Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-12-1996AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MfONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 12,1996 - 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 28, 1996. 3. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held November 6, 1996. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. b. Citizens commentslpetitions, requests, and complaints 6. Consent agenda. ca -rP A. Consideration of advertising for proposals for landfill services. 7. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of establishment of TIF District No. 1-21 (T. J. Martin, Inc.) 9. Consideration of a request for an amendment to a conditional use permit which would allow expansion and conversion of one manual car wash stall to an automated stall. Applicant, Investors Together. 10. Consideration of approving execution of quit claim deed to eliminate title problem - former Johnson Department Store warehouse. 11. Consideration of purchasing storm water pond easements for large pond in the Meadow Oak development. 12. Consideration of ratifying amendments to GMEF Loan No. 16 - Custom Canopy. 13. Consideration of reviewing bids and awarding contract for cleaning services. 14. Consideration of reviewing bids for purchase of pathway snow blower and snow removal poli, p��t 1 1'J li MINUTES SPELIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, November 6,19M - 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Brian Stumpf, Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson Members Absent: Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault A special meeting of the City Council was held for purpose of canvassing the results of the ballots voted in the November 5, 1996, municipal election. The total of votes cast for the offices voted upon were as follows: For Council Member Roger Carlson (4 -year term) 1,394 Bruce Thiclen 1,206 Tom Perrault 950 Michael Maki 422 For Mayor Bill Fair 1,203 Brad Fyle 1,124 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE TOTALS LISTED ABOVE TO BE CORRECT AND THE FOLLOWING TO BE THE OFFICIAL WINNERS OF THE ELECTION: FOR COUNCIL, 4 -YEAR TERMS: ROGER CARLSON BRUCE THIELEN FOR MAYOR: BILL FAIR Motion carried unanimously with Clint Herbst and Tom Perrault absent. SEE RESOLUTION 96-44. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Rick WolfstelI? City Adminis ator d Council Agenda - 1 V12196 6A. of Mixed mnr leiVal solid waste (garbage). W.S.) With the anticipated closing of the Wright County Compost Facility on February 15, 1997, the City of Monticello will have to contract for garbage disposal elsewhere. Our current contract with Vasko Rubbish Removal, now owned by Superior Services, Inc., requires that we direct the hauler to the nearest approved facility for the duration of the contract, which would be from February 15, 1997, to March 31, 1997. The nearest approved landfill is the landfill next to the Wright County Compost Facility owned by Superior Services, Inc. Our new specifications for garbage pickup and collection allow us to direct garbage disposal to the Wright County Compost Facility if it is operating, the Superior Services Landfill neat to the Compost Facility, or the Elk River Landfill at no additional cost. This allows us the flexibility of having competitive rates for disposal of our garbage. The bids for collection and hauling of our garbage are due Monday, November 18, 1996. The bid tabulation, along with the staffs recommendation for award, will be presented to the Council on the evening of November 26, 1996. We have negotiated a tipping fee of $38.66 per ton with Superior Services, Inc., to carry us through the interim period from February 15 to March 31, 1997. The current tipping fee at the Wright County Compost Facility is $40 per ton. We would like authorization to prepare a specification for garbage disposal services, advertise it in the local paper, and solicit proposals from Superior Services, Inc. for their landfill next to the Wright County Compost Facility and the Elk River Landfill located on Highway 169 in the city of Elk River. We would anticipate the disposal contract period length to be two years and would request that the proposals be returned by December 5, 1996, for review at the December 9, 1996, Council meeting. The first alternative is to approve the interim disposal contract with Superior Services, Inc., from February 15, 1997, to March 31, 1997, at $38.66' a ton and authorize staff to advertise and solicit proposals for garbage disposal services for a two-year period of time from April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1999, due on December 5, 1996, and to be reviewed by the City Council on December 9. 1996. 'N078: Includa S 10.66 variable stall mp fop hu not cMlicaNc ada ter. Council Agenda - 1V12/96 " 2. The second alternative would be not to solicit proposals for disposal services. C_ RTAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and the City Administrator that the City Council approve an interim contract for disposal of our garbage with Superior Services, Inc. at $38.66 per ton and to authorize advertisement and solicit proposals for future garbage disposal services as outlined in alternative #1. None. Council Agenda - 11/12196 OPEN PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing may be opened for comments and questions relating to modifying the Redevelopment Plan and establishing TIF District No. 1-21. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION Upon adoption of the resolution, the City Council affirms that the modification of the Redevelopment Plan and the establishment of the TIF Plan provide an incentive for redevelopment in the public purpose and accomplishes certain objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. Secondly, it affirms that the establishment of TIF District No. 1-21 was created in accordance with the Minnesota Statutes. The taring jurisdictions received a copy of the TIF Plan on October 10, 1996, satisfying the requirement for a 30 -day notice for written comments. On October 28, the City Council called for a public hearing date of November 12, 1996, 7 p.m. The public hearing notice appeared in the Mnnr;r.+lln Times, October 31 and November 7, satisfying the requirement for notice of public hearing. On November 6, the HRA adopted a resolution modifying the plan and establishing TIF District No. 1.21, and the Planning Commission adopted a resolution finding the modified plan and proposed TIF Plan to be consistent with the development or redevelopment plans of the city. TIF District No. 1.21 is an 11 -year Economic District. The district is being established to assist the developer, T.J. Martin, Inc. T.J. Martin, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with equal ownership between Eric, Carl, and Dennis Bondhus. T.J. Martin will lease to Lake Tool, Inc., a tool shop which builds and designs plastic injection molds. Lake Tool is located at 1248 East Oakwood Drive, and it is their intent to sell the existing tacility. The district will create jobs, increase the tax base, and discourage a business ftrom locating elsewhere. A letter from Marquette Bank Monticello notes the project would not occur without public assistance. Five new jobs will be Council Agenda - IV12196 created at a minimum annual wage of $40,000 per job. The proposed 9,000 sq R metal manufacturingtoi&ce facility and parcel has an Estimated Minimum Value of $270,000, and the Estimated Captured Capacity Value is $10,190. The first year of collection of tax increment is 1999. The TIF Plan budget or HRA indebtedness is $110,000. Remember, the budget amount is not the same as the level of assistanoe to the developer. Publicorp ma .cones the tax increment for the benefit of the HRA, which also minimizes the need to modify the budget in the future or upon project expansion. There will be no HACA Penalty to the city, as the HRA will make a 10% local contribution from non-restrictive funds (HRA General Fund). Lastly and upon adoption of the resolution, the County Auditor is requested to certify the original net tax capacity for TIF District No. 1-21, which is described as Lot 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition. Private Development Contract The Private Development Contract outlines the level of TIF assistance to the developer and the terms and conditions as agreed upon between the developer, T.J. Martin, Inc. and the HRA. Because the City is not a partner in the Private Development Contract, no action is required by the City Council. However, I thought it might be of interest to Council members to know the level of TIF assistance and some of the terms and conditions of the contract. Enclosed as Exhibit A is a copy of the HRA agenda requesting HRA approval and highlighting the terms and conditions of the contract. On November 6, the HRA approved entering into the contract and authorized the HRA Chair and Executive Director to execute the document. CLOSE PUBLIC IMARING Following comments from the public, the public hearing may be closed. Upon the conclusion of Council discussion, the Council members should consider the following alternatives. B. AIT .RNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. A motion to adopt the resolution modifying the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing TIF District No. 1-21 and approving and adopting the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan relating thereto, within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. Council Agenda - 11/12/96 A motion to deny adoption of the resolution. A motion to table any action. C_ STAFF RE , WMENDATION: Staff recommendation is Alternative 1l1. Staff finds the development project to be consistent with the development plans of the city and the development project meets the Statutory requirements and the local TIF policies. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A; R^solution for adoption: Public hearing notice; TIF Plan. Ekh:\a:I' Pk. HRA AGENDA NOVEMBER 6. 1996 4. Consideration W The Private Development Contract by and between T.J. Martin, Inc. and the HRA was prepared by Dan Greensweig, Kennedy & Graven. After review of the document by Koropchak, revisions were made. The developer received a copy of the document on November 5, 1996. The Private Development Contract normally is executed prior to City Council approval of the TIF District. Remember, the Contract is an agreement between the developer and the HRA defining the terms and conditions of the TIF assistance. Below are highlights of the contract. Section 3.3. Payment of Authority Expenses The "Administrative Costs' are pan of the 'n F project costs and not the responsibility of the developer. It is suggested the $5,000 cashier check be returned to the developer upon issuance of the building permit. Section 3.4. Land Acquisition and Site Improvements, The Authority will reimburse the developer, in no case, for more than 529,098 in Land Acquisition Costs and $8,802 in Site Improvement Costs. b) The developer to acquire the development property directly from its previous owner. Section 3.5 Financing of Land Acquisition and Site Improvements_ a) Land and site improvement costs will be paid, without interest, by the Authority out of Surplus Tax Increment. c) At least 30 days before becoming entitled to receive payment, the developer must submit a payment request certificate signed by its authorized representative stating the developer has paid land acquisition costs in at least the amount of 529,098 and she improvement costs in at least the amount of 58,802, and that no event of defauh has occurred and is continuing under this agreement, and the developer has received a certificate of completion. Upon receiving proper documentation, the Authority shall pay the developer $37,9(X) in surplus lax increment. Section 3.6 Authority Recoveq of Costs. As reimbursement to itself for the land acquisition and site improvement costs paid by the Authority, the Authority shall retain out of available tax increment $37,9(X) together with interest thereon at the rate of 9.25% per annum. HRA AGENDA NOVEMBER 6, 1996 a) Interest shall commence to accrue on the Closing Date. The first payment date shall be compounded semiannually on each February I and August 1 and added to the principal amount. b) Payment shall be kept by the Authority commencing August 1, 1999 and ending February 1, 2006 as per Exhibit C. c) 901/o of each payment is taken from available tax increment and 10°/u of each payment is to be taken from General Fund. Section 3.7. Job and Wage Covenants. a) By no later than two years after the date on which the developer receives any payment under this