City Council Agenda Packet 10-23-1995AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 23, 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 October 9, 1995.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
6. Consent agenda.
A. Consideration of approval of the final plat of the Monticello Commerce
Center 3rd Addition.
Consideration of purchasing council chamber chairs.
CC! Consideration of Meadow Oak pond outlet project change order --
Project 93-12C.
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of adoption of proposed assessment roll for
delinquent utility bills and certification of assessment roll to County Auditor.
7. Public Hearing --Consideration of approving on -sale liquor license transfer--
J.P.s Annex.
8. Consideration of operating a proposed community ice arena funded and
constructed by the School District.
9. Consideration of authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire land
adjacent to wastewater treatment plant.
10. Consideration of reviewing employee health insurance bids.
11. Consideration of confirming special meeting for consideration of amendments
to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
October 23, 1995
Page 2
12. Consideration of a proposal to amend the restrictive covenants for the
Eastwood Knoll subdivision.
13. Consideration of bills for the month of October 1995.
14. Adjournment. i Z o 4N�(L i�Svt
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 9,1995 - 7 pm.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
Appmvnll of minutes; of the reeLsir meeting held Sentem6er 25 th`Aneciel
meeting held September 27- and the sme 'al meeting held October 4. 1446.
A correction was made to the first sentence of item 7, page 10, of the
September 26 minutes to state "west of the site."
Mayor FyIe requested that the following statement be added to the last
paragraph of item 13 on page 11: "It was Fyle's view that the height of the
berm presented by Hartman was sufficient to qualify for the 50% credit
against required landscaping.'
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY TOM PERRAULT AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 25, 1998, AS CORRECTED. Motion
carried unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN
STUMPF TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL. MEETINGS HELD
SEPTEMBER 27 AND OCTOBER 4, 1995, AS WRITTEN. Voting in favor of the
September 27 minutes: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault. Abstaining: Clint Herbst. Voting in favor of the October 4 minutes:
Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault.
� :: . • : :. � dT.l:I1'}lj1'TTST'gTTI, :: �: ,
.:.:..
:. Y : A.. FT r M
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reported that a
subsidiary of a local industrial business had expressed an interest in
relocating to a separate facility and may be interested in purchasing
Lot 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park 2nd Addition. The City's
asking price for the 1.8 -acre parcel was $32,916. An interested builder
was found for the required 10,000 aq R building. The Council was
asked to consider writing down the land cost by a formula tied to wage
and salary covenants, which could be stipulated in the purchase
agreement and development contract.
Page 1 O
Council Minutes - 10/9!95
Council discussed building design and the amount of HACA the City
has lost after establishing tax increment financing (TIF) districts. It
was their view that it would be better to write down the cost of the
land rather than establish a TIF district. It was noted that the City
may stipulate building design if the cost of the parcel is reduced.
City Administrator Wolfateller stated that the City obtained the
industrial land by absorbing assessments. In addition, street
improvements were added at the City's cost. The asking price for the
lot is comparable to other industrial land available and would help the
City recover its cost.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRAD FYLE AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO REDUCE THE ASKING PRICE
FOR LOT 5, BLOCK 1, OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION,
TO $30,000. Motion carried unanimously.
Butch Larson and Chuck Lepak of OSM were introduced as the
engineer representatives for the City due to engineer Bret Weiss
leaving the firm of OSM. Larson noted that OSM will be working with
Weiss and his new firm, WSB & Associates, Inc., to complete current
Monticello projects.
City Administrator Wolfsteller noted that details on the matter would
be submitted to Council at the next regular Council meeting so that
Council can discuss what direction to take regarding engineering
services.
A. Consideration of gmnti ng n conditional nun permit nlllloaing nijudd e
storage .n n I-2 zone_ Apnli pnc t_ Ni,
Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit allowing
open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in the I-2 none, which
would allow expansion of the storage area at the NSP site as proposed
provided that:
All requirements of the zoning ordinance regulating outside
storage in an I-2 zone are met.
Page 2 Ole
Council Minutes - 10/9/95
2. The grading and drainage plan for the outside storage area is
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
3. The tree planting requirement is consistent with other
industrial sites that recently developed outside storage.
4. NSP contacts the Sheriffs Department for input on methods to
achieve yard screening without sacrificing yard security.
5. The height of the fence depends on the height of the material
screened. The screening fence, if higher than 6 ft, must meet I-2
setbacks; if 6 ft or lower, it can be placed inside of setback lines.
Recommendation: Adopt the resolutions as presented.
SEE RESOLUTIONS 95.55, 95-56, and 95.57.
Co kid ralion of adop Ling a rpnLral Minneso sa Ini .ia we F .nd'K
$penanrina init�('.nvArnment Resolution on hehwlfaf yector Tool &
Manufacturing- Ine"
Recommendation: Adopt the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund
Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of Vector Tool &
Manufacturing, Inc. SEE RESOLUTION 95.58.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN
STUMPF TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion
carried unanimously.
Assistant Administrator O Neill reported that Monticello Industrial Park,
Inc., requested City Council approval of the preliminary plat of the
Monticello Commerce Center 3rd Addition, which consists of two industrial
lots separated by the future extension of Dundas Road. Each lot meets the
minimum requirements of the ordinance and are served with sewer and
water service. O'Neill noted that storm water drainage from the site is
intended to flow easterly to land currently owned by Monticello Industrial
Park, Inc. The City will be obtaining storm water easements in the area east
of the plat to assure that the City has adequate ponding area available in the
future.
Pago 3
Council Minutes - 10/9/96
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
MON710ELLO COMMERCE CENTER 3RD ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A 12 -ft drainage and utility easement must be provided around the
perimeter of each lot and placed on the final plat. An additional 12 -ft
easement located along the outside of the easterly boundary of the
plat, along with a 60 -ft easement along the property line separating
the Monticello Industrial Park, Inc., property from the School District
and the City, shall also be provided to the City.
Requirements for preliminary utility plan are waived. Preliminary
plans addressing design of Dundas Road will be required and
completed in conjunction with the development of Fallon Avenue,
which is set to occur in the spring of 1996.
Motion carried unanimously.
In the Public Works Director's report, it was noted that with completion of
the Facilities Plan amendments and EAW, the City is ready to move on with
the design phase of the wastewater treatment plant expansion utilizing the
sequencing batch reactor technology (SBR).
It was noted that during negotiations, City staff placed additional
requirements on HDR that the SBR be designed to handle the fluctuating
flows and load that the City receives at the plant, without extraordinary
operator attention, unless there is a severe shock load or spill. This
requirement would require preparation of a technical design memorandum
outlining the flows and loads to the plant; therefore, additional in-depth
testing would be done to outline the parameters to be used in the design and
scope of services at a cost of $10,000. The proposal presented for approval
was for design engineering based upon a lump sum of $683,920 but not to
exceed 8% of the actual construction coat. This scope of services included
work through the design phase up to, but not including, the bidding process.
Mayor Fyle reported that he had received a phone call from a Pollution
Control Agency representative expressing concerns about the proposed SBR
plant and noted that perhaps the City should wait to approve the scope of
services until concerns aro resolved. Bob Poplin of HDA stated that it
was likely that only the schedule in the contract would change if the City
Pago 4 0
Council Minutes - 10/9/95
decided to build an oxidation system rather than the SBR. He also noted
that stats was planning to tour additional SBR plants with PSG
representatives to increase their comfort level with the SBR technology.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL FOR A
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK 200 (DESIGN ENGINEERING) BASED UPON A
LUMP SUM OF $883,920 BUT NOT TO EXCEED 8% OF THE ACTUAL
CONSTRUCTION COST. Motion carried unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM
PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL IN-DEPTH TESTING REFERRED
TO IN HDRS CONTRACT AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $10,000. Motion carried
unanimously.
CorLideration of F urc acing 6 n s psi Fit of the wa a ewa er treatmPrit IIIan .
Bite.
City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the appraisal of the 6 -acre
parcel owned by Floyd Kruse east of the wastewater treatment plant valued
the property at $303,000; however, Kruse felt the value was closer to
$600,000. It was staffs view that it would be in the City's best interest to
acquire additiunal property and build the SBR tanks and headworks on
higher ground to the east, which would provide a better hydraulic profile,
adequate room for construction, and room for easy expansion in the future.
Wolfsteller noted that he and the Public Works Director met with Kruse
several times since the last Council meeting to try and agree on a purchase
price before the City begins designing the new treatment facility. Staff
proposed a purchase price of approximately $460,000 based on the appraisal
of $303,000 plus the estimated $150,000 the City would save by owning
additional property, which would not require sheet piling and temporary
construction easements. Because Kruse was hesitant to agree to any cash
offer without first obtaining his own appraisal, staff also discussed the
possibility of the City trading its 68 -acre Remmele property on south
Highway 25 plus $303,000 in cash in exchange for the "cre parcel owned by
Kruso. WoMteller noted that Kruse would be agreeable to accepting the
land -swap proposal.
It was the view of Council that the appraisal amount plus a land swap would
not be a comparable trade for the Kruse property. Discussion focused on
whether the City should consider condemnation proceedings, which would
allow the Court to decide the value of the property. Wolfateller explained
Page 5 0
Council Minutes - 10/9{95
that there are two types of condemnation proceedings, noting that the quick
take procedure takes approximately 90 days, and the other 6 months to a
year.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO TABLE CONSII)ERATION OF PURCHASING
THE 6 -ACRE PARCEL EAST OF THE TREATMENT PLANT UNTIL ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION IS RECEIVED AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION
INCLUDES DIRECTING STAFF TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATING WITH KRUSE IN
THIN INTERIM. Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Brian Stumpf, Brad Fyle,
Clint Herbst. Opposed: Tom Perrault.
A Community Arena Updatffi..
