEM 0110.2/95 11:04_:03 D'icbu.rser�nt d6urn3l CI WAPRAN'7 DrTE VL•rlOOR DESCRIPTION AMOIiVT LIQU03 FUND 17050 32/02/95 VDVING LCCA -COLA BOT 00005$ POP PUFCHAS� 325.8$ 17870 02/13/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 800,002 TELEPHONE CHARGES 285.27 179,71 02/13/95 CONSOLIDATED COMM' DI 800163 ADVERTISING 40.25 17972 02/14/95 DRIVERS LICENSE GUiD 8000'13 CHECKING GUIDE'SUBSCRI 21.95 17973 02/14/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 8000.12 MIX FOR RESALE 91.69 17973 02/14/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 343.40 434.79 *Cl 17974 07/14/95 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800018 CREDIT/DAMAGED WINE 21.43CR 179'74 02/14/95 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800019 CREDIT/D'AMAGEO MIX 1.83CR 17974 02/14/95 GRIGGS. COOOEP & COM 860018 LI'OUOR PURCHASE 2.461.23 2.437.07 M( 17975 02/14/95 JOHNSON EROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1.972.04 .—a —loi /om IAumc AM oonQ wwni CRA annn*o wtmr. 0119(1NA(^P at1fil. A7 17976 02/14/95 LIEFERT TRUCKING 004025 FREIGHT CHARGES 17977 02/14/95 MCOOWALL COMPANY 000065 FURNACE REPAIR 17078 02/14/05 MONTICELLO TIMES 800032 ADVERTISING 17879 02/14/95 NATIONAL CHILD SAFET 00003.3 ADVERTISING 17,900 02/'1419SPHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 000180 LIQUOR PURCHASE 17000 02/14/95 PHILLIPS WINE .& SPIR 804180 WINE_ PURCHASE 1jig 80 02/14/05 PHILLIPS W1Nf & SPIR 000100 MTX FOR RSSALE 17901 02/14/9S 'QUALITY WINE @ SPIRI 000040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 17902 02/14/93 U S WEST GOMMUNI'CATI 800093 ADVERTISING LIQUOR 6UND TOTAL 441.73 653.90 138.00 75.00 2:989.99 11003.84 23. is 3.006.00 t' 021.54 27.50 11.703.09 COUNCIQ. UPDATE February 23, 1898 P rogns on develooine terms of sale--0utlo.LA. Country Club Manor • David Hernia (J.0.) As you recall, at the Council meeting on January 23, 1995, the City Council requested that the City staff and developer meet to discuss the terms of sale of Outlet A of Country Club Manor and provide said terms for review by the City Council on February 27, 1995. This is to inform Council that progress has been made on developing terms that should be acceptable to the City and to the developer, however, we have not been able to meet the deadline requested by Council. Rick and I met with David Hornig on February 1, 1995, at which time we discussed concepts underlying the terms of sale that could possibly be acceptable to the City Council and to the developer. In response to this discussion, Hornig has submitted a purchase agreement and a check in the amount of $2,000 as earnest money. The next step in the staff process is to review the purchase agreement put together by Hornig and determine if it is consistent with the concepts discussed at the stafD'developer meeting held on February 1. It is hoped that this staff meeting, which would include the City Attorney, could be scheduled in the near future. In summary, the proposed final terms of sale for Outlet A, Country Club Manor, are not ready for Council review at this time. It appears that the developer is interested and is taking action to work with the City staff in coming up with acceptable terms and conditions. City staff will be placing this item on the Council agenda as soon as possible. We are shooting to place this item on the Council agenda at the first regular meeting in March.