agreement, the developer shall cause to be created at the minimum improvements a net increase of at least five new jobs in Minnesota, each with a salary of at least $40,000 annually. The developer shall submit to the authority a written report by April 1 of each year during the terms of this agreement. b) If the developer faits to comply with any of the terms of section 3.7 (a), the developer shall repay to the Authority any payment made by the Authority to the developer pursuant to this agreement. Section 4.2. Construction Plans. a) Before commencement of construction of the minimum improvements, the developer shag submit to the Authority construction plans. ....... Approval may be based upon a review by the City's Building Official of the construction plans. Section 4.3 Commencement and Completion of Construction. Subject to unavoidable delays, the developer shall commence construction of the minimum improvements by December 15, 1996 and shall complete the construction of the minimum improvements by August I, 1997. Section 4.4 Certificate of ompletion. a) Promptly after completion of the minimum improvements in accordance with those provisions of the agreement, the Authority will firmish the developer with a certificate of completion. c) Minimum improvements shall be deemed to be complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the city for, and the opening for business of, the minimum improvements. Section 6.3 Tax Increment Deficiencies., If on any payment date the amount of the available tax increment is insufficient for the Authority to recover the payment it is due on that payment date, the developer shall pay to the Authority, within 10 days of written demand by the Authority, an amount equal to the difference between the amount of the 70J0111 HRA AGENDA NOVEMBER 6, 1996 payment that the Authority was entitled to recover out of available tax increment pursuant to the payment table an the amount it actually recovered. Section 6.5 Q"jf3 rup Lost Contribution- The Authority hereby covenants with the City that the Authority shall allocate sufficient General Funds to the payment in accordance with Section 3.6 a) hereof, it being the intention of the City and the Authority that such payment will constitute the "qualifying local contribution" necessary to exempt the TIF District from local government aid/homestead and agricultural credit aid penalties. Section 6.6 Assessment Agleement. a) Upon or after developer's acquisition of the development property and before commencement of construction of the minimum improvements, the developer shall, with the Authority, execute an Assessment Agreement, specifying an assessor's minimum market value for the development property. The amount of the minimum market value shall be S270.(K)O as of January 2, 1998 notwithstanding the progress of construction of the minimum improvements by such dates. Section 7.1 Einggcing, Before commencement of construction of the minimum improvements, the developer shall submit to the Authority evidence of one or more commitments for financing which, together with committed equity for such construction, is sufficient for the construction of the minimum improvements. Section 1 I.I Gotion to Terminate. This agreement may be terminated by either the Authority or the developer if closing on the conveyance of the development property from the City to the developer does not take place by December 15, 1996. B. Alternative Action• I . A motion to approve entering into the Private Redevelopment Contract by and between the HRA and T.J. Martin, Inc. and authorizing the Chairperson and Executive Director of the HRA to execute the contract on behalf of the NRA. Subject to minor modifications which may be necessary to accommodate the developer based upon approval of the modifications by the HRA Attorney. 2. A motion to deny entering into the Private Redevelopment Contract. 3. A motion to approve entering into the Private Redevelopment Contract subject to the following modifications. C. Recommendation. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. The developer may not like the time of TI F up -from TO r HRA AGENDA NOVEMBER 6, 1996 14 payment which is made upon issuance of the certificate of completion. In previous years, the up -front payment was made after 30% or 901/6 completion of the minimum improvements and site iatprovemem costs being paid upon evidence of completion and payment. I believe Marquette Bank would be OK with this proposal. D. SLDl rt10a Data, None. A copy of the Private Development Contract is available at the Office of the HRA. CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA Council member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MODWMG THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-21 AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO, WITHIN CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 . BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"). as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. It has been proposed that the City modify the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and it has been proposed that the City establish within the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 and approve and adopt the related Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor (the'TIF Plan") and the modified Redevelopment Plan therefor (the "Modified Redevelopment Plan'); all pursuant to and in accordance with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047 and 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended; all as reflected in the Modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The Council has investigated the facts relating to the Modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan. 1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be perfon ed prior to the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 and the adoption and approval of the proposed TIF Plan and Modified Redevelopment Plan relating thereto. including, but not limited to, notification of Wright County and School District No. 882 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21, a review of and written comment on the Modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by low. 1.04. Certain written reports (the'Repons") relating to the Modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and submitted to the Council and/or made a part of the City fila and proceedings on the Modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF SE Plan. The Reports include data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to (1) the "studies arid analyses' on why the new Tax Increment District meets the so-called 'but for' test; and (2) the bases for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a pan of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. Section 2. Findings for the Aoaroval of the Modified Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan. 2.01. The Council hereby fords tint the Modified Redevelopment Plan and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 and the TIF Plan, are intended and, in the judgement of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for redevelopment in the public purpose and accomptish certain objectives as specified in the Plan, which are hereby incorporated herein. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No, 1-21. 3.01. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 is an economic development district under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 12. 3.02. The Council furfur rinds that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value on the site (Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21) that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan, that the Modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 by private enterprise. 3.03. The City elects to make a qualifying local contribution in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, subd. 6(d), in order to qualify Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 for exemption from state aid losses set forth in Section 273.1399. 3.04. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 4. AVMvPl of The Modified Red velonment Finn Pnd TIE Plan. 4.01. The Modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, rue hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and "I be placed on file in the office of the City Administrator. 4.02. The City staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel ase authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plan and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for i/ I its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 14 4.03 The Auditor of Wright County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21, as described in the Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the City of Monticello is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a Hsi of all properties within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1- 21, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediate►y preceding the adoption of Otis resolution. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member , and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Dated: November 12. 1996 ATTEST: City Administrator (Sco) C Mayor 8G EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION p The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the District No. 1-21 is an economic development district as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 12. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 qualifies as an Economic Development District because the project is a manufacturing facility. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Counci4 would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market Hahn of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of= increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tar incrementsfor the rnaomum duration of the district Permitted by the plan A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 and the use of tax increments has been perforated as described above. Such analysis indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 and the use of tax increments (See Appendix B of the Tax Increment Financing Plan). A report and analysis describing the rationale for tax increment financing is on rite with the City. 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1.21 cogfonns to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Tax Increment Financing District No. I-21 is properly zoned and the tax increment financing plan will generally complement and serve to implement policies adopted in the City's comprehensive plan. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1-21 will afford madmurn opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The City's control of the site and utilities and the ability to provide assistance based upon specific needs of the developments will increase its ability to promote orderly and high quality construction within the City and stable employment for the conunurcty as a whole. M" les, Thursday. Oct. 31, 1996 IP AN -IAO 1 llTlilO SERVICES FOR THE ICELLO, MINNESOTA e City of Monticello. %MVII County, KnOt tote, id transportation of municipal toed waste from mn 01 W. ago. m„ w Monday, November 18, 1996, at the -oto at which the they will be publicly opined ;my Administrator. Cay of Madkelo, 250 East Mermota 65002, arid "be submitted on a ions for garbage pickup and hm6g. over proposed contract documents we on Na obtahrod by eorda ling City Hall of 250 East :. If arWiar's aleck, e«unoa cfnoclr o, bid boned avnou i not ten than 6% of the twgest orwal k reser". Oro rlplIf o rated arty or al bids, o vol to m Orly bk= and idler negotiate coo. h may be wdMrarn within INrly (70) BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL -RIA Viol stellar, City Administrator PUBLIC HEARING I public hearings will be hew by the City of ovInnber 0, 1 ODE, ar 7.00 P.m. h old MOnikels vers: I to Section 3•2 of the Monticello Zorug d forces wiq*I battle sight Unita Appecatlon: accepted on &Deva sub" and o0 pereoro mpco will be heard at This mooag. --Zommisslon will be subject to 0u.aWWal or I hoard on Monday. November 11, 1880, of 7 N5halo I PUBLIC HEARING ,I public hoahgo will be how the e City of tovnmbar 0, 1 M. of 7 00 P In in the MOmkOW ams. amendment to a conditional We Permit wsieh m of one manual eat wash stat to an outormal. :eland Plate Applicant: 4wool«/ acropled on above sublocts, and IIe15CnH duy!f:ls MR be haMd of .tis menOing ;Wn'nian .9 Ile c'rhinci lo Oe vat a hoard on Malay, November 11. IBRO, at 7 mak0lor Y 'PUBLIC HEARINGS nt puiik hearings will be hold by Na City of