A press release was submitted for Council approval clarifying the
City's position regarding involvement in operating and maintaining an
ice arena that would be funded and constructed by the School District.
A headline in the Mnnticelle Timer following the last regular Council
meeting indicated that the City had agreed to join efforts with the
School District; however, Council had tabled consideration of the joint
effort pending additional information on ice arena usage and
development of an agreement with the School District.
Councilmember Herbst expressed his frustration with the recent
newspaper articles and noted that when the error in the newspaper
appeared, City staff should have notified the School Superintendent
that the City was not going forward at this time.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that a meeting has been
scheduled with the Superintendent to discuss details of the proposed
ice arena.
After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to publish the press
release clarifying the City's current position involving the proposed ice
arena.
Them being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 6 0
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
As you recall, at the previous meeting of the City Council, Council approved
the preliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center 3rd Addition.
Council is now asked to consider approval of the final plat. There is no
further information to report on this item. Therefore, the alternatives are as
follows.
Motion to approve the final plat of the Monticello Commerce Center
3rd Addition subject to the following conditions:
Execution of an easement document providing storm water
easements on the property adjacent to the Monticello Commerce
Center 3rd Addition.
Final plat approval is contingent on execution of a development
agreement which primarily outlines the proposal for designing
and constructing Dundas Road utilities.
Motion to deny approval of the final plat of the Monticello Commerce
Center 3rd Addition.
r. STAFF F, .O F.NDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1. It appears that any issues relating to this
plat have been resolved with the exception that the actual document
providing the City with the necessary storm water easements needs to be
prepared and recorded, and a simple agreement outlining the terms and
conditions of the development of the extension of Dundas Road needs to be
detailed prior to placement of City signatures on the plat. This will be a very
simple document identifying a method for funding the future extension of
Dundas Road, which can be handled administratively. Staff, therefore,
recommends approval of the final plat with the conditions as noted.
Copy of final plat of Monticello Commerce Center 3rd Addition.
Council Agenda - 10/23/96
5a. Congiderationafauthorizinaptirchaseofennncilehnmberchabrs,
(R.W.)
AF.FPRF.N F AND BA .K .RO TNn:
With the recent completion of the addition to the maintenance building, the
public works department is in need of some conference room chairs. The
existing council chamber chairs and conference room chairs would be
acceptable ft r their use; and as a result, I have been investigating
replacement chair options for the council chambers.
As part of the 1995 budget, $3,250 was included to purchase an estimated 60
chairs. It became apparent during catalog searches that this may not be
sufficient to purchase an adequate amount of chairs for both our conference
room and council chambers; therefore, the 1996 budget proposal included an
additional $6,125 to cover up to 76 chairs at $125 apiece.
In searching for a chair that would be attractive and hopefully could have a
fabric that matched the new chairs already existing in the council chambers
and also have the ability to be stackable, the choices began to narrow when
considering all these features. It appears that a reasonable option was one
that was available through Minnoor Industries, which is the state
correctional system business. Minnoor actually purchases the materials for
assembling the chairs from a major chair manufacturer and uses correctional
inmates to assemble and fabricate the chairs with specific fabric selections.
We would be able to obtain the same fabric the council chairs are made of,
and 1 believe we would be receiving an attractive price of $75 per chair for
the model proposed. By purchasing the same chair through the original
manufacturer, quotations I have received would be up to 60% higher for the
identical chair.
Enclosed is a photocopy of the type of chair that would be proposed that
would have an upholstered, cushioned back and seat. The legs would be
chrome, and the trim of the chair would be a tan color compared to the brown
fabric. The quoted price is $76 each, and it is recommended that we obtain
between 6060 chairs with approximately 60 needed for the council chambers
and an additional 10 could be used in our conference room. The total cost for
60 chairs is estimated at $4,600; and when considering the amount in both
the 1995 and 1996 proposed budgets, more than adequate funds would be
available.
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
Authorize the purchase of approximately 60 Matrix chairs with fixed
seat and back cushions at a quoted price of $75 each from Minncor
Industries.
Do not authorize the purchase at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It appears that unless we want to stay with the type of chairs we currently
have in the council chambers, we will not be able to find a fabric or cushioned
chair at a lesser cost than the option proposed above. Actually, by
purchasing through the Minncor Industries, we are actually saving money
over the identical chair from the original manufacturer. Since the existing
chairs can be used both at the public works building and in the future at the
wastewater treatment plant, the chairs would not be going to waste, and the
new chairs proposed should look attractive in the council chambers. It is
recommended that the staff be given authorization to purchase up to 60
chairs as needed.
Copy of chair proposed.
O
• r 'jFi Jq'S, � c ,fit •►- / ' � , �`� �".; o. •., 1`��
Fi4 ��::t `'��+it,i�'�2,�, _t'.-i:.,�l.l+.i�1•. • ., ".,:'��^. �PA�a6}��°�'�+'r"1Jiy�l��l�Yf71�
i
t
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
sc. Con- sideration of Meadow Oak pond outlet e=ject change order--
j!rQject 98-12C. (B.W.)
During the construction of the Meadow Oak outlet project, several revisions
were necessary to accommodate altered field conditions. The following is a
description of the added items:
I. Skimmer St•+,d re -?"100 - The inlet at the Bauer property was
modified to a more sturdy design. This modification resulted in a net
increase of $500 after removal of the original design.
134" Manhole -181170.17 - The contractor requested a change in the
manhole size to accommodate a larger pipe installation of which we
agreed to share in the cost. The larger manhole will provide more
efficient hydraulic characteristics at a reasonable cost. The original
design was reduced in an effort to minimize the construction cost, and
this change provides a benefit which exceeds the cost.
{�I , 3/4. Sheet P le Can End Section/RipRa ,rou, i,560 - Both of these
items were added to provide a more effective, reduced -maintenance
outfall.
5. 9nnitazy Sewer Rxtoennion Across Gillard Avenue, 17-254 - In the event
that sanitary sewer service is extended east of Gillard Avenue, this
extension will provide a connection without opening up Gillard
Avenue. The large diameter storm sewer and depth of the sanitary
sewer led the staff to move forward with the installation.
Additio al B rm Gradin&.Ill A -Because the Bauer easement was
negotiated after the contract was let, additional grading was necessary
to be added to the project to accommodate the terms of the City's
agreement with the Bauers.
Manhole & nitrh Grading &3J2LL2 - Altered site conditions forced
the revision of a localized ditch section and included the installation of
a catch basin manhole. This manhole will be utilized in the future
when the Rod Norell property is developed. This alteration has
provided for an improvement in existing drainage patterns.
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
The total value of all the change orders is $16,379.84, which increases the
total construction cost to $343,679.30. However, with the change order
included, the final construction cost is anticipated to be less than $6,000 over
the bid amount. This has been acoomplished through negotiation with the
contractor and other reduced quantities.
The first alternative is to approve change order #1 for the Meadow Oak
outlet, Project 93-12C, in the amount of $16,379.84.
The second alternative would be not to approve the change order.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council approve change order 01
as outlined in alternative #1 in the amount of $16,379.84.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of chango order and detail list.
Change Order
- 'Ort
Stj1tIP0 -W Park Place East o12-5-5-5775
hiayt3on& 5775 v:a%'Mat EMlevaN I -WO -753-57 5
'+A' '. i.l .itsoaatrs,Uu. Minneapolis MIN 554 to -1225 FAX 545-5773
Change Order No: 1 City Project No. 93-12C
Project: Meadow Oaks Stone Sewer Outlet OSM Project No. 5489.00
Owner: City d Monticello Date of Issuance: October 23, 1995
P.O. Box 1147
250 East Broadway
Monticello. MN 55362.9245
Contractor: Barbarossa 8 Sons, Inc. Engineer: On-Schelen-Mayeron
P.O. Box 367 and Associates, Inc.
11000 93rd Avenue North
Osseo, MN 55369 )
You are directed to make the following changes In the Contract Documents:
Description: This change order provides payment procedure for modifled Items not contained in the original
contract.
Purpose of Change Order: To complete revisions to the construction documents to address field conditkms,
Attachments Qist documents supporting change): See attached.
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE
Original Contract Price: 5327.199.45
Previous Change Orders No. - to No. -: 5 -
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order:
5327,199.45
Not Increase (Decrease) of this Change Order: $16,379.84
Contract Price with all Approved Change Orders:
5343,57930 r�
Recommended By: 1 1
1 Brat A. Weiss, P.E.
Approved By� .L / ` 1 _ Approved By:
(City Engineer) , �} :I I (City Managor)
u ..-. or rnn twty (—
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME
Original Contract Time: August 15, 1995
Net Change from Previous Change Orders: N/A
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order:
August 15, 1995
Net Increase (decrease) of Change Order: N/A
Contract Time with Approved Change Orders:
August 15, 1995
Approved By:
Barbarossa 8 Sorts, Inc.
Data d Councit Action:
9
CHANGE ORDER DETAIL LIST
CHANCE ORDER NUMBER I Project: MEADOW 0AKS STORN SEWER OUTLET Data: OCTOBER 23, 1995
OSM Project Nuniber: 5489.01 CITY OF MONTICELLO PROD. MO.: 93-12C
for S.P. 6660-133
CITY OF MONTICELLO
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
Contract
Contract
Completed This Month
Total to Oita
It Spec No Description
Quantity Units
Unit Price
-------------
Total Price
--------•
'Quantity Total
•------------
Quantity Total Price
--------- ------------
---- -------- ------------------------------------
1 STD SPEC SKINNER STRUCTURE
-------------------
1 LIMP SIM
-------------
2,100.00
2,100.00
1 2,100.00
1 2,100.00
2 2506.506 84- NAME
16.7 LIN ET
70.07
1,170.11
16.7 1,110.17
16.7 1.170.17
3 SID SPEC SHEET PILE CAP cOR FLARED END
1 LIMP STM
750.00
150.00
1 750.00
1 750.00
SECTION
4 SID SPEC RIP RAP GROUT
9 CU TO
90.00
610.00
9 810.00
9 810.00
o [OLI.SUU Wi-IANt SEriw EAIi NSION ACAOSS
I tlili Surf
7,354.55
7, 354. SS
i, 354.00
1 7.354. GO
GILLARD AVENUE
6 SID SPEC ADDITIONAL BERIKGRAOIN6
I LIMP SUM
1,000.00
1,000.00
1 1.000.00
1 1.000.00
7 STD SPEC MANHOLE AND DITCH GRADING
I LIMP SIN
3,195.12
3,195.12
1 3.195.12
1 3,195.12
....---------------.
TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. I
....................
9 16,379.64
....................
116,319.84
916,379.84
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
Public hearing on &
de�queni n lity hi
Auditor. (R.W., C.S.)
The City Council is again asked to adopt an assessment roll for utility billing
accounts which are delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the
assessment roll to the County Auditor for collection on next years real estate
taxes if not paid by November 30, 1995.
The delinquent utility accounts that are included with the agenda are
accounts that are at least 60 days past due and include all new delinquents
from the last time we certified them. In addition to the delinquent amount,
the Council also previously approved the establishment of an administrative
fee of $25 per account that is added to each delinquent assessment. The
amounts shown on the enclosed delinquent utilities list include the
additional $25 administration fee for the preparation of the assessment roll.
It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment roll
for certification in 1996 at an interest rate of 8% as allowed by state statute.
As in the past, if any accounts are paid within 30 days after the adoption of
the assessment roll, they can be paid without the additional interest. After
30 days, payments will be charged interest and can be accepted up to
November 30, 1995.
1. Adopt the assessment roll for the delinquent charges as presented.
2. Based on public hearing input, adjust the assessment roll as required.
C. 3T FF F .O F.NDATION:
It is staff recommendation that the Council adopt the assessment roll as
presented. All of the accounts aro at least 60 days past due and have been
given proper notice of this assessment hearing and ample opportunity to pay
the accounts in hill. All utility accounts were notified that there would be an
additional $25 administrative fee attached to each outstanding balance if the
account was not paid by 4:30 p.m. on October 16, 1995.
D_ SUPP'ORTIN(1 DATA:
Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll; Complete listing of delinquent
accounts to be certified.
RESOLUTION 95•
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has
met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for
delinquent sewer and water billings and other service charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessments against
the parcels named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable on or
before the first Monday in January 1997 and shall bear interest at the rate of
8 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution.
To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from
the date of this resolution until December 31, 1996.
3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of
the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such
property with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer,
except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within
30 days from the adoption of this resolution.
4. The City Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment roll to the oounty auditor to be extended on the proper tax list of the
county, and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same
manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the City Council this 23rd day of October, 1995.
Mayor
City Administrator
01
loll IAS 11.03.41
OTR 2. 1995 DELD UTILITY BILLING (ERTIfiCAT101S WITH LATE CHARGE
PAGE 1
AOCa9nt 0
PID 8
P=erty Address
'APT Custaaer N3ae
Cust kn- 2
Ovr3O Day
Ovr60 Day
Ovr80 Day Ovr120 On
Late
Total
i
Past Due
Past Due
Past Due
Past Due
c4r9:
*/tate
Char,.w
155060001010
231 LIVER ST E
HIKE BALORIOGE
231 Rr7iR S' E
93.30
.00
.0
,00
25.CO
118.30
00100250000
155040001020
?25 RIVER ST E
PIML PELARSKI
117.05
.GO
DO
.00
25.00
142.05
00100320000
155010055040
307 RIVER ST V
PATTY POWERS
102.20
.00
.00
.00
25.00
127.20
00100380000
155010055061
1 LO IJ57 CT
TED MLWJR
91.62
CO
.OD
.00
2S.00
122.62
60IM20000
155010056030
413 RIVER ST W
WENDY BELLESON
58.12
.CO
.00
DD
25.00
91.12
00101040000
155010059150
426 RIVER ST V
101IlY LUTHERAN CHl6tC
PO EDN 776
79.17
.8D
.00
.00
25.00
104.17
00101170000
155010067160
206 RIVER ST E
0WITELLE MITCHELL
33.35
.00
.00
.00
25.00
58.35
00101260000
155015005150
324 RIVER $1 E
RONALD BEGIN
160.19
DO
.00
.OD
25,00
185.19
00200370000
155015OO5010
355 BROA TAY E
B -CLEAN LAll4'DRY
PO 801 150
481.01
.00
.00
.00
25.00
512.01
00200720000
155010049010
649 BROADWAY W
TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURC
t47.52
.00
.DD
CO
25.00
112,52
00200809000
155010047020
110 VIM ST
REED OR KARI GERARAIS
149.17
.GO
.00
.0
25.00
116.17
00200930000
15502000$111
1011 BROADWAY W
mw DMYTRVIYN
92.62
.00
.00
.00
25.00
117.62
00201010000
155010042090
818 BROADWAY W
JAMES 8 DEBRA A"
72.16
.00
.00
OD
25.00
97.76
00201425000
155010035010
106 EROAC3IAY W
GALE CAE
PO COY 1584
68.12
.00
.00
.00
25.00
73.12
00300160000
155040003010
213 NEW ST
TCN BITTER
98.51
.00
.00
.0
25.00
123.57
00300360000
155010037010
319 39D ST W
CLAIIIIE ICCARTY
116,85
.00
.00
DO
25.00
141.96
00300370000
155010038050
211 LINK $T
DAVID A 8 DEBRA AEEVISS
83.87
.DO
.00
.00
25.00
100.01
00300530000
15501004101D
725 3P,Q 51 W
ROBERT BARTHEL
56.33
.03
OD
GO
25.00
81.73
00300880000
155010021060
303 KWESOTA SI
KEVIN HENTH
153.06
.00
.00
.00
25.00
178.06
00300740000
15501007£090
618 3RD $T W
CURTIS 6 DARLENE ANORE
77.70
.00
GO
.00
25.00
102.76
00300810000
155010030090
318 3RD ST V
RCOERT AND YVONNE COI
SIM
.00
.00
.00
25.00
62.49
00300890000
155010070100
300 3RD ST E
GERALD 54YSTEGY
46.57
.00
.00
.00
75.00
73,57
0030111GOOO
155015013060
6DO 3RD ST E
GAVLE MEVISSEN
61.80
.CO
.00
.00
25.00
92.CO
0O500CD0000
155019006020
306 4TH ST E
VAYNT COX
93.62
.00
.00
.00
25.00
110.62
00500280000
155010011030
613 6TH ST W
0,141CF. W4L0
66.27
.00
.00
.DO
25.00
91.21
0050:490000
155010078050
601 6TH ST V
A.':E FL0ELL
$0.12
.CO
.00
.00
25.00
15.12
00800080000
155500033401
1302 CRORrW# W
ANTHONY BANYAI
10.40
.07
.61)
1.10
25.00
38.55
GOb065)DOOD
155052031010
1120 U143Y to
K7REN TELEGA•6HALEY
83.56
2.60
.07
.OD
25.00
121.16
00601)OCJ00
155500034200
1323 FIVER $T W
15 B. FECEIr011 8 N. CLOCK
65,96
.OD
.177
.00
MCD
70.93
00401660900
155503531300
31 RIVER TMISE PARK
CCD MILES
70.00
.0
D0
.03
75.00
L5.00
0:091650000
155500011300
32 RN:R TERRACE PARR
DAVE 0 L1QA QATEW
31.20
.03
.00
.00
25.00
50.20
M31610J03
15 550703130)
15 RIVER TEFRACE PARK
ED STENCIL
31.70
.00
.0
ICO
25.07
54.2U
0680103[067
1555000313W
50 RIVER NIZIACE PARR
DOryA STOLP
10.60
.00
.0
cD
29.00
15.60
0000IC300n
155500031301)
53 RIVZR TERRASI PARK
RA;.?r7LF J SMITH
2O1CD
.00
.03
.00
25.00
4$.09
0680207COCO
I555000313C0
16 RIR TEGRAOE PARK
JCW1I CCLANAHAN
31.20
.00
.00
.00
25.07
50.20
0070)500)00
15575103;010
170 QAKW7i0 02 V
V[Er.M INTEIL1010`:AL
360121
.00
.00
.07
25,CD