Vovomber 0, 1880, M 7.00 P m In Oe Mordlcabe mere 5-vyumco to the 30' building col -back require. Oder*. Applicant: David Pewcon, I accepted on above Subject/, and aD persons ubleche wig be hoard at Gia mppteg •ommtstion wd be anal uaoce oppoaad by on7 nv 7, 1PM. Appnrtb refuel be N wellhfa, slanted NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the 'Co nein of the Gty of Momleeflo, County or Wright Slate of Mimes la, .M! hold a oamuc hearing on November 12, 1998, m aro.imatety 7.00 p.m, In the City Cooncb rt In the Monticello Cit1yy IhaO. 25) East Broadway, Monticello. Minnesola, reiaug to the mot. locations to tie Rodevelopnwl Plan for mo Central Monbce0o Redervel.c mem Roject No. 1, and the establishment of Tax Increment Fha is ng District No. I •' I and the adoption of the Tax i cremem Fir relaEng 9mab (collectively, the 'Plans"). Pursuant to Minnesota Slatrm.. s .69.001 Ovough 469.047 and Minnesota Stables, Sections 469.174 to 468.178, inclusive, as amnded. Copies or the Plans are on No and available for public Inspection at the office of the City Administrator at City Hall. The property proposed to be bckded in Tao Increment Financing DisbWt No. I - 21 is located ar approximately Dundas Road and Dundas Cade wmNn the City of Monlfeeflo The proporties proposed to be kckdeJ in Tm Inaoment Firadrgt DlstrkY No. 1.21 encompass an property and ad)ecent and Interior roads and n5dm. of -way as found i dkarod by The parcel IdenWkabon number listed below: QOicel Number PID a 155-190.001010 ecertain Wna dlalloru, tax knaemard loom las I emem Finerclnnqp Dbbkl No. 1.21 may De spent on eligible met within am boundaries of Central Montlea0o Redevelopment Project No. 1 as ahewnl on one attached map. An Hassled parwrd may spp0or at Gia hn0arkip and presmf OlOk view/ watt y a prior o the moetlrlg In wrllang. Deed: Oct. 26, 16; til' order of the Qty Council of the City of Momkaao, MWe1e/otn. -Rick Wollstaler, City Adminlsbator (Oct. 01 a Nov. 7, 1888) NOTICE OF ELECTION CITY NOTICE IB HEREBY GIVEN ENN 81� MOlITICELLO opR. f dty epro on ofill voting few In ae dry of Mon0es0o. M4Sesoro, on November 5, 1998 for aIle prrPaao d wteg Ori Ca1ta00ios o 60 ore lotorinp oaken: ktoyor la o 2yea Iwm Carnehnomber for o .-yeas lam CWMboember tor a a•yees Nim Tho polling place for cad election shed be h city hat, 250 East Broadway. Montkoda Minnesota. DOiwom the holm of 7 /.m, and 9 P in. -Rick Y+alfataser. City Admkistiator (Oct. 31. 1896) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE 18 HEREBY GIVEN that Public hesYgs will be hold M tine Gly of MontWfmo Plarving Commkclon on Novamba 6, t 890, at 7.00 to m In Oct Monticello Cay Ho to consider the Idlnwkg m ile#$: CO"Sklonariafn 01 0 1 sl l« a 0' volance to the 0' ckWway seTbace require, mom Location Lot 14, Block 2. Applicant: Robs" Roil When Ord as IoaWrelre will be oacptod on above nuhiecto. and all pmoon doab0ng to be hood on refinanced cub)" will be head at Wo Note, Oaclokm of Da Planning Com"alon will be Ileal cions appealed per only knaviduol by D a m on Thursday, Nov. 1, 1008 A muH be in on", a{oey and must stele roaaono to appeal I1 appeal le dad, dna 1ty Cavell ahold jay oy+Pod on Novembw 11, 1090, m 7 P M. d ala Moracuo Cay Hal. -gory Anderson, Zorwg AOmbieo0tar (Oct. 24 0 01, 1896) NOTICE OP Put9uc ACCURACY TEST NOTICE 18 HEREBY GIVEN, that M orgko0o Towmcfip w0 be Mata g Blob ®Oe vft wan machine on Gatuday. THECOROOSSOMOFTMOEP REV ON THE PROPOSI INDEPENDE MONTICI INTRODUCTION The Commissioner of the Deparb provide a review and commend or, trict may net conduct a reforena and commem The sc eol district has sublditec requirements set forth In Mvmes requires the Wowing Information a) the geographic mea likely I School Z Mies of the ricl; b)) tine people Proposed 10 he c) tire reasonably mtiapaled 1 d) a 60SCOM of Oe prop' e.pondrhees contempinled effectiveness of conoucuo e) a desalplla' of existing in utilization of existing facdibei available villin fie school area to be seed. hKkkikV Ings; and the anticipated air Services: g 9h a etsd torch of 0 p) ho r of a prof hove been /sahtlshed « 1 h) the avadablNty and marvel mated dela to begin aro cr© 9errydnsegfepationiftO m /onable menu; p an relLob"hlp of the prop needs of the Mee: and k) Oe offaN of fie proposed The ad dd board Shat publkh b. newspapm of the act asaM i a roferenam for bads Of solicit; oppreva Is lapured to proceed v war. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED The Momkeoo School District se Mph soled to grades 9.12, rmr ore exiled la grades 6 9, famed elementary stied, make todaro' ate Improvomorda throughpul it* �partuytles lor community u W The rrw hqv salad will eccomn lords. The tednolopy Impfovon et enc" pfedo larval, =11=30 4 a hlova OceOn to Inc Improvemam/ will not tidy MAN bona reeds of pro andante, lou on the resdnns at the aablcl The oto cost of INS poled Is S' pending voter approval n Dean This poled was net quality the d 6ldules, sector 124 05, euhdM REVIEW AND COMMENT OIAI BoaW upon IN Dcpmtinem'a n lion are aha pertinent hfami Fomleee 6 Low". Oct Came, pr00ppootted to be odu ADDITIONAL ave tMAT ION IS Parsons dmhlq m 11,11' nl hdd Weol Metria supofkllawkrd'a , - Bruce II It"Mon. Conwmxlwoi (Oct, 01 0 Nov T. 10%) NOIIC NOTICE IS IIEREBY GIVE[ Monticello 14avwv0 Comminldl City CNm Uel tOlOwin o request between principal and occesaa Applicant: MM OW oral Wribma ry w dofdnbg to be Hoard on r/feron Nolo: Decisions of the Pom krdividua by 8 a m. on 111krs& and must talo Pomona or ap appeal on Monday. Novaftbor, 1 Drq%f as of October 23, 1996 Draft for HRA & Planning Commission PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-21 (an economk development tax Increment flnandng district) CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: November 12, 1996 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2930 Norwest Building 90 South Seventh Strut Minneapolis. Minnesota 53002.4100 (612)339.8291 TABLE OF CONTENTS �- SECTION II TAX INCREMENT PLAN FOR THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.21 Page XXI-1 Subsection2l-I. Forward ..................................................... Page XXI-I Subsection 21-2. Statutory Authority ............................................ Page)OU-1 Subsection 21-3. Statement of Objectives ......................................... Page XXI-1 Subsection 21.4. Redevelopment Plan Overview ................................... PageXXI-I Subsection 21.5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 .......................... Page XXI-2 Subsection 21.6. Classification of Tax Increment Financing District .................... Page XXI-2 Subsection 21.7. Property To Be Acquired ........................................ Page XXI-2 Subsection 21-8. Estimate of Project Costs ........................................ Page XXI-3 Subsection 21-9. Bonded Indebtedness ........................................... Page XXI-3 Subsection 21.10. Sources of Revenue ............................................ Page XXI-3 Subsection 21.1 I. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate ............................... Page XXI4 Subsection 21.12. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Volue/Increment ................ Page XX1 4 Subsection 21• :-. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 ................ Page XXI.S Subsection 21-u4. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ...................... Page XXl-5 Subsection 21.15. Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 ............ Page XXI.6 Subsection 21.16. Administrative Expenses ........................................ Page XXI.6 Subsection 21-17. Limitation of Increment ......................................... Page)0(11-6 Subsection 21-18. Use of Tax Increment .......................................... Page XXI-7 Subsection 21.19. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ......................... Page XXI.8 Subsection 21.20. Excess Tax Increments ......................................... Page XXI-8 Subsection 21.21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .................... Page XXI-8 Subsection 21.22. Assessment Agreements ........................................ Page XXI-8 Subsection 21.23. Administration of District ....................................... Page XXI.9 Subsection 21.24. Financial Reporting Requirensenu................................. Page XXI.9 Subsection 21.23. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ........................... Page =-10 Subsection 21.26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ..................... Page XXl- I I Subsection 21.27. State Tax Increment Financing Aid ............................... Page XXI- I I Subsection 21.28. County Road Costs ........................................... Page XXI.12 Subsection 21.29. Economic Development and Job Crewion .......................... Page XXI.12 Subsection 21.30. Summary ................................................... Page XXI-12 APPENDIX A BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ANDTAX INCREMENT FINANCING D ........................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B CASH FLOWS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.21 .................................... A-2 APPENDIX C MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) ............. A-3 In SECTION 11 v TAX INCREMENT PLAN FOR THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.21 Subseetion21-1. Forward The City of Monticello C'City"). Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority ("HRA") staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite and create Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 ( "District 1-21"). an economic development tax increment financing district, in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project. Subsection 21.2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City and the HRA have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended, (the "TIF Act") and Minnesota Statute}, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, indusive, a; amended ("the HRA Act") to assist in financing eligible activities related to these development needs. This Section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan fo. 'Nstrict No. 1-21. Otter relevant information is contained in the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Rede%Atipment Project. Subsection 21.3. &atement of 0hleetives, District No. 1.21 currently consists of 1 parcel of land. Resent plans on the site include the construction of a 9.000 square foot manufacturing facility for T. J. Martin. Inc., to be built in late 1996 or early 1997. The construction of the manufacturing facility includes certain public improvements, a land write down and site costs that without the use of tax increment would make the project financially infeasible. The activities contemplated in the present Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified economic and redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the tare increment district. District No. 1.21 is expected to achieve irony of the objectives set forth in the section "Statement of Objectives" in the Redevelopment Plan. These objectives include, but are not limited to: 1. Enhance the tax base of the City and the State. 2 Promote and secure additional employment opportunities within the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project and for the residents of the City and the surrounding area, thereby improving living standards, reducing unemployment, and the lou of skilled and unskilled labor and other human resources in the City. 3. Encourage the expansion of local businesses. Suhsrctlan 21.4. Redevelooment Mint Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - The City or HRA may acquire all parcels within the property located within District No. 1.21. 2. Relocation - Complete relocation services are available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117 and other relevant nate and federal taws. 3. Upon approval of the developer's plan relining to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to the developer selected propenies that they nuy acquirewithin District No. 1.21 or may lease land or facilities to the developer. 4, The City or HRA may perform or provide for some of all necessary acquisition, eonstmction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public meets work within District No. 1.21. Tax Increment Flnancing Ran for Tax Increment Financing Dlslrlcl No. 1.21 Page XXI Subsection 21 .5. L.eeal Description of Property in Tax Increment Flnancine District No.