565.21
00)00590000
155071002040
217 Sk'32EG GJ
PO4TIC01.0 ALTO DAY
129.C3
.03
.00
.00
26.03
`c52.ra
C07COC603D2
155500142701
1176 CEDAR 51
lOXIIIVA HEIDILCERGER
101.40
.G7
.00
.0
111.0
02.60
00701030100
15550014,401
1303 OaA M CR E
L 8 W AS;OCIATE9
1303 QASV 6) G2
20.51
.00
.OD
.00
25.08
51.57
GQCO030001
15!040031130
111 V.Vl'1 IO'"LEY OR
DELORES 11AI:EFIIK
63. C3
100
CO
.00
?5.03
Ce,CJ
0080021COOD
1550607011C7
III JZUY UEF[RT CR
RICHAr] L Gi 012
110.54
GO
C3
CO
25.00
143.1
00:.0530)0
15501C07010
IC3 MVIN ELVOOD 0
IVAN WALTER
50.07
.00
.40
C7
i5.Ga
03.57
OC3010502U
15502'0003103
1)2 MWM ELVA 0
T04 GINOUX
69.42
.07
CO
CD
25.C;
116,6'
M -31V0003
155731073060
ICJ r4l!";f LA
'IMS vafnD
1:0.31
.QJ
GO
C3
ib. e1
1i"j.:7
00303490000
155035294123
225 M4.NOI ELVU ED
I,4y ffA.:,iJ
65.12
CO
.OJ
CO
27.1:3
12J.12
CC Q357G CJ
1550>SMM
107 QXC , CIR
I INA 14MIN
CJ.00
C7
33
.CJ
15.07
105.46
OCJ03590003
15503S0059;3
1G0 CC_ti'U EIA
D. CjOO+ D C. HAk✓37
19.79
.CJ
C)
CO
;') CC
IJ?,77
CITY Cv r-falawl
12
10/17/95 11.03.41
MR 7, 1995 DELA UTILITY WILMS CEMI'MATINS WITH LATE CHA1tt0
FAGS T
Amount 6 PIO >}
Property M&M
APT Custwer W -A
Cust tl3v. 2
0Wr30 Day Ovr6O Dar
0xr90 Day 170'20 DaY
Late
Total
I
Past Due Past
Due
Past Due
Past Due
charge
w1Late
Charge
00803600000 155035004030
117 CROCUS LA
STEVEN LUTI)DUIST
61.03
.00
.00
.00
75.00
88.63
00803050000 ISSO)5801050
250 M M11 ELVOOD RD
VAM! RUSSELL
37.48
.90
.00
.00
25.00
$7.48
00004048000 155035091100
232 MARVIN E1,10030 ED
OW; WLSTRCM
81.93
.00
.00
.00
25.03
110.93
008 110004 15503500100
718 741RV1'N ELM9DD RD
CIt1DY WAUND
75.91
.00
.00
.00
25.0D
100.91
00801240000 155031001010
143 HERMAN LA
JAPES CELLETYE
111.%
.00
.04
.CO
25.00
136.55
0080426000D 555031004010
135 HEOM4 LA
KENNETH ROSSERO
92,00
.00
.00
.00
MOD
137.00
C08W100000 1550310040SO
109 HEO W LA
DAVID/ANSIE PCLENSKY
67.20
.0D
.00
.00
25.00
92.20
008MIC080 155035066010
775 PRAIRIE RD
DAN CRDCKER
503.90
.00
.00
.00
75.00
120.90
00901600000 155033091130
13 SAHOTRAP CIR
BRAD L1ATT
38.91
.0D
.00
.00
25.00
63.91
0096162000D 155033001110
9 WTRJA CIR
Bill I BEV GRIGSBY
83.52
.0D
.00
.00
25.64
ICBM
00941640000 155033001060
5 SAhDTRAP Cid
LEE W.17
103.25
.00
.0
00
25 -OD
120.25
00901940000 155033003030
14 EAGLE CIF
TED DANIELS
41.95
.00
.00
.00
25.00
60.96
09901960001 155033002140
10 EAiLE CIR
eEV R08S
I15. ,3
.00
.00
.00
75.00
140,88
01000550700 155014003110
70'+ MISSISSIPPI DR
HARSHA ACKISM
75.63
.00
.DO
.00
25.00
100.63
01000860000 155016000050
317 RIVERVIEW DR
LIOIEL (ALLIES
71.34
.OD
.00
.00
25.00
96.34
DIC41450DOD 155317042070
405 RIVERVIEM OR
LEE 6 TAMMY SUITDN
77.10
.00
.00
.00
25.00
102.70
01002600000 155011001040
670 REVERVIEN 0R
RICK I LCRI 8001BERS
81.04
Do
CO
.00
25.00
106.64
0193030000 155045002010
2961 RED W, CIR
MICELIEI HARTER
115.55
.00
.00
.00
75.00
140.55
01103100662 155045002030
2900 RED OAK CIR
DAVID R POETTCHER
17.50
CO
.CO
.00
25.QD
42.50
0110665DON 155059002080
7761 WADOV IA
HIM ALLMDER
t24.33
.03
.00
.00
r5.00
149.33
01106690000 355059002090
2781 MPAOQM LA
GREG T1JRXLLA
35.51
.00
.00
.00
25.03
60.57
0"t M1.100 ±SS^£5 4)0:4
025 1»: a' CAR a
autLE hEAhm
06.C9
.60
.00
Do
25.00
tt1.09
0110707ODCO 15507000210
2521 BRIAR CAKES (LVD
DAVID 6 JNtI SCWAR77
81.15
00
'co
.00
75�0
106.15
01103570400 15507000109)
1055 P'At)&:YNE Ft t)
T(TIV 6 LVLT CKEITON
s3. CA
Do
.00
.00
25.03
T8.04
01109310000 155000002090
2640 QAK RIDGE OR
STEVE KNASE
16.04
.00
•00
.00
?5.00
IOI.G4
0120001GOo0 15550015440)
71.3 K3E.LL8EM'S PACK
PAUL CARLED+Y
10.44
q
CD
.00
?5.00
35.40
01200020000 155500154403
20) VJELLBERG'S PACK
HOMA80 HCDEL
31.20
.07
.00
DO
2$.00
$6.20
01700030900 S555DDt544o3
702 KitagiRG'S PARK
mMNCH SAYRE
31.70
.00
.00
.00
2510
5o, 70
01200010000 155544154403
201 KJELLBERG'S PARK
KJELLEERG'S
1000 KJELLC:' 4a WiK
10.44
.CO
.00
.00
2 .0O
35.40
012('430400 15554015440)
211 KJELL M'S PARR
PtM RIOHMINE
31.70
.00
.00
.00
",00
56.70
01200200000 155500154403
220 KJELWER6'.•94A
DRIA:# ORECER
31.2D
40
40
.03
25.GD
53.20
01200310DCD 155500154403
110 KJEIL M'S PAU
A ECAMEERGER
20.40
OD
DO
Do
MOD
4$.60
Ot2moMot 155500154403
2 KJ£LLBERa'S FA."R
KJELLEERWS ICA:
tM &7EILCERG'S t,'9
20. CC
.00
.0o
.00
15.00
45.03
012GOC40401 155500154443
3 KJEILGERG'S FARK
NZIE E9'S 1140
1000 KJELIBERS'S PAR
31.70
.00
CD
.00
'S.OD
$6.70
MGM= 155SDOMAO)
5 KJELL9E Wi PARK
I(AILEERG'S PARK
1090 RJELLURWS FAR
2.7.0
.03
CD
.00
n.00
4'a.a
01'M)DO019 15E500164403
9 KJULBERO'S PM
MINA EEIYA'1
10.40
M
.00
.00
25.:4
)5.40
012CO12COu'3 155503154403
APT E KAWL 3'5 WK
IJELLUZ'S IGC
ICOO KIELLUAO'C PAR
10.40
CC
.00
•011
?S.CJ
35.49
o120)i9D7C.5 155544151403
11 KAL14M'S IARK
M &MIR
31.20
.00
.00
.CO
:5.0D
56.20
01200 ,00:3 t5550415003
303 RJELLCER3'a Pa:K
NKK WNAE9
20.07
CO
.00
-CO
25. CO
45.07
01203✓90a0.1 ISMASU0
315 MALLEIR6'5 PALK
AIA1 TREPINTER
31.73
.:D
CD
0D
1'110
56.20
0120164:DG2 155So0t "v
311 4,1MER3'S FMK
KJ(U'0'S INC
1040 HIF010nG'7 E.IR
31.110
.0
.00
0D
Y.i.0
56.11)
0113173= 15550D1514o)
501 KJEILCI;.rS PAUL
EIESF JtiMA
0127 WY t5
31.11'4
.0
.0D
40
T:,C
!S. 110
013C'050co 155MC03-'A
5C5o cA:£Aa DS
0:1:.115 0 SI± JN'tU
00. E4
.40
0
•0
dh•';
IO'I.C3
111) 3110::) 155".•7s09)ItD
C«w tIERa1C1
0*AEDIN
64.119
1.rl
.0
CO
)
91.19
01302(5(1;,3 Ii:)7CC031_D
5310 FALCON AVa
JILL H"w.1I'NS
150.97
.03
-CO
OD
a.t$
115.91
0MIACM 1550E':oD M
$121 0t'tIIQ 4n
1. r D V, EC1itiNltttEK
53.IG
.0
.03
.00
-'n
IJ.LS
0130130CJ00 ISE:'8C:)2)10
fM M1RTI'N I.1
PAM COSKE
49.51
CJ
PA
.CO
11~11'.
5t
CI1V 0 ttitMALLO
G ej
IO/17/95 11.03.41
Amouet D 910 1
Pr=rty Address
0130339L0O0 155069002020 5060 VARTRJ OR
910^0440200 1SS914003190 159 RIVERVIEW DR
FNAL TOTALS
TOM
CGMT 96
$1919 ENO OF REPORT $9688
QTR 2, 1995 DELO UTILITY BILLIM CERTIFICATIM WITH LATE CHARGE 1 A 3
APT Customer rs37:e Cost Uax 2 Ovr30 Day
Ovr60 Day
OYr90 Day Ovrl20 Day
Late
Total
! Past Due
Past Due
Pest Due Past Dos
Chary.
v/tate
Chary
LAURIE ROEP 23.45
.00
.00 .00
25.00
98.45
1 JEI1S RIVERM APARTM 2000 VICTORY yi10RIA 20.80
.00
.00 .00
25.00
45.90
7254.68
5.54
.00 1.16
2.400.00
9.661.38
CITY U 04TIMLO
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
7. Puhliic Hearing..Cnnaideratinn of approving onmin Liquor liicen_w_+
transfer- i P's Annex. (R.W.)
A RFFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Herbert Gutisnecht, Jr., of New Brighton has applied for the on -sale
liquor license currently granted to J.P.'s Annex to be transferred to his name.
Mr. Gutisnecht is purchasing the business from John Purmort, the present
owner of J.P.'s Annex.
City ordinances require that a public hearing be held on the issuance of an
on -sale liquor license; and although this is just a transfer from one name to
another, our ordinance did not distinguish between whether a public hearing
is only necessary for licenses issued for new locations or whether it would
also cover transfers. Since the ordinance wasn't clear, a notice was published
for this meeting.
A background check was completed on Mr. Gutisnecht by the Wright County
Sheriffs Office, and there does not appear to be any reason for the Council to
deny the request for the license transfer.
FI_ Ai.TFRNATIVE ACTIONS:
After closing the public hearing, the Council could approve the
transfer of the current on -sale liquor license for J.P.'s Annex to
Mr. Herbert Gutisnecht, Jr., for the bar and restaurant.
Under this alternative, the license application will be submitted to the
Liquor Control Division for approval along with the required
certificate of liability insurance.
Do not authorize the liquor license transfer.
From the initial background checks, the staff can find no reason to
deny the request at this time, and the intent is to simply change
ownership of the J.P.'s Annex sports bar from Mr. John Purmort to
Mr. Herbert Gutianecht.
C. STAFF RCI MRNDATION:
Staff recommends that the license transfer be approved unless sufficient
information opposing the license transfer is supplied at the public hearing.
n 81IPPORTINo DATA;
Copy of license application.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
LICENSE APPLICATION
This application is being submitted for the following license(a):
Set-up license Off -sale, non -intoxicating liquor
On -sale, intoxicating liquor On -sale, wine
On -sale, non -intoxicating liquor On -sale, wine/3.2 beer
Applicant Name;% rb a r7_ Lv moo' . r / S n 2 cwt i hone: G/;, - 7 ve- - 36;1 3
per# 3i�o - 1700
Applicant Address: J 3 9 1 R k YAt o v 1 41, i
0
Social Security #: �3 �/- ;t Y- 9 i s �� Date of Birth: 'e - 2- ` s'
Driver's License #: G i 2 S 302 - i it l— 7A 5
Business Name: ,T P 4A, A/,-__ X
Business Address:
At oa r i r. c i.u, o M i NnI-
Business Phone: 95 =6 S s"O MN Business M q:
Describe nature of business operation: 134 R a- Rc• 5 rd o nr N
If Corporation: Officers;
161 �.�".K
Do you or does your corporation, partnership, etc., currently hold any license
allowing the sale of wine, intoxicating liquor, non -intoxicating liquor or act -ups?
Yes T No
If yes: Name of Business:
Business Address:
Business Phone:
Type of License: Years Hold:
LIQUCAM 1000
References:
Xamk,-6/7nw fli 176/7 Address Phnne Mimbe
M = M /Ni✓ % f('/'S•7 $x
LFi�o� a L✓ SryoliL- M ;w N -i90 -
GAnv K,zv,:ag_a W-,& r i'9 M,;Vx y1,•Z-.5vo5
Credit References (list at least one bank you do business with):
Hama Address
l � st12/4 1- Mi'VA/6/o0Ntowr,inAwFh r;'3—.Z;ZG S
Al r,2wFsr ai ui-1cz- al A/AvC M %.IV 2 T -Ys 3 -S
.ASrr'PN 14tt. s TATE_ 8AA1k S t PAVLLa1 iN,✓
Amount of investment, excluding land:. vo
(only applicants for on -sale, intoxicating liquor must provide this information)
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or of violating the National Prohibition Act
or any state law or ordinance relating to manufacture or transportation of
intoxicating liquors? , 2`
1 declare that the above information is truce and 'correct to the best of my knowledge.
Date of Application 'Applicant Signature
rrrs►ssssrrsrsssarrsrsrrsrssssrrrrrrsrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtrrsr►rsrrrrrrrrrrrs
(For City Use Only)
Surety Bond
Sheriff, Wright County
Date
UQLICwrr: toyer
Liquor Liability Insurance Certificate
Application Fee License Fee
Mayor
City Administrator
Date
Council Agenda - 10/23/96
Mr, M1
MMI
City Council is asked to consider joining the School District in a cooperative
effort toward construction of a community ice arena. The following report
outlines the proposed relationship between the City and the School District,
provides detailed budget information on the operational budgets of various
arenas, and outlines decision factors that Council may wish to consider in
making its decision. The information that follows was prepared under the
direction and with the assistance of Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator; and
after three separate meetings with Shelly Johnson, Shelly Johnson has
reviewed this document and the supporting data and agrees to the
understandings that follow.
COOPERATIVE EFFORT DESCRIPTION•-C1TY/SCHOOL
RESPONSiBELrr FS
Under the program as proposed, the School District would be responsible for
funding and construction of the arena, including payment of city fees and
development of parking facilities. All necessary purchases to allow full
operation of the facility will be made by the School District in conjunction
with the original construction of the facility. This would include purchase of
the zamboni, ice skate sharpeners, all items accessory to hockey, including
boards, concession equipment, etc. Essentially, the facility would be handed
to the City as a tum -key operation ready to go.
All long-term replacement and maintenance expenses associated with the
structure and the parking lot will be the responsibility of the School District.
The School District will carry insurance on the building and will be
responsible for ground maintenance in the summer. The cost of long-term
replacement of the refrigeration system will be split 60/60 between the School
and City.
The School would retain ownership of the facility; however, it would enter
into a long -tern $1 -per -year lease agreement with the City.
School URe
Under the program, the School District will pay the full hourly rate for use of
the facility after regular school hours. This would include all use associated
with the high school hockey program, as well as other uses that the School
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
might be interested in using the facility for during peak hours. During the
school day, the School District would be allowed to use the facility at no
charge for community education or physical education activities; however,
the School District must provide supervision, and it must pay for any out-of-
pocket expenses that the City might have in operating the facility during the
school day. For of -season use when the ice is removed, the School District
will also be able to use the facility for dry -floor uses at no charge; however,
again, the School District must provide supervision and pay the City out-of-
pocket expenses for such use. The School District recognizes that paying
customers that the City might have for dry -floor rental would get priority
over non-paying school uses. The City is not likely to be losing a significant
revenue source by allow free school use during the day. Some arenas rent ice
for special instruction or for figure skating during the school day. Most,
however, do not get much use at all until after school hours end.
City Reg;panftihilities
Under the program, the City would be responsible for managing and
operating the facility on a day -today basis. The policies governing usage of
the facility would be administered by the City but developed jointly by the
City and School District. Perhaps lite Hockey Association could sit on a
governing board if it is involved in providing volunteer assistance. For the
purpose of this report, it is assumed that there will be no volunteer
assistance provided by the Hockey Association. Use of the facility would not
be limited to miles governing usage of School District facilities.
The City would be responsible for providing liability insurance.
The City would also be responsible for funding replacement of the original
zamboni and one-half of the cost of the refrigeration system. As you will
note, the operations budget includes a line item for replacement cost of these
two items. Please see the proposed budget for more detail on City
responsibilities with regard to managing and operating the facility.
CASH FLOW COMPARISONS AND ANALYSIS
Following is a brief introduction to an attached table which describes the
budgets of a number of arenas in the area and outlines the projected budget
for the Monticello arena.
The budget proposed for the Monticello arena is based on seasonal use of the
facility in year two or three. It is also based on the presence of one arena in
the area. As you know, the cities of Becker. Albertville, and St. Michael are
all considering development of an arena. The underlying numbers
supporting usage of the facility would need to be changed if another arena
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
was built in the area. The budget is also based on utilization of one full-time
employee year-round and includes $20,000 for part-time help. It is likely
that if the facility is operated on a seasonal basis, the frill -time employee
hired will have time in the summer for other city duties unrelated to the
arena. The budget does not include assistance from the Hockey Association
for labor associated with operation of concessions or ticket taking. It is
possible that operation expenses could be reduced further by working
cooperatively with the Hockey Association.
Ice time usage assumptions outlined in the table have been provided by the
Hockey Association and are based on recent contacts.
In summary, according to testimony from ice arena managers, and according
to budget information provided, it appears evident that revenues meet or
exceed operation expenses when debt retirement and depreciation expenses
are not included in the budget. At the Columbia arena, the budget showed a
$52,000 deficit; however, there was a $69,000 debt service payment. Without
this debt payment, the Columbia arena would have showed a positive cash
balance at the end of the year. The New Hope ice arena also showed a
negative cash balance of over $24,000 at the end of the year; however, the
New Hope arena is nearly 20 years old and included a hefty amount
($24,000) for building repair and maintenance, which is a cost under the
Monticello plan that would be paid by the School District. The Mound ice
arena was also constructed some time ago, and their debt payment has been
completely retired. The arena manager at Mound indicated that the rink
regularly makes $30,000 to $60,000 per year. The 1994-95 budget showed a
not revenue of almost $33,000. The Buffalo arena budget shows a positive
cash flow of $8,307; however, it also includes a $50,000 contribution from the
City's electric fund. Again, in the Buffalo situation, Buffalo is faced with a
debt service of $42,000 for the building and an additional $5,000 capital
outlay for ADA upgrades. If not for the capital outlay needs for ADA and
debt service, the City would not have needed to transfer in the electric fund
dollars to cash flow operations.
The budget proposed by City staff and the School District shows a net
operating revenue at the end of the year of $2,100. Again, this figure is
based on year two or three, and it is likely that for the first year or possibly
two, the facility revenue may not moot expenses; however, it is clear that in
the long-term, as the area hockey associations mature, it appears likely that
revenues will be sufficient to offset expenses.
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
DECISION FACTORS
Following is a summary of various factors that Council may wish to consider
in determining the extent to which it wishes to support this project.
F.00nomir F aa'hiW
The method for funding the facility calls for utilizing the entire School
District taxing jurisdiction as the funding source. This proposal allows the
entire user base to share in the cost of the project rather than just having the
City be responsible for funding the project.
Funds generated by users is intended to fund operations with the City
funding any deficit. Given the demand for ice time, it would appear that the
risk to the City in terms of having to fund a substantial deficit is relatively
small.