- 11 District No. 1-21 encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by parcel numbers listed below: PID 0155-060-001010 See the map in Appendix A for further information on the location of the District No. 1.21. Snhsectfon 2141. Classification of Tax Increment Flnandma Di met No. 1.21 The City and the HRH, in determining the teed to create a tax increment firawing district in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, fed that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 to be established is an economic development district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 12 as drfined helnw• "Economic Development District" means a type of tar increment financing district which consists of any project, or portion of a project, not meeting the requirem ens found in the definition of redevelopment district. renewal and renovation district, soils condition district• mined underground space development district. or housing district, but which the authority fends to be in the public interest because: (1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state or municipality; or (2) it will result in increased employment in the suite; or (3) if will result in preservation and enhancement of the tar base of the state. Revenue derived from tax increment from an economic development district rrtay not be used to provide improvements. loans, subsidies, grants, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments consisting of buildings and ancillary facilities, if more than 15 percent of the buildings and facilities (determined on the basis of square footage) are used for a purpose other than: (1) the manufacturing or production or tangible personal propeny, including processing resulting in the change in condition of the property: (2) warehousing, storage, and distribution of tangible personal property, excluding retail sales; (3) research and development related to the activities lined in clause (1) or (2): (4) telemarketing if that activity is the exclusive use of the property; (5) tourism facilities; or (6) space necessary for and related to the activities listed in clauses (1) and (5). The District qualifies as it wilt include o manufacturing facility. Subsection 21.7. Property Tn Be AcaalmA The City at HRA may acquire any parcel within District No. 1.21 including interior and adjacent street rights of way. I. Any properties identified for acquisition tray be acquired by the City or HRA only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities: carry our IoM acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the rises and objectives set forth in this plan. 2. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired: The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedica i n. mndermration or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this Tax Increment Flnsrrcing Plan. Such acquisitiaa will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related cow. Ties Increment Rotund ag Plan for Tax Inc saw Financing Diaries No, 1.11 Paye XXI-2 FA4 Subsedion 21.8. Estimate of Proleet C y Currently under consideration for the Tac Increment Financing District No. I-21 is a proposal to aid in the development of a manufacturing facility. The City has determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. Estimates of cost within the District are subject to change. No more than 20 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to public improvements outside the boundaries of the District but within the boundaries of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project (including administrative costs. which are considered to be spent outside of the District), subject to the limitation on assistance to facilities other than manufacturing and tourism as described in this Plan. Uses of Funds TOTAL Land acquisition 30,000 Sewer, water and road improvements 20.000 Site improvements 10,000 Interest 40,000 Administrative 10.000 TOTAL 110,000 In addition to the budget listed above, tax increment may be used to pay for interest and capitalized interest on any for of indebtedness incurred in connection with activities in the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Estimated costs associated with Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 arc subject to change. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed $1 10,000. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2, no more than 20% of the tax increment will be expended on activities outside of District No. 1.21 but within Cenral Monticello Redevelopment Project No 1. SuMectlon 21.9. Bonded Indebtedness The City and HRA reserve Use right to incur bonded indebtedness, including internal borrowing, of S 110.000 as a result of the Tax Increment Financing Plan. The City and HRA intend to finance the initial activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Plan by paying for up to $110.000 of project costs from HRA funds, to be reimbursed by Tax Increment over the life of the project. Additional increment may be used to pay interest expense on any tax increment bonds, pay-as-you-go contract or note, or internal borrowing. Suhsrctlmt2l•10. SgIl"ofRevenut Public improvements cow, land write down, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Estimate of Costs will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments, nate grams or loans, or other private equity or financing or other swrces of revenue. Tac Increuwat Financing Plan for Tax Increment Floancin s Maki Na 1.21 Pate XXSP Sources of Funds TOTAL Tax Increment $100.000 Interest 0 Other sources 10.000 TOTAL $110A00 Subsection 21-I1, Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 7 and Section 469.177, Subdivision I, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for District No. 1.21 will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 1996 for taxes payable 1997. The original tax capacity of the property will be 5630. Pursuant to Section 469.177, solid. I(f). the ONTC is to be increased each year by a factor which represents the average percentage increase in the estimated market value of all property in the TIF District during the five year period before certification of the TIF District (assessment yeas 1992 through 1996). As District No. 1-21 is located on land which has been tax-exempt for the previous five years, this requirement does not apply to District No. 1.21. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subds. I and 2, of the TIF Act, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 1998) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of a change in tax exempt property within the Tax Increment Financing District. reduction or enlargement of the Tax Increment Financing District or changes in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City. The County Auditor shall certify in each year alter the date the ONTC was certified (beginning in payment year 1998), the amount the ONTC has increased or decreased as a result of: I. change in tax exempt status of property- 2. roperty2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. change in the use of the property and classification; or S. change in state law governing class rates. The original local tax rate for District No. 1.21 will be the local tax rate for 1997 taxes. As the Pay 1997 tax rates were unavailable at the time this plan was prepared. the Pay 1996 rates ore being used as an estimate. The Pay 1996 tax rate for District No. 1.21 is 1.10381. SnMectMn 2l•12 6stltn strd Caaturcd NdMx Connelly Volur/lncrtment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 Subdivision 4 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision I, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of District No. 1.21, within the Central Monticello Redevelupment Project upon completion of the project, will annually approximate 510,190, or 511,268 in tat increnrtent. The City and HRA request IOD percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 1999. The project ax capacity listed is the base tax capacity waren the project scans, which is the original tax capacity of $630 inflated to the appropriate tax capacity for when the project commences. Estimated Project Tax Capacity 10,820 Original Tax Capacity �1Q Estimated Captured Tax Capacity 10.190 Tax Increarat Flnanclag Plan for Tax Increment Flaming DUMix Na 1.21 Page XXI.4 ro Subsection 21.11 Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 t, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 479.175, Subdivision 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of District No. 1.21 must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, subdivision I(b), the duration of District No. 1.21 will be 9 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the HRA. The City hereby waives receipt of any partial tax increment to be received in 1998 and therefore anticipates that the date of receipt by the HRA of the first tax increment will be approximately July 1999. Thus, it is estimated that District No. 1-2 1. including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate in November 2007 at the latest, with the last full yew of increment collected in 2006, or when the goals of the Plan have been met. The City and HRA do reserve the right to decertify District No. 1-21 prior to the legally required date. The estimated int on other taxing jurisdittions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of District No. 1.21. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is f0 to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fan that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fan that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the following estimated impact of District No. 1-21 would be as follows if the "but for' test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE ENTITY'S 1995/96 CAPTURED TAX PERCENT OF TAXING TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY CTC TO ENTITY JURISDIc.TION CAPACITY (CTC) TOTAL Wright County 53.630,869 10,190 0.019% ISD No. 882 19,237,501 10.190 0.053% City of Monticello 15.792,922 10,190 0,065% Hospital District 26,334.087 10.190 0.039% IMPACT ON TAX RATES ENTITY 1995/96 PERCENT CTC POTENTIAL TAX RATE OF TOTAL TAXES Wright County .29499 26.69% 10,190 3,006 ISD No. 882 .60110 $4.36% 10,190 6,125 City of Monticello .18509 16.74% 10,190 1,886 Hospital District '02463 21M VIM 2n TOTAL 1.10581 I00.OD% 11.268 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the 1995/Pay 1996 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 1996 figures. The tax rate at which District No. 1.21 will be certified will be the Pay 1997 tax rates which were unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared. Tax Increment k1nanclaS Plan for Tax Increment Flaandrra District No 1.31 Pope XXI.S T 1 Subsection 21.1,.q yHoifications to Tax Increment Finan In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or Tax Increment Financing District; increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; increase in the portion of the captured tax capacity to be retained by the HRA; increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures; or designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment financin_ district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the county auditor. Modifications to District No. 1.21 in the forth of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the Plan. If District No. 1-21 is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of section 469.174, subdivision 12 trot be documented. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcels from the projector district and (2) (A) the current tax capacity of the parcels eliminated from the district equals or exceeds the tax capacity of those parcels in the district's original tax capacity or (B) the authority agrees that, notwithstanding Section 469.177, subdivision 1, the original tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current tax capacity of the parcels eliminated from the district. The authority must notify the county auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of a district or a project area. v In accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.174, Subdivision 14, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176. Subdivision 3 administrative expenses means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of lard or amounts paid to contractor or oilers providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the mal property in the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons raiding or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fund o reserve for, or sell at *discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.178. Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. No tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for the Tax Increment Financing District which exceed ten percent of rhe total tax increment expenditures authorized by the Tax Increment Financing Plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 4h, txx increments may be used to pay for the county's actual administrative expenses incuned in connection with District No. 1.21. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. 177, Subdivision 11, the county treasurer shall deduct an amount equal to 0.1 percent of any increment distributed to an authority or municipality and to county treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund. Sutmectlon 21.17. Untitatlmh of IncrtMIM Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. I, of the TIP Act. no ax increment shall be paid to the HRA for the Tax Increment Financing District aha three (3) yeah from the date of certification of the Original Net Tai Capacity value of the taxable property in the Tax Increment Financing District by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) years period: (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 469.178, or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuaat to Section 469.152 to 469.165, or (b) tM City or HRA has acquired property within the Tax Increment Financing District, or (c) the City or HRA has constructed or caused to he constructed public improvements within the Tax Increment Financing District. Tat Increrrrm Fhvmdng Plan for Tax Increment Fhuncing Dturlct Na 1.71 Page XXI.6 M The bonds must be issued, or the City or HRA must acquire property or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by approximately November 1999. The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the Tax Increment Financing District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt smite fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176. Subdivision 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or rater systems. has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax incrementfinancing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax incrementfinancing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original tax capacity of the tar increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel tubsequenth• commences demafition. rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. the authority shall cenify to the county auditor in the annual disclosure report that the activity hos commenced The county auditor shall certify the tax capacity thereof as most recently cenified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor mutt enforce the provisions of this subdivision. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements are limited to 11) construction or opening of a new street. (1) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an, existing street. The City or HRA or o property owner must improve parcels within District No. 1.21 by approximately November 2000. The City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in District No. 1.21 for the followins purposes: to pay the principal of and interest on bonds used to finance a project; to finance, or otherwise pay the capital and administration costs of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project pursuant to the Redevelopment Project Act; to pay for project costs as identified in the budget; to finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in Section 469.176, Subd. 4, of the Tax Increment Act; To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to the City or for the benefit of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project by the Developer, To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance, credit enhancement, or other security guaramccing the payment when due of principal and interest on the Tax Increment Bonds or bonds issued pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Plan or pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C and Minnesota Statutes. Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or both; and To accumulate or mvnmin it reserve securing the payment when due of the principa! and interest on the Tax Increment Bards or bonds issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 462C and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or both. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by Section 469.176, subd. 4, of the TIF Act. Tat Increment Firtaaias Plan fm Tax Increment Flnsnclno District Na 1.21 Pqa XXI-7 w Tax increments generated in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 will be paid by Wright County to the City of Monticello for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. Such funds will be spent in accordance with this Tax Increment Financing Plan. Subsectlen 21.19. Notification of Prior P'lpnned Improvements The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of Tax Increment Financing District enlargement with a listing of all properties within the Tax Increment Financing District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during to eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan by the municipality pursuam to Section 469.175, Subd. 3, of the TIF Act. The County Auditor shall increase the original value of the Tax Increment Financing District by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 4, the City or HRA has reviewed the area to be included in District No. 1.21 and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City or HRA. if the building permit had been issued within the 18 month period preceding approval of the plan by the City or HRA, the county auditor shall increase the original tax capacity of the district by the valuation of the improvements for which the building permit was issued. Subsection 21.20, Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, the City or HRA shall use the excess amount to do any of the following: I. prepay the outstanding bonds: 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor: 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; or 4, return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity rate as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subd. 2. In addition, the City or HRA may. subject to the limitation set forth herein, choose to modify the tax increment plan as described in Section 11, in order to finance additional public costs of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project SnMection 21.21. Reaufrements for Aareirmcnts with the DeveloM The City or HRA will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance -kith the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the City or NRA to demonstrate the conformance of the development with city plans and ordinances. The City or HRA may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to Section 469.176. Subd. 5, of the TIF Act, no more than ten percent (1055), by acreage, of the property to he acquired in the Tax Increment Financing District as set forth in the Tax Increment Financing Plan shall at any time be owned by the City or HRA as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued purwam to Section 469.178, of the TIF Act. without the City or HRA having, prior to acquisition in excess of ten percent (10%) of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development or of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the City or HRA should the development not be completed. smentrarerment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8, the City or HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the Tax Increment Financing District which essablishes a minimum Tat Incremeni fluncing Plats for Ta Intremms Financing Dtstrkt \o. 1.21 Pages X XI.8 gs market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of District No. 1.21. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements constructed. review the market value previously assigned to the lard upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appear, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 22i Administration of DWrIdNrN t.1 7N 1(1-21 Administration of District No. 1-21 will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA of the City of NIonticelio Subsection 2L.71 financial Reporting Rewirements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.175, Subdivisions 5. 6, and 6(a); the City or HRA must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts with the State Auditor, the county board. county auditor, and school board. Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 5, of the TIF Act the City or HRA must file an annual disclosure report for the Tax Increment Financing District The repon shall be filed with the county board, county auditor, school board, and the State Auditor on or before July 1 of each year. The report to be filed by the City or HRA shag include the following information: the amount and source of revenue in the tat increment account; the amount and purpose of expenditures from the account; the amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest. on any outstanding bond indebtedness; the original net tax capacity of the Tax Increment Financing District; the captured net tax capacity retained by the City; the captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; the tax increment received; any additional informtion necessary to demontsaate compliance with the Tax Increment Financing Plan. Section 469.175. Subd. 5, of the TIF Act also provides that an annual statenrcnt showing the tax increment received and expended in that year. the original net tax capacity, captured net tax capacity, amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness, the amount of the district's increment& paid to other governmental bodies, the amount paid for administrative costs, the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located outside of the district, and any additional information the City or HRA deems necessary shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.175, Subd. 6, of the TIF Act, the City or HRA must annually submit to the State Auditor, on or before July 1, a financial report which shall: provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public funds in the district; permit comparison and reconciliation with the City's accounts and financial reports; permit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of the tax increment district, including a singlo district that is pan of a multi district project or that is funded in pan or whole through the use of a development account funded with tax increments from other districts or with other public money; and be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial report must also include the following: the original act tax capacity of tho district; the captured net tax capacity of the district, including the amount of any captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; Tax Increment ilntncing Plan for Tax Increment FlnsncIng Diprlct No. 1.21 Page XXI 9 for the reporting period and for the duration of the district, the artaunt budgeted under the Tax Increment Financing Plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least. the following categories: a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase: b. site improvements or preparation costs; C. installation of public utilities, parking facilities, streets, roads, sidewalks, or other similar public improvements; d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the City or HRA; C. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference purposes, or other similar public improvements; and for properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the authority and the price paid by developers; the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately financed improvements or other qualifying costs, other t,'tan thou reported under clause (3), that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in District No. 1-21. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.175, subdivision 6a, the City must also annually report to the State Auditor before or on July 1 of each year the following amounts for the entire City: the total principal amount of rhondefeased tax increment financing bonds that ate outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year. and the total annual amount of principal and interest payments that we due for the current calendar year on (1) general obligation tax increment financing bonds and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. and for each tax increment financing district within the City: the type of tax increment financing district; the date on which the district is required to be decertified: the amount of any payments and the value of in-kind benefits, such as physical improvements and the use of building space, that am financed with revenues derived from increments and are provided to another governmental unit (other than the municipality) during the preceding calendar year; the tax increment revenues for axes payable in the current calendar year; whetter the tax increment framing plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended outside of the ax increment financing district; any additional information that the State Auditor may require. Copies of this report must also be provided to the county and school district boards. The reasons and facts supporting the finds for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1.21 as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: Finding that District No. 1.21 is an economic development district as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174. Subdivision 12. The District qualifies as an Economic Development District because the project is a manufacturing facility. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur wkly through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of sex increment financing would be less than the in-rease in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District as pemltted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 aid the use of tat increments has been performed as described above. Such Tax Increment Financing Ran for Tax Increment FlnuwlM Dhtrki No. Ill Page %X1.10 9/1 V analysis indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (leu the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 and the use of tax increments (See Appendix B). A report and analysis describing the rationale for tax increment financing is on file with the City. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1-21 conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 is properly zoned and the tax increment financing plan will generally compliment and serve to implement policies adopted in the City's comprehensive plan. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1.21 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project by private enterprise. The City's control of the site and utilities and the ability to provide assistance based upon specific needs of the developments will increase its ability to promote orderly and high quality construction within the City and stable employment for the community as a whole. Additional findings arc set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City. Subsectlon 21-26. Other Limitntlom on the Use of Tnx Increment Genml Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public capital and administration costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.124 through 469.134. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction. renovation, operation or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality. county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government; this provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived form tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons arca used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. Pooling Limitations. At least 80% of tax increments from the Tax Increment Financing District must be expended on activities in the Tax Increment Financing District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 20:b of said tax increments may be expended. Brough a development fund at otherwise, on activities outside of the Tax twmircnt Financing District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the Tax Increment Financing District. f uve Ycar Limitation on Commitment of Tait Incrcmentx. Tax increments derived from the Tax Increment Financing District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 80% test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in Minnesota Stmwes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 3, has been udslkd; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the Tax Increment Financing District. 80% of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously commitment expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176), subdivision 4. SuMrctlnyl-27. State TAIn rermntDorind Ald Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 273.1399, for tax increment financing districts for which certification was requested after April 30. 1990, o municipality incurs o reduction in state tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) applied to the municipality's Local Cwvcmment Aids (LGA) first and. Homestead and Agricultural Aid (HACA) second, in an Amount equal to o formula based upon the equalized qualifying captured tax capacity (QCTC) of the Tax Increment Financing District. Tots Increment 41auscing Plan tar Tax larremem Finandrq 01arict No, 1.31 Pace XXI.1 I sV Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 273.1399, Subdivision 6, for tax increment financing districts certified after June 30, 1994. the City or HRA may choose an option to the LGA-HACA penalty. A tax increment financing district is exempt if the City elects at the time of approving the tax increment financing plan to make a qualifying local contribution. To qualify for the exemption in each year, the City or HRA must make a qualifying local contribution to the project of a certain percentage of annual tax increment. The local contribution for a economic development district is 10 percent. The maximum local contribution for all districts in the City in any year is limited to two percent of the City's net tax capacity, after which point the City or HRA most nuke an additional contribution equal to the lesser of (a) 0.25 percent of the City's net tax capacity or (b) 3 percent of tax increment revenues for that year. The amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the authority or municipality, such as the general fund. a property tax levy or a federal or a state grand -in -aid which may be spent for general government purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments or developer payments. The local contribution must be used to pay project costs and cannot be used for general government purposes. The City or HRA elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA-HACA penalty. The City or HRA will pay for costs of the project described in this Plan, in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of annual tax increment for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21, subject to the limitations described above. in any year in which such amount exceeds 2 percent of the City's net tax capacity. Such contribution may be inform of either lump sum or annual payments (in addition to tax increment payments) towards costs identified in this Plan or other costs related to that development. The contribution may also be made in the form of public ittmrovements financed by the City or other unit of government with unrestricted funds. Pursuant to Minnesota Stances, Section 469.175, Subdivision I o. the county board may require the authority to pay for all or pan of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next live years under a capital improvement plan or other county plan The improvements outlined in the Plan serve as notice to the county that the development of the project will be assisted %ith tax increment. In the opinion of the City and consultants, the proposed development will have little or no impact upon county roads. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads. it must notify the Authority within thirty days of receipt of this plan. To the extent applicable, the City or HRA agree tocomply with Minnesats Statutes, Section 1161.991, which stores that a business receiving stain or local government assistance for economic development or job growth purposes. including tax increment 0nancing, mew create a net increase in jobs and meet wage level goals in Minnesota within two yews of receiving assistance (See Appendix C), SObsrctlnn 21.3(1. Summnry The City of Monticello b establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 to preserve and enhance the tax base and provide cmploymcm opportunities for the residents of the City. Ther Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 was prepared by Ehlers and Associates, Inc.. 2950 Norwest Center. 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402-4100, telephone (612) 339-8291. Tu Increment F9nsncing Plan for Tax In civaseat Flaanclag Dlurks Na 1.21 Page XXI.12 8� APPENDIX A BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.21 A-1 9x l a fR c NO. 8d r { tri � •�i M / �I% ••`'` 7 l/ City of Monticello County of Wright � �'�. I•' '� pty�Lld :: I .S'�•�� a' „�aS:., �...'�.. u^'I :SSi..°> State of Minnesota OQ :`tom \\' —• Proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 'a '�' _`I :'-w. .�. \. \t„�7 1 C� i I 1 :.; r .!• y..: .• n : 1:' 1" 8I 1�' ,,—.�Yr...�•'1� ('� '`l� •fit\*: ••= tial'• t .ti Iv � ` r �.•,�• '; �''r� i; .;.� Zji�\I• \\\�c�`,\'4r,t''*�,�� T � •tom•. �'^: •.r.• �.r,.�'?' �t .+ lt: _ -•. mli- , :�i t '"ti Y.• t ry i, I Ste.' �' 's. ,. -1'.• * .*•n T; ,, 'C. �' * 1+`-•/'L t �.1.. y� ' . .. E rr L• w.`•1+Jr —'mac: {� { ` ""tat .. "� •. • t 4' ' .--_' 1 (=J "t t \ ^ 3 .• '.a_ I Y-' xtrrs.n.' a. trr..,,nf:'•.. , .:v::......»,...:r^ci,.a .T•.I.r,t?n.,r,...,�.t •tint.4«I-.�tMa•I::1��«,11iwi.1' }�._ n{I'll , 4• f. '.4% t i .' r .. "' -il•tt•t #r.•11'«••uwta . r \� 1 '� .. .. \ i•:. .. «t- .W14.•O•••OI •JA•nd . s.,.. I • :-.+ -. _..,,tl: ' ;a,�'�:. i \ I 4 r i «a 1 r+Srl• el � r1�, r. .;.. i ...::��t•• A6 l� .I t,r � .r �+-.,,. ; ♦� • rl �' «.► «ti$••tl•�i n• .4 "of o.••r•ro.••t I, "i��.l---�+{-�,'• ,r'« rrMIM•t1i1-t 0•Ii«•tl1•Mw ''♦ { •'-'•I�''i,� ��\ .; C• � w. M �., t'wi •\ti,\w ,} Ci• i � •r'i-�1•�}}.ahee �i Mw•-YI.•1 •yI ! - ! .1. 'tM• ! r•«ot.•,~ i,,;.`a t't,l r � ' ��......,_..t1.- .Ar �,•001 tG•4u• -""t� ,»� i r: `:� —«Y °ht «t ''ty n '• • tt ' rim' � ( • . t 7 M •.t• 4•'r�, �• i" '"�"">.n.r,Yijl �«�'' `~ •7•t' _ t7 I u,4 t•.rt` •,.,: v w ...... .t.�+� r' It ''1'- ♦ 11 .. � ���:T>�i1r't�nnl�ww n....a .t= Annexation Slucly 1- "'' _. :,;,.�.,-.; ;,:r,,-�• ,,,.a;ir`; City of Monticello+. .«�' .. n _ '� • f <<•.• �l gra i . P�.t'AVt'1•CDur11Y '1.17tlttttOiD wt....i` i IJ r /"�j� .- t i'a�r! •-1ti.• ,... I ti r t -,vw �y ..tlY.r i I � i ±`.. «,dr: i•e'1._.- ;`��ry.:.. 111�� 4 �'' 1��j �' . ttlltlny Zoning i U': , $, I wir- .i �.���i a•a••••���1,•.',i••r��,•r •/••�••i�i••� •n s.rr,+w{3.• •i��•' r • • l t� 7r ��U :: I 1 `"•.�3 r•r a t+ Jrii%l I 1� ''�� _' .t� •/rl j?1� .L +f`i ` .i fl fi:«:lj ••t l.`. iti j1) }��y{'-$`ny_�J^,.p!a� at•1 r �N•.Mw,M« • f. ��• • �• �`• . '��• . i •'1.t.�• �'� 1 i, '� MY.•i ir•'VS- ® �,,,,' =aimsw-� City of Monticello ' —City 11wItt Central Monticello County of Wright //�/ Redevelopment area Redevelopment Project State of Minnesota APPENDIX B CASH FLOWS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-21 A•2 Sffr *23M aty of 11er4LLM- Ta Yr t om mm.`I`Ame tka. ,\ Pepal 1 MoreUs" Vd4. Est. --"Poq T.I.P. CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS 949.000 b0lebon Rate: Pnora Vsks of Tu N rem—, 0.0000% ParAVo.Go traaau Rab: r pn.no 6.50% Tu Eatenelat Rab: VYIs L6yy b 0¢ta WtAou Tif 110.661% Par M ' RASE VALUE INFORMATION 0r6wwtra 160.9]66 11C too CO Grass Pacwe No Parable Vakra urs v.kb Year Pro 1166460O010100olo kbdmVekr 21p00 100.00% 21.000 Pey9a e_EgYrtW q 0,00% o Total Od&W Mariam Vaks 91 on 91.000 Par 9R Class Rob: al Proper .6/0DA00 4.6000% Pry M 410DAM &Irl,11 OrWW Toa QW -111r. a00 Pay tb PROJECT VALUE. INFORMATION TOsuwlaP^rnr DWrld: EI DetrakPmor+ I Typod 1 NumWr ofIhtks: 0 MmEn of OVaars feel: 6.000 Near Eo1YrW W l6b" VW On Jest Q. 1097: --M—P-09 Pay Y6 RkW Muksf Value of LoW end Btlrlta T70.Om Pay M Prow Class Rats: CA Propm y .$too 0 4.6000% 4$WX0 3.0000% Adftioral EsWns W Tu Upechy on Jen. 4. 1007: 1(I.1170 Pay 06 Total Proud Tu Cepsc4 d Coat gbm 10.610 Pay M Paje11 Taos Par lki )gLwo Fm: 01.6 Aseseeds M&IM Vaka Par UrAMgmo fool: 1001]0 PrajeU Taal Taos to Ealkrrte Paposa: 11,066 Pay a AraaW Tu klvartt-a EtgaaO b AA Vskr: 10.141 Pay 96 SU.MARV)NFORM'TION Oras.. OCry Cry law r.l. _hB A 6 _ Raab valm 101,414 0 411 10.141 1t0011.•41L Mwa VAM: 00.001 (4.006) 6.we 1 0090144 BUT FOR ANA IMIS CLOMN Merkel VW • FAIL 91.000 1 MoreUs" Vd4. Est. --"Poq OiLlfsrtn 949.000 Ibq Pnora Vsks of Tu N rem—, --WW pn.no iee,9x VYIs L6yy b 0¢ta WtAou Tif 0r6wwtra 160.9]66 11C too CO 17t+re0 A Paas ata enrol 16,21,00 014 of Ma11ab• TY b. •Ea d. -TJ. WhM TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW oft PF*C3 Cw nd SwmA mW Adm Somkkm4W Lan1 Payntnlb NPVd PERIOD BEOINWNO Tttm Tom Tu Gm"Tu 0 Nal Tam Cwbbglm IPU PATO PEF= PJMM yL4. bah YS- hcao0. 10" hra�maru 10" "m 6251L y14 M?1 1!- 0.0 02-011007 690 63D 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.5 09-0+ 1007 OA 0601 1007 690 690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 02-01 1008 1.0 02-01 1996 890 63D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 08-01 1008 110" 1996 030 690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0201 +000 20 02-0+ 1000 690 10.820 0 10.190 5.64 (MM 5,071 503 6,691 4,603 2.5 060+ no 26 0601 1900 a" 10.8200 10.100 5.674 (669) 6,071 563 51091 0,024 3002-01 2000 3.0 02-01 2000 070 10.820 0 10,100 6,074 (MM 0.071 an 5.&M 17,200 3.50041 2000 3.508412W) 670 10,620 0 10.100 6,094 (603) 4071 an 6,671 17,717 4.002-01 2001 4.0 02-01 2001 670 10,820 0 10.100 5,634 (687) 4071 561 6,674 21,261 4.5 0601 2001 4.5 06.01 2001 630 10,620 0 10.100 0.834 (663) 0.071 503 0.031 29.023 6.0 02-01 2002 0.0 02-01 2002 am 10.620 0 WARD 6874 (603) 0.071 503 46311 24670 6.6 0601 20M 6,50601 2002 830 10. am 0 10. 100 6,034 (6 63) 6.071 603 464 3$104 8002-01 2003 60(2-01 2003 030 10.820 0 10.100 6,834 I6.071 603 464 35.435 6.506-01 2003 6.6 0&0 2001 870 Io m 0 10.100 0,634 ;683) 0.071 663 6,04 34634 7.0 02.0 2004 7.002-01 2004 030 10,020 0 10.101) O.&M (689) 6,071 587 0.04 41,707 01 75160 2004 7.8 08-01 2004 03D 10.820 0 10.10) 0.834 (60M 6.071 663 5,64 0 0 0941 2006 8.0 0201 2006 610 t0.a20 0 1A 90 5. 1663) 5.071 a03 484 41 e.a oso+ 2006 a.b 0501 20M 030 10.620 0 10.,90 5,634 (MM 6,071 683 5,04 50,213 0,0 0001 2000 0.002-01 0M 630 10.820 0 1%190 5.04 (657) 6.071 667 8.64 54027 9.60601 2006 951 0601 2000 63D 10,220 0 10.190 51034 ("M 6,071 663 0.64 65.115 10.0 02-01 2007 10002-01 2007 630 10.520 0 10,100 5,84 mm 5.071 803 6.034 57.745 10.5 06-01 2007 10 6 0601 2007 630 10.620 0 14190 5.634 16931 6.071 603 6.81 W 054 11.0 020+ 2t)Da Tot4h 191414 119Ja.1L.P1,272 10141 101 All Pra.tna Vakmtm go" Mom 61.067 4 8OtmM '07 Pm/ 69 R Pmp 0 APPENDIX C V MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) A•) g1) MwNEsorA DEPARTmerr of TRADE AND EcoNomtc DEVELOPMENT � � •� 50a Metro Square =r 121 7th Place EW Saint Paul, MInntwta 55101.2116 USA 13J. To all Knuesou government agencies: L cmesota laws 1995 Chapter 224, Section 58 (authored by Reptaentuive Ramo Chile and Seauor John Hottinger) require a business receiving state or local govat meat aststance as of July 1, 1995 to cream a ax ^cra in jobs in Mmnesota within two years of receiving assimmoc and meet wage level and job creation goals estahlisheA by the funding agency. Busiaessn not meeting these Conditions must repay the assistance al the term: oegouated by the business aced the government agcmy ad,"iniveang the assistance. Foch government agency is mandated to annually report wage and job gods and actual progress toward those goals for each business receiving assistance to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Eccoomic Development (DIED). The law does not stipulam what those goals should be. but does require goals to be established by the government agency for each individual project "Business asisuoce" refers to my business activity within a tax increment financing district sad any business gram cr bus!= loan using Bute or local dollars in coca of S214M. While rmt defined in the kgisstion. nun assumption s that this would include grants, loam. ittterat subsides, tax ine:emen 6naacin8 (M, or any public monies directly benefiting a buslocs and given for economic development or job growth purposes. to order to simpli fy data collation. please use the Minnarow BurGuss Assirtaner Form (reverse side). The form should be completed by each government entity administering the assistance for each business receiving assistance. All fmaxid assistance provided to business after July 1, 1995 must be reported These forms mutt be suberitted to DIED by March 1 of each year for the previous calendar year. Wage level and job action gods must be documented until project goals tae achieved Sincerely, Ja Commissioner Minnesota Emn 1996 Chapter 224 Section 58 (MS. I16J991): &hpfinesl that receiver qj%gL[2UIXftgrnmnt arixunca fa ecooamte deYelmmeat car iab sovvdl our%xm rmsst MAIN a on tacrcaw In Ipha In Miatlemta within two vein of ineeiYlna the asalauloe. 7bc ravemment a ymyMna dile assistanea mun establish wase Ievtl aM lob crostion foals to la req by,f g budnect eari*t ft omitimm A hplmg Aa hila to sees do cads rust naav dile aethnusw ro ft mvr nn aRMM FAch amnywt_aaeacY muA tenon lhle va2a and lab ralA and Ne nrttlu for nth xok%I in achievine [Lose mals to IMI devutmenr ofjMkand ecoaamle!IevrlorrnevL nKdea.tLmt •hall eamyl a #xA vohtlA the traulu of tae 1lnpRl far the vreviaus ea]eadar seta br has 1 of eaeA tar. The tens of the aeeades m disc droacanem sed tbq carsmilatim croon of dra deranmrnt xb be ma availrt fa m the aubli . EMkPwo" of this srerian'mitprloe'rmm a stmt eY loan in esa"ss PIRI 0Q PLtax hngelrlent (htsndnj, OM OW -3291 -309 TTY/TOD(611)7RJIU VY .. r...a ems..",,.:.. e........ FAX (6121 }aMIND Minnesota Business Assistance Form* • Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development Plem qpe or VW In dart Ink. L. Feaa Somme e¢r ageae7 naw 2. Agency $trees admesa 3. City 14. Zip Coda 3. Peooe number (ata code) I d. Fax —h— (ata code) 7. Conus name a Type of govemaKin agtmey _City Conary _Rr� _ Ott" (Pleasbffi a l 9. Num of TIF dW= (u eppQnblo) 10. Noma of budttw eeeelving anlsaxa 11. Due bulom ttseived araLuaea 12. Joe etadon goals for bulrmt$ mcelvinj aadmtace 13. Hm* wage incl gods for btdaw racelv(ng aadtaece la. Acted Job$ created deco below tecsind aadaraM 13. Anal avenge bomq rage pdd o em;1,1 eked aim bubmmal.edasdmom 1& lie dau acanl rage and Joe dation Isvela dotmmaaed • Pkws complete oae fora for end burn pmjed your agutey anfrted WA J2&M or town a pabtle f w& Please and eompl" fi m annually by March 1 to: or to npmt bol Mlm sou Bmlaeu Atdmaro Form (612) 2961290 Mlm sm Ikprmrem of Thde and Economic Development 300 Metro Squam For ln[brmsd^ call: 121 East 716 km (612) 297.1291 or 1800.637-3835 SI. Pao4 Mlrmaota 33101 8'FF Council Agenda - 11/12/98 :,,, , ,,. . • Investors Together requests approval of an amendment to their conditional use permit which would allow conversion of one manual car wash stall to an automated stall. The site currently operates under a conditional use permit granted on April 9, 1990. The proposed expansion calls for replacing the manual car wash bay that is located west of the small utility room. The actual physical modifications to the building will be nominal. The manual bay will need to be extended about 10 It to match the length of the existing automated bay. Increasing the size of the building at this location does not appear to alter the site significantly. There is sufficient room for turning movements from the new bay to allow exit from the new automated bay without the need to complete backup maneuvers in the bay exit area. The changes to the site will not be so much physical enlargement but in more volume of vehicles that can be washed. Obviously, many more vehicles will be able to pass through the site with two automated bays versus one bay. Council needs to determine whether or not allowing an increase in volume will result in a change to the site that would create a problem for the area. I have reviewed the terms of the conditional use permit that the facility is currently operating under, and it appears that it is meeting the terms of all the current requirements. I'm sure you have noted when you visit the site that it is well maintained, the landscaping is well kept and attractive, and the site appears to blend well with the neighborhood. Furthermore, we have not received any complaints from adjoining property owners regarding the operation of the car wash. It appears to have been a good neighbor to the area. Council may wish to consider requiring closure of the curb cut allowing access between the Total Mart and the car wash. It appears that this access between sites is being used inappropriately as a shortcut to the Total Mart from the frontage road. Motion to approve an amendment to the conditional use permit which would allow expansion and conversion of one manual car wash stall to an automated stall. Motion is based on the finding that the additional Council Agenda - 11/12/96 car wash stall and associated volume of traffic will not result in a negative impact to the neighborhood in which it's located; therefore, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The following additional conditions apply: Compliance with conditions noted in the existing conditional use permit. Closure of the curb cut access between Riverroad Plaza and the car wash (optional). Under this alternative, the Council views the additional car wash stall as a benign addition to the facility and that it should be allowed as long as all the conditions under the original conditional use permit are being met. The additional condition to require the closure of a curb cut access between the Riverroad Plaza/Potal Mart site and the car wash could be required to eliminate some of the cut -through traffic that occurs when vehicles use the car wash parking lot as a direct route to the Riverroad Plaza from the service road. Eliminating the curb cut would force drivers to use the frontage road rather than the driveway to get directly to and from Total Mart. The Planning Commission recommended this alternative but left the closure of the curb cut up to Investors Together. Motion to deny an amendment to the conditional use permit. Council could select this alternative based on the finding that the proposed car wash expansion will result in an increase in traffic volume that will result in a negative impact on the adjoining properties and, therefore, the current facility is already at its limit in terms of vehicles that should be washed at that site at any one time; therefore, the conditional use permit amendment should be denied. The Council should select this alternative if it believes that car wash activity at this site is maxed out in terms of its impact on the neighborhood. Any additional traffic in the area would result in a problem. City Council may want to ask the applicant if it expects that the additional volume of traffic will result in congestion in the drying and vacuuming area of the facility. Is it possible that the added volume of vehicles that can be washed will result in insufficient space for individuals that want to manually dry their vehicles after completion Council Agenda - 11/12/96 of the wash cycle? If there's not enough room on site for people who want to dry their cars, will we find people drying cars while parked near area such as roadways and the Total Mart lot? V _ STAFF RRCOAMFNDATION: Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit based on the findings outlined in alternative 01. The site has operated well. The water bills are paid, the site is well maintained, and there have been no complaints. There is some concern, however, regarding the additional volume of traffic and the potential for insufficient space for car -drying activities. This potential problem deserves some discussion; however, it would not appear that a potential problem would be great enough to warrant a basis for denial of the request. Copy of site plan; Listing of cu: rout con.'itions of operation. c � r .�p•.rle.1 I .. — Alia, oo.G e.cl�r. •ti0 f►IT wo d-, .01 .10 •110 \% �♦ IS 1 f'•�0.'N 4AOW ' l • txlsf.:: ! 10.3. -WW1 Ab. PIm Aw. s1iV. G.N. Y • +uT4dl.l.AvIDLI.MAT 1 .`•d r VV s 00 IOM 4 � / �►C/A.,� \ h� T— I 1 r 7 ♦ 7 �': I«�� lou. a loo. ' 100•.$ � 100.0- 100.0' I r rl�t 16 �Tf: MfYr�- � �.FY♦vlrK N�f1. 0.1TUMIOIG Y'y pITYM• � HI IIIc t 1.1-1 IL nxlry NG � eZ� ' �o j4 4!T r•. i ■� IH4 cur. • 100.10 ._ V Council Minutes - 4/9/90 6. Consideration of a conditional use recuest to allow a car wash in a PZM zone. ADDlicant, Dean Hoclund and Ren Schwartz. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the site plan which calls for development of a four -bay car wash in a PZM zone. O'Neill reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation that the conditional use permit be granted subject to conditions listed by ordinance and subject to additional conditions. After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to grant the conditional use permit as requested subject to the following conditions: The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. 2. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum thirty (30) minute period and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five (S) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (Gj, of this ordinance. 4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. S. Parking or car magazine storage apace shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G), of this ordinance. Page 3 IS Council Minutes - 4/9/90 6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (H], of this ordinance. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 13. Car wash facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. 14. Intermittent sounds produced by car wash operation such as the sound of a vacuum or warning signal shall not be audible to users of adjoining PZM or residential properties. 15. Carwash bay doors facing residential areas must be closod during all car wash phases. 16. Hours of operation shall fall within the hours of 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Page 4 Ic/ Council Minutes - 4/9/90 17. A screening fence and/or landscape plantings shall be established in the area between the end of the existing garage and the corner of the property in a manner that will properly screen the car wash activity from the residential area. Staff to work with developer toward finalizing the screening requirement. 18. A parking island delineator shall be installed in conjunction with the future commercial development of the adjoining parcel to the west of the car wash site. In the interim, a fence shall be installed along the property line, thereby eliminating access to the adjoining parcel. Motion based on the finding that the development is consistent with the geography and character of the area, and the conditions as listed will serve to mitigate a negative impact on adjoining residential and commercial properties. Motion carried unanimously. M Council Agenda - 11/12/96 10. [_'n_n_aidamdnn of anp=vJmr execution n?qlaitelsaim deed to eliminate title problem r7npr.TnhnSpn Dep rtmient Store w rnho se. (R.W.) Mr. Steve Johnson is in the process of finalizing a sale of the former Johnson Department Store warehouse building to Biff Springborg, Springborg Electric. The warehouse building is a separate parcel containing the garage structure that is adjacent to the city parking lot behind the former department store building. The parcel accesses River Street and the alley. During a survey of the parcel for the sale transaction, a discrepancy was noted by Taylor Land Surveyors that showed the building to be encroaching approximately 3.33 ft into the city property (public parking lot). Apparently, when the initial description for the property was established years ago, an error was made on the legal description and did not properly locate the building in relation to the legal description. Since it's obvious the block structure has been there for a number of years, it would seem unreasonable to expect the building to be moved 3 ft, and Mr. Johnson is requesting that the City simply provide a quit claim deed granting him ownership of the property under the building in accordance with the new legal descuiption described by Taylor Surveyors. It is my understanding the sale has already occurred, and the title company is simply holding money in escrow until this legal description can be clarified. In discussing this situation with our City Attorney, Mr. Weingarden noted that if the City would refuse to agree to the encroachment, Mr. Johnson could pursue a quiet title action, and the Courts would likely indicate that the property has been in its present situation for a number of years, and the boundary line would likely be adjusted to match the survey. That is not to say that the City wouldn't be entitled to compensation for this land area of approximately 260 sq ft. Although the physical appearance of the properties would not change because of this encroachment, the not result is the City is still losing 280 aq ft and the warehouse property is gaining 260 sq ft of land area. I am not aware that Mr. Johnson is giving away 3 ft of land area on the east side of his building to the adjoining property owner, and if the City simply provides a quit claim deed acknowledging this encroachment, the Johnson parcel will be gaining land area at our expense. Council Agenda - 11/12/96 A reasonable approach would seem to be to provide the quit claim deed as requested in turn for a fair compensation for the land value they would be enriched by. In 1986 when the City purchased a 26 x 33 ft strip of land for access to the Brion's property from the Johnson family as part of the Highway 25 improvement project, the City paid $2.50 per aq ft for the land area adjacent to the alley. A few months ago, the HRA purchased the former Barry Fluth (Ben Franklin) parcel at a cost of approximately $5.30 per sq ft. It would seem appropriate to likewise request compensation for the 250 sq ft encroachment at somewhere between $625 and $1,250 based on these values. To simply turn over the property without any form of remuneration may be setting a precedent if this problem ever arises again. The issuance of a quit claim deed by the City will likely simplify and expedite the transfer process for Mr. Johnson's sale, which has money set aside in escrow until this title issue can be resolved. If we cannot come to an agreement, it is certainly likely that the City will be named in a quiet title action; but the City would have the right to object to the title action, and this would continue to delay and coat both parties more money to defend. Authorize the execution of a quit claim deed to Steve Johnson acknowledging the encroachment of the former warehouse building into the parking lot by 3.33 ft and request compensation for the estimated 250 sq ft. Authorize the execution of the quit claim deed without compensation for the encroachment. Do not execute a quit claim deed at this time. As I noted earlier, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that a quiet title action by the property owner could result in the property owner obtaining the rights to the property under the building. It would be extremely remote that the building would need to be relocated since it's been in this location for a number of years and would not appear to materially affect the use of our parking lot parcel. This is not to say that Mr. Johnson would not be required to compensate the City for acquiring the approximately 250 aq ft strip of land. Council Agenda - 11/12/96 As part of the 1987 Highway 25 widening and improvement project, access to the Brion building located adjacent to this warehouse was closed by MN/DOT, and the Brions needed access from the alley to their parking lot. This required the crossing of property owned by the Johnsons (Maxwell Realty building), and Steve was cooperative in selling a small strip of land adjacent to the alley so that the Brion would have direct access to their property. The City acquired this parcel and then in tum gave it to the Brion. While Mr. Johnson was cooperative in providing the strip of land, it was purchased by the City at a cost of $2,146, which amounted to $2.50/sq R. The recent sale of adjacent parcel by Barry Fluth was for over $5/sq R. I would recommend that the Council request compensation for the parcel using these comps for determining value. Copy of survey with encroachment area outlined. 8' COMO � .�, f• sem• f . �• �' . �-'�'"�r HAw / / 4j, S9 fJ, f I 1. IN 41 4+�'c 1tv 7 t titer. / k % as colt NT COMM p,• �� awfn i 4e 4e,C-,-, t j� IAYLIp •, ¢. t�p(1CCtl0. MtilICSdTA wOft � - N�tl�rNr fY • ••MFM�IM' • • _ Council Agenda - 1L12/96 As part of the 93-12C Improvement Project, the outlet down Gillard for the large Meadow Oak pond, we were to fill a portion of the lots on the west side of the Meadow Oak pond or purchase additional ponding easements. There are three improved lots in Block 4 of Meadow Oak Estates where the normal water of the pond controlled by the outlet extends beyond the drainage easement for ponding. In some areas, the normal water level of the pond extends as much as 18 ft past the current ponding easements. In a few areas, the proposed 100 -year storm water elevation would extend in excess of 40 R beyond the existing easement. As part of the 93-12C Project, we estimated the cost to fill the lots at approximately $9,830. The lots would be very difficult to fill and regrade due to the limited access down the lot line easements and the necessity to fill out into the water. City staff, therefore, discussed the possibility of using the $9,830 already built into the project to purchase ponding easements to the 100 -year storm elevation. The area of easement is estimated to be 13,117 scl ft. The following is a table of the estimated filling costs and how that would break down into a per -lot basis to pay for an easement. PROPOSED FILLING OF THREE LOTS WEST SIDE OF MEADOW OAK POND QUANTITY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE 600 CU. YDS. OF FILL $6.53ICU. YD. $5,224.00 200 CU. YDS. OF $10.00/CU. YD. $2,000.00 BLACK DIRT 1,303 80. YDS. OF SOD 62.0086. YD. $2,606.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $9.830.00 LOT APPROXIMATE EASEMSNTAREA EASEMENT COST Lot 9, Block 4 3,665 square feet $2,671.61 Lot 11, Block 4 6,852 square foot $4,910.07 Lot 12, Block 4 3,000 square feet $2,248.20 TOTALS: 13,117 Square Feet $9,829.88 it] Council Agenda - 11/12!96 City staff has discussed filling or easement purchase with the owners of Lots 9, 11 and 12. The owner of Lot 12 is willing to sell the additional ponding easement for the value of the construction work as noted above, The owners of Lots 9 and 11 would like to have these lots filled rather than the City purchase the additional easement. I have spoken to Jeff O'Neill in regard to the need for permits for filling the westerly portion of the Meadow Oak pond. It was Jeffs opinion that we could fill the pond to the original pond easement line without permits from the DNR. Technically, we would not have to fill the 12 -ft easements that exist down the property line between lots. 1. The first alternative would be to fill Lots 9 and 11 to keep the normal water level within the existing easements. This would mean filling the portion outside the easements to an elevation of approx;mately 943. We would then purchase the additional easement from Lot 12. 2. The second alternative would be to fill Lots 9 and 11 to an elevation equal to a 10 -year storm event as determined by the City Engineer, probably in the area of 943.6, and then purchase the additional easement from the owner of Lot 12. 3. The third alternative would be to fill Lots 9 and 11 so that the area outside the current easement is above the 100 -year storm event elevation. This would mean filling probably to elevation 946+ so that we can slope back to the easement line so that the property would drain. We would then purchase the additional easement from Lot 12. 4. The fourth alternative would be to not fill any of the lots but make the offer of the 100 -year easement purchase based upon the construction value as originally anticipated. Should any one of the parties for Lots 9, 11 or 12 wish their lot filled rather than provide the easement, they can do so at their own expense. 6. The fifth alternative would be to do nothing. With all of our new projects, we make every effort to obtain ponding easements to the 100 -year event. In this case, in Meadow Oak, very few of the lots were graded so as to save as many oak trees as possible. During the Council Agenda - 11/12/96 construction of the homes on Lots 9, 11 and 12, the City did not have in place the current level of review for individual lot developments and grading plans so as to note these problems. In addition, the grading plan was very minimal for this area. The grading plan did not show easements. Once easements for ponding were plotted on the grading plan, it is shown that the pond elevation is beyond the easements. The question here is are we obligated to go back in and correct the deficiency in a 12 -year-old grading plan; or if we had caught the discrepancy during the building of the homes, would we have required the property owners to fill the lots at their own expense or provide easements. In the case of these lots, both the City Engineer and myself feel it would be best to acquire the easements rather than go in and fill these lots, and this is what staff was attempting to do. It should be pointed out, however, that the City Engineer feels that there is sufficient storage in the Meadow Oak pond that the lots could be filled without jeopardizing storm water capabilities of the drainage system. If we are obligated to go back in here and fill those Iota at the request of the property owners, to what extent should they be filled; to keep the normal water within the existing easement, to keep the 10 -year event within the existing easement, or to keep the 100 -year event within the existing easement, which is our current design standard; and what, if any, ramifications would that have in regard to setting a precedent for some other drainage problems which may arise