Despite the advantage of having the School District jurisdiction fund the cost
of the arena, it could be argued that with the number of projects (wastewater
treatment plant, high school, stadium), it may be the wrong time to add
another item to the list of projects. Council could argue that due to the
increase in taxes associated with the high school and wastewater treatment
plant, it may not be appropriate to add an additional burden to the taxpayer;
therefore, it could reject participation in the cooperative effort with the goal
of encouraging removal of the arena from the School District referendum.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Heng Onal
Council may wish to consider to what extent the presence of an ice arena in
the community will contribute toward meeting housing goals. As you know,
one of the issues identified in the comprehensive plan update involves
establishing strategies to enhance the housing stock within the community.
Ono of the methods identified for improving the City's ability to attract
middle and upper -middle income home buyers is to provide amenities that
this market desires. It could be argued that the presence of the arena will
contribute toward making Monticello a fall -service community and will
provide an amenity that will make Monticello a more attractive community,
etc. Council will need to weigh to what extent an investment in an arena will
contribute toward reaching housing goals.
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
Attached for your review I have provided an excerpt from the preliminary
draft of the comprehensive plan update, which outlines a proposed policy
statement regarding community facilities. This is an unofficial statement
provided for information only.
The presence of an ice arena drawing users from the region will have positive
spin-off benefits to commercial interests within the community. Gas stations,
restaurants, hotels, and motels will definitely receive a benefit from the
presence of an ice arena in the community. Again, to what extent this benefit
exceeds the cost associated with the tax increase is a judgment call that the
Council must make.
The 1992 survey indicated an interest in development of an ice arena in the
community; however, the interest was tempered by cost considerations.
Attached you will find two graphs outlining the level of support for an ice
arena as of 1992. In summary, when residents were asked to indicate
support or non-support for an arena that would cost a $70,000 home owner
$29 per year, 47% opposed the concept, and 47% supported the concept, with
the remainder undecided or unsure. Under the financing program utilizing
School District taxing power, a person owning a $70,000 home would pay $9
toward the cost of this facility. This would seem to indicate that at $9 per
$70,000 home, there could be some support for the facility. On the other
hand, the survey was taken during a time when there were no other major
bond issues or tax increases in the wings; therefore, if a survey was taken
today with other coats in mind, the results might be different.
Another question in the survey asked how much people were willing to pay
for an ice arena. In response, 38% of the people said that they did not want
to spend anything toward an ice arena, 19'% said they would spend $10 per
year, 18% said $20,8% said $30, 2'% said $40, and 7'% said $50. Put another
way, 54^% said that they would spend at least $10 a year toward flmding an
ice arena. The numbers would seem to indicate that there is some level of
support for an ice arena as of 1992; however, the support is tempered by cost.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS;
1. Motion to approve the concept of participating with the School District
as noted above.
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
Under this alternative, the City Council could make the finding that
participation in the program is appropriate due to the following
reasons:
1. The School District is the proper body for providing the
underlying funding for the arena because it results in taxation
of the user base of the facility.
2. The arena is likely to cash flow when long-term maintenance
costs and debt service are not included in the budget.
3. The arena would result in economic benefits to city commercial
businesses.
4. The need for this type of recreation service has been
demonstrated sufficiently to justify a referendum on the topic.
The area is ripe for development of an ice arena given the
demand for ice time from nearby hockey associations.
b. The arena will make Monticello a more attractive community,
which will benefit housing stock and real estate values.
This is the alternative recommended by the Parks Commission.
Motion to deny approval of the plan to enter into a cooperative
agreement with the School District as proposed.
Council could take the position that the timing of this bond issue is
inappropriate given the magnitude of other important projects.
Perhaps it is appropriate at this time to table or deny participation in
the plan in an effort to postpone the project to a time when the area
will be more able to absorb capital expense associated with the facility.
Another ground for denial could be lack of confidence in the numbers
supporting the revenue projections. There is some risk associated with
this project. There aro no signed contracts with any of the hockey
associations that they will use the facility as proposed. Perhaps
another arena will be constructed soon after the Monticello arena,
which could result in the loss of revenue needed to cash flow the
operation.
Council Agenda - 10/23/95
C. STAFF RFCOMMRNDATION:
On October 18, 1995, at their regular meeting, the Parks Commission
reviewed the information on the topic and voted unanimously to recommend
that the City join the School District as noted under alternative #1. In their
motion, they cited the positive aspects of taxing the larger jurisdiction for the
capital cost, the low risk to the City in terms of having a positive cash flow
for operations, the economic benefits to the city businesses, and a benefit to
the city provided by this additional recreation resource. It was their view
that sufficient support has been identified in the community at large through
the community survey to support bringing the issue to a vote.
Following is the staff recommendation as written by Rick Wolfeteller.
Upon reviewing the projected budget for operating a new arena, it appears
reasonable to assume from the data available that the City should be able to
operate the arena on a break-even basis if we are not responsible for debt
service. While we want to emphasize that the budget is just that, an
estimate, after the second or third year of operation, I do not believe there
will be a problem in meeting cash flow requirements.
While the initial timing of the construction may mean that the arena will not
be available for a full season in its first year of operation, the Council should
assume that in the second or third year of operation, the City would be more
likely to be assured of sufficient revenues to meet normal operating
expenditures. If the Council still has concerns over possible shortages after
the first full year of operation, you could consider requesting to see if the
Monticello Hockey Association would consider picking up any shortfall in
operational cost until the arena gets well established. The Hockey
Association could technically cover a shortfall by agreeing to rent more ice
time at the $100 per hour rate to make up any shortfall. While this has not
been discussed directly with the Hockey Association, it is something the
Council could ask any representatives that may be in attendance at the
meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Arena budget comparisons and proposed Monticello arena budget; Recreation
survey --support and non-support for arena at $29 per home for $70,000
home; Recreation survey support for arena by level of willingness to pay;
Coal and policy statement from preliminary draft of updated comprehensive
plan; Assorted meeting minutes of 1993 arena discussion; MYNA use
sources.
N
ICE ARENA FINANCE PLAN MODELS/BUDGETS
Prime time hours - Oct 1 to Mara 18 - Wkdaye 7 Hrs/da;, - Wknds 21 Mrs. _ 1.400
School District use during day
paid on a cost basis. Supervlsior
provided by School District etc.
Rental FeeRwur
1 otal Ice time Revenue
200 Non-peak/School Day
Cost basis
$100 $90 $100
5171,800 $99 4b0 $1263001
1
MYHA
1995
Notes
Columbia New Hope Mound (Buffalo
Becker Study
City
(Two rinks 1995 1994 -95 1995
Plan 2nd veer Stat?
URUANIZATIUN
St Cloud FigureSkating__
400
Buffalo
_
480
_
,Now at max
_ _
Monticello Youth
250
370
300 Source:MYHA
Moriticello Figure Skatng__ --
-
--
-
25 Staff estimate
District 10 Games
-----_- ---
100
78]Soume:MYHA
Monticello High School
150
_
85
8$,Source:S. Johnson
_ _
High School Games
—` _
T
_
30
30 ,Soun�:S. Johnson
-- Mkheel High School _
_ _ _
_ -
100 _
100 Source:MYHA
St Micheal Hockey Association
-
-- - _
200 ---
200 Source:MYHA
Sauk
_
Annan6le/Maple Lake+H.S,_
--
185
150 Source:MYHA
Becker/1919-Lake
_ - -- . _ _ -. _
_ _ _
- _ _-100
185 _
185 Source:MYHA
Open Skating
1
48
40 Staff estimate
Tournaments
_ , _ _
_T
X72 _
_ 72 Source:MYHA
Total
_
1
T 1276T
1105
1283
Prime time hours - Oct 1 to Mara 18 - Wkdaye 7 Hrs/da;, - Wknds 21 Mrs. _ 1.400
School District use during day
paid on a cost basis. Supervlsior
provided by School District etc.
Rental FeeRwur
1 otal Ice time Revenue
200 Non-peak/School Day
Cost basis
$100 $90 $100
5171,800 $99 4b0 $1263001
1
J
ICE ARENA FINANCE PIAN MODELS/BUDGETS
MYHA
1995 Notes
Columbia
New Hope Mound
Buffalo
Becker
Study
City
(Two rinks
1995
1994 -95
1995
Plan
2ndYyear
Staff
Utilities
$4,30U
Electric
$60,000
$43,000
$26,405
$31,775
$50,000
$45,000
Gas
$25,000
$26,000
$6,517
$15,000
$12,500
Telephone
$3,500
$4,000
$1,538
$2,595
$3,000
$1,800 Three phones
Water
$5,000
$2,500
$1,550
$6,650
$2,000
Garbage$4,000
$3,000
$1,619
$0
$1,000
Subtotal - - _ - --$117
500
_$800 .
_$39,629 _ -$411-,020
$88,000_$18
300 _ $82,308
Auditing/Accounting!kegal
$1_300
$280
$1,4q6
Included In audit
Payroll Services
_
_ _
$560
_ _
_ _
_
- ----
SeCurity- i-
-soo ---$,,o-
_V,
oo --
--
-
-
- -
General Operetlng-
--
-
$30-000
-
Central Garage
--
_
-
- - -
--
Insurance
$9,787
$8;006_.
School pays $5,000 too
Misc
-$10,000-.-
$450
-$13,368.-
$7,210
__
$1,095
--$12,-500
__$5,000
Conference and Training -
-
$400
-
- -
$1,500
$750
Dues and Membership
$800
$625.
AdveNsing -
$355
,
$195
53.000
$1,000
Outside Maintenance
-Supplies
$131000_
$5,000.
_
$1,500
City snow - Schl Grass
Program
-
-
_ _
$51000
_
Hockey Reclepts Distribution
$7,000
$13,567
$4,500
Paid to School
Dedicated Donations Expense
$8,620
Capital outlay - Buff -ADA
$5,000
ISchool Expense
Buildings - Debt Service
$69,926
$42,187School
Expense
TOTAL EXPENSES
$505.852
$357786
5190.101
$149743
$190.500
$58,800
S154.1001
J
ICE ARENA FINANCE PLAN MODELS/BUDGETS
MYHA
1995 Notes
Columbia New Hope
Mound
Buffalo
Becker
Study
City
(Two rinks 1995
1994 -95
1995
Plan
2nd near
Staff
EXPENSES
Salaries and Wages
Full Time
$178,224 $129,579
$50,721
$15,450
$38,000
$23,000
$38,000 Assumes no
Part Time seasonal
$23,674 $39,129
$12,450
$12,360
$25,000
Volunteers
$20,000 Volunteer help.
Other salary
$1,326 $2,903
$4,160
$800
Severance
$856 above
above
above
Health Ins
$13,771 above
above
$2,973
above
Life Ins
$102 above
above
above
Social Security
$15,459 above
above
$1,360
above
PERA
$7,895 above
above
$824
above
WIC Insurance
$1,480 above
above
above
Unemployment Comp
$428 above
above
above
Dental Insurance
$1,275 above
above
above
LTD Insurance_
$359,_ _
Subtotal _ _ __
$242,849 _ $171,611
$87,331
- _$33,787
$63;000„
_
_ $23,000
_$58,_000
Repair end Maintenance
$19,065
'$16,6378
$4,000
$2,000 Misc Repair -non Struc
Building
$9,700 $24,149
$2,345
$8,683
$2,000
$0 School pays
Resurfacing Equipment
$10,000
$8,150
$1,000
$1,000
Ice Maintenance supplies
$3,000
$1,998
$2,050
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
Cleaning Supplies
$2,000 $2,400
$1,958
$3,000
$3,000
Printing/Forms
$4,000 $200
$683
$103
$1,000
Gasoline/oil
$2,000 $2,100
$800
Uniforms
$400_
Subtotal
$18,100 $60,914
$23,660
$14,966
$7,000
$5,000
_ $8,900,
Goods/Equipment
Purchases for resale
$10,000 $22,000
$24,301
$513
$3,750 1/2 Concession sales
Refrlperatlon Equipment
$4,500 IQ cost - $125kR5 yr
Machines and large equll
$15,000 $3,500
$3,500 $70k - 19 yr
Tools
$1,400 $300
$500
Subtotal
$26,400 $25,800
$24,301
$513
_ $o
$0
$12,250
c
ICE ARENA FINANCE PIAN MODELS/BUDGETS
MYHA 1995 Notes
0
Columbia INew Hope Mound
Buffalo
Becker
Study
City
(Two rinks.
1995
1994-95
1995
Plan
2nd vear
Staff
REVENUE
Service fees
$828
Ice Rental$314,928
$211,000
$141,788
$92,000
$135,000
384,450
$123,800
FigureSkating_
$35,000
$55,000
$15,000
$2,500
Share to grow
Patch and Free Style
S8,0001
-
Concession Stand
$11L17a
$181753_
_$100
S25 C
$10,000
__
_- $71500
School buys
Vending ItachinesMd,gamea
57,000
_$14,000
$12,000
$22,885
$400_
$6,000
$1,SN
Rented
Skate Sharpening-_
$74_8
_
-
$2,500
School buys equip
_
Open Skate Receipts
__$3,500
$7,000
__$1,500
$14,.000
_$1,SN
Included above
_
Open Skate - music -
5�'-606
- -
__$20_0__$15,000_
- - - -
- - -- --
- -
_
- -
SkateRentel
$100--
Open HoclreyBroomball
x100
$14.548
$1,40q
Non prime hours
HlghschooUToumament tickets
-- -_-
$30,_000
-
3181000
_ $15,349
_
34,300
321500
_ _
_ _ _
$9,OD0
--
50150 split revenue
Interest
$375
32,000
Sipn/Bartner Revenue- - _
- - -
$2,500
$1,000-_
-
_$9,060_,
_ $3,000
$J000-
- $7L500
-_$3,001
-
Ice Show
32000
Client Fees
38,820
Mist
$11314
Sport Shop_ _
-Program
_ $1,050
_
Registration
$3,50U_
ElecMc Fund
$50,000.
Telephone Commisalons
$75
Dry floor rental - Camps/Cllnioe
14,500
$14.5001
$8,785
$5,000
$6,000
TOTAL REVENUE
$453.851
f
1 $333.265
$222819
$158,050
$190,500
$116,950
$158,200
NET REVENUE(352,201
($24,523
$32,718.
$8,307
$0
$58,150
$2_,1001
City pays
1
Two Rinks
ice 11
all debt
Volunteers
No Vokurtserfs
Months
too
0
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM 1992 RECREATION STUDY
Support for Arena if costing $70,000 home - $29/year for 15 years.
Taken from 1992 recreation needs study.
Level of support IlPercent Cumulative I
Strongly Support 1
20% I
Support
27% 47%
_
9ppose
_
20%
SEongyPpose
_
27%47%
Don' Know
6% — - 6%
1Refused
1% 1%1
Level of support for arena
if cc" 2W for $70,000 home
(xe.7a)
W Strongly Support
o Support
(I o%) 0 Oppose
(59%) o Strongly Oppose
(testa) Don' Know
Rotuse0
(26.77)
School District Arena proposal (1995) would cost a $70,000 home appro)dmatety $9 dollars per year.
Source: Monticello Times now article.
Citizen Survey Results It 992) - Indoor Ice Arena
How much would you be willing to see your yearly property taxes increase to fund the construction
fi an indoor ice arena?
Amount Percent of Cumulative
Willing to by each percent by
Pay Group
Group
Nothino
38%
38%
$10
19%
54%
$20
18%
35%
$30
8%
• 17%
$40
2%
9%
$50
7%
7%
Don't Know,
7%
9%
Refused
2%
2%
Willingness to See Property Tax Increases
1982 Recreation Needs Survey
06
$10
05
$30
$40 Dont Know
MEM"ON
Pay Groupe
F1
.1-1995 11:43 NAC 612 595 9837 P. 07107
/ The marketplace is the most efficient allocator of new development. When viewed over a long
time period, different land uses will predominate during different years. The primary role for the
City in planning for new development will be to provide properly zoned and serviced land to
accommodate currem needs. This policy states that the desired balance will be achieved as the
madmi acts to meet needs and demands.
ConsdurW& Focflillts
Goal:
A City exists to provide a defined range of ,y. .,.....:,.mil services to its residents and property
owner. The iatare related to theca services is one of SM- Ilio physical aspect to the scope issue
is referred to here as 'community WIN '. In other words, what failures does the City have
to build in order to provide the palette of services demanded by the community members? The
answer to this question must begin with a definition of the scope of the City's services. Clearly,
that scope includes sanitary sewer and water provision, streets, fire protection, parks, and various
adminimofivr services. Recently, that mean has been expanded to include more comprehensive
norm water control and pathways as a component of the part system.
The City needs to understand the demands of its citizens to order to provide the services
effectively. Moziticeb'a goal in the area of community facilities will be to addrmss the
community's demand for cervices in an efficient manner, balancing these demands with the
community's demand for low cost.
Polley: The City of Monticello will develop community facilities which sere to
enhasm and ac6iave the ora icourdty's other goal: and objectives.
One of the ways which an imrostmew in community fatdlitles is made eiliclent is to achieve
multiple gals. Thus, pt &cts to be comsidaed by the City shmid be evaluated as to their effect
on the community's needs as a whole, not Just nn con. Thh placer a premium on thinking about
infrastructure as an 'investment' rather than as a 'cost'. If a project enhances the City's ability
to do its job, and adds to rho attraction of Montimilo as a community, it may very well be worth
the expense, both from a tangible and an intangible viewpoint.
This view requires the City to broaden its definition of infrastructure. ORm, infrestructum is
thought of as sewer pipe and streets. However, inftastruchum includes park Undo and
improvements, pathways, and community bulldtnga. These latter faciliUw atm as important to the
City's 'quality of life as aro the former. yet may be mkgated to an inferior Wtus as non-
euenWl. The teed for a put or community baiWng should be evaluated, however, as to
whether it efficiently fUMen the oommunity's goah, and provides valuable benefits
commensurate with its cosh.
j&
Council Agenda - 2/22!93
4. Consideration of adootina a resolution providing conditional
authorization to conduct a general referendum of an $850.000 general
obligation bond for financing multi-ouroose community arena.
(R.W., J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On Wednesday, February 10, representatives from the Hockey Association,
School District, and the City of Monticello met to discuss potential methods for
funding and operating a multi-purpose arena. The discussion resulted in
development of three possible alternatives. It also resulted in a stronger sense
that if developed properly, this facility would generate revenue sufficient to pay
operations expense and pay $300,000 to $500,000 in debt over 15 years. It was
the conclusion of the group to present the options to the Parks Commission for
recommendation to the City Council. The memo to the Parks Commission is
attached for your information. It outlines other options for financing the arena
that were reviewed but not selected by the commission.
Subsequently, on Thursday, February 18, the Parks Commission met with
representatives from the Hockey Association to discuss arena funding
alternatives, which resulted in the Parke Commission recommending the
following alternative for funding a $1,000,000 multi-purpose arena, which
would be owned by the City, operated by the Hockey Association, but managed
by a board including membership from the School, City, Hockey Association,
and Township.
Council is asked by the Hockey Association to promise to conduct a general
referendum on a G.O. bond issue in the amount of $850,000 if the Hockey
Association can accomplish the following:
1. The Hockey Association must obtain a legally binding
commitment from Monticello Township to pay the City an amount
equal to the Township's share of the annual debt service on
$450,000 based on relative market values of the City and
Township (est. $8,993).
2. The Hockey Association must generate $100,000 in cash and
commit $50,000 of sweat equity toward the project. The cash
must be in hand prior to authorizing the vote.
3. The Hockey Association agrees to pay the cost (approximately
$1,000) of conducting the general referendum.
4. The Hockey Association must obtain an agreement from the
School District that the District will provide the 10 -acre site for
M
Council Agenda - 2122193
the Monticello Community Arena. It was the consensus of the
Parks Commission that the proposed location at the northeast
corner of the school campus is an acceptable site.
5. The Hockey Association must clearly demonstrate the ability of
the ice arena to generate funds sufficient to retire a $400,000
debt by obtaining letters of commitment for ice time from the
School District and various associations.
Included in the Parks Commission motion was a contingency that the Parks
Commission approves the concept of authorizing the general referendum with
the conditions as noted based on the understanding with Council that Parks
Commission priorities and associated funding objectives will not be affected if
the general referendum is successful.
If a general referendum was conducted under the program above, the City and
Township would share the cost on a pro -rated basis of paying the debt service
on the $450,000 of the $850,000 bond. In addition to the Township revenue,
the City would obtain revenue from the ice arena to pay the debt service on the
balance of the bond. A summary of the funding program and associated tax
impact is attached.
Items not discussed by the Parks Commission but added to the resolution by
staff is the requirement that all land use issues be resolved prior to conducting
the referendum. Also added is the requirement that a plan for financing
miscellaneous construction expenses be approved prior to referendum
authorization.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing a general referendum on the
issuance of $850,000 general obligation bond for financing a community
C i arena.
Under this alternative, Council essentially is promising the Hockey
Association that they will authorize a general bond issue in the event
that the Hockey Association is able to accomplish all of the items noted
above. This alternative is positive in that it attempts to overcome many
d of the legitimate obstacles to funding of an ice arena that have been
brought up in the past.
4
! 1. It requires that the Township provide its fair share for
development of the ice arena.
2. The Hockey Association guarantees payment of the cost to
conduct the bond issue; therefore, there is no cost to the City in
this respect.
Al
Council Agenda - 2/22/93
In the past there has been concern regarding limited participation
by the Hockey Association in funding the project. Under this
alternative, the Association must demonstrate its level of
commitment and generate considerable community support by
raising $100,000 cash and $50,000 in pledged labor.
This alternative is also positive in that it allows the issue to be resolved
under a democratic process, again, without creating an expense to the
City.
Motion to deny a resolution authorizing a general referendum on the
issuance of $850,000 general obligation bond for financing multi-purpose
community arena.
Under this alternative, the City Council could take the position that
under no circumstances should the City even consider building and
operating an ice arena. This alternative should be selected if the
Council is completely unconvinced that the ice arena will be capable of
generating cash sufficient to cover operations expense and debt service
to cover a $400,000 debt.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed resolution. It is our
view that the proposal responds to the concerns that the City has had in the
past regarding City funding of an ice arena. The proposal requires that the
Township pay its fair share, requires a heavy down payment on the ice arena
by the Hockey Association itself, and will result in the City obtaining 10 acres
of land when only 5 is needed for the ice arena, thereby providing additional
land for other future City facilities, and, finally, the Hockey Association has
pledged to pay for the general referendum if it fails or succeeds.
As further support for the plan, Jerry Shannon of Springsted is very familiar
with ice arena funding and operations expense, and he has indicated that it is
realistic to expect that the arena will generate cash in excess of operations
expense. Therefore, based on Jerry Shannon's comments and the list of
possible Hockey Associations interested in using the ice arena, it would appear
that the financial viability of the ice arena is favorable.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Projected revenues and expenses of Monticello Community Arena; Resolution;
Supplement to Parks Commission regarding funding alternatives; Proposed
funding.
MONTICELLO ARENA
PROJECTED ICE USAGE
FIRST YEAR OPERATION
Monticello Youth Hockey Association
Bantam
Peewee
Squirts
Mites
Termites
90 hrs
75 hrs
75 hrs
40 hrs
40 hrs
TOTAL HOURS 320 HRS
District 10 Games 70 hre
Monticello High School 85 hrs
High School Games 30 hrs
St Micheal High School 100 hrs
St Micheal Hockey Association 150 hre
Maple Lake Hockey Association 75 hrs
GRAND TOTAL 830 MRS
MONTICELLO ARENA
PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENSES
FIRST YEAR OPERATION
REVENUE
Facility Rental
Hockey (830 hours)
x74,700.00
Open Skating (48 hours)
$4,320.00
(Ice Rental at $90.00 per hr)
Advertising Income (15 sign's at s300.00)
$4,500.00
Concession
$7.800.00
TOTAL REVENUE
$91,020.00
EXPENSES
Wages
$18,000.00
utilities
$18,300.00
Insurance
812,500.00
Maintenance
$4,000.00
Misc. Supplies and Expences
$1.000.00
TOTAL EXPENCES
$53,800.00
IL,
MONTICELLO ARENA
PROJECTED ICE USAGE
SECOND YEAR OPERATION
Monticello Youth Hockey Association
Bantam
90
hrs
Peewee
75
hrs
Squirts
125
hrs
Mites
40
hrs
Termites
40
hrs
TOTAL HOURS 370 MRS
District 10 Games 100 hrs
Monticello High School 85 hrs
High School Games 30 hre
St Micheal High School 100 hrs
St Micheal Hockey Association 200 hrs
Maple Lake Hockey Association 100 hrs
Tournaments 72 hrs
GRANO TOTAL 1057 MRS
MONTICELLO ARENA
PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENSES
SECOND YEAR OPERATION
REVENUE
Facility Rental
Hockey (1057 hours)
Open Skating (48 hours)
(Ice Rental at $90.00 per hr)
Advertising Income (25 sign's at 9300.00)
Concession
TOTAL REVENUE
EXPENSES
uagoa
Utilities
Insurance
Maintenance
Misc. Supplies and Expences
TOTAL EXPENCES
$95.130.00
$4.320.00
$7,500.00
$10,000.00
$116,950.00
e2=.000.0^
$18,300.00
$12.500.00
$4.000.00
$1.000.00
$58,800.00
IM
RESOLUTION 93 -
RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION
TO CONDUCT A GENERAL REFERENDUM
ON THE ISSUANCE OF G.O. BONDS FOR
COMMUNITY ARENA
WHEREAS, Monticello City Council and Parks Commission have reviewed various
options for development and financing of a community arena; and
WHEREAS, based on the financial performance of other similar arenas, it has been
determined that facility design and construction features necessary to attract users
and thereby generate revenue requires a capital investment of $1,M,869 in the
primary structure and fixtures; and
WHEREAS, Monticello City Council has received a recommendation from the Parks
Commission to approve this resolution based on its research on the matter.
LET IT, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED THAT the Monticello City Council hereby
commits to authorizing a general referendum on the sale of general obligation bonds
in the amount of $950,"" at suet Lime that the following steps are achieved.
1. The Hockey Association must obtain a legally binding commitment from
the Township to pay the City an amount equal to the township's share
of debt service on $450,460 based on relative market values of the City
and Township.
2. The Hockey Association shall secure $191,001 in cash and donations to
supplement the $354,401 bond and shall commit a minimum of $59,441
in sweat equity labor toward construction of the facility.
3. The Hockey Association shall pay for the cost to conduct the general
referendum.
4. The Hockey Association shall obtain a commitment from the School
District to provide the City of Monticello with the proposed 10 -acre
community arena site located at the northeast corner of the school
campus area.
b. The Hockey Association shall obtain written commitments from various
associations and organizations that desire to rent ice from the facility.
I
Land use issues regarding zoning, conditional use permits, and site plan
design shall be resolved prior to authorization to conduct the
referendum.
A plan for funding yet undetermined expenses associated with
construction of the facility such as utilities construction, parking lot
development, site preparation, and other miscellaneous expenses must
be established and approved by Council.
LET IT ALSO BE RESOLVED THAT potential funding of park facilities development
associated with Parks Commission planning and priorities shall be set apart from the
Monticello Community Arena program and will not be affected in the event the
general referendum is successful.
Adopted this 22nd day of February, 1993.
Mayor
City Administrator
PROPOSED MONTICELLO COMMUNITY ARENA FUNDING PROGRAM
- City cost is Impacted by site revenue. Actual cost may fluctuate depending on revenues collected.
TAXIMPACT
Minimum' Maximum"
$70.000 home $8.45 $13.00
5100,000 home $9.22 $19.00
$160,000 home 13.93 $29.00 7 .,
Minimum Impact assumes revenues sufficient to pay $400.000 015850.000 bond.
Maximum Impact assumes revenues sufficient to pay operations expense only.
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
On $450,000 - 6% 15 years - $48,333
City portion - 80.59% -537,341
Township portion - 19.41% - $0,993
Ina
FUNDING SOURCE
COMMUNITY
FUND
SITE
SCHOOL
RAISING
REVENUE'
CITY'
TOWNSHIP
I I T
G.O. BOND
$850,000
50
$400,000
5382,655
$87,345
$0
EQUITY LABOR
550,000
550,000
$0
$0
$o
$0
CASH
DONATIONS
$100,000
$100,000
So
$0
$0
m
LAND COST
$100,000
$0
50
$0
50
$100,000
SITE IMP.
Z
2
3
3
(perking,
utilities, etc.)
TOTAL
$1,100,000
5150,000
$400,000
$382,555
$87,345
$100,000
- City cost is Impacted by site revenue. Actual cost may fluctuate depending on revenues collected.
TAXIMPACT
Minimum' Maximum"
$70.000 home $8.45 $13.00
5100,000 home $9.22 $19.00
$160,000 home 13.93 $29.00 7 .,
Minimum Impact assumes revenues sufficient to pay $400.000 015850.000 bond.
Maximum Impact assumes revenues sufficient to pay operations expense only.
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
On $450,000 - 6% 15 years - $48,333
City portion - 80.59% -537,341
Township portion - 19.41% - $0,993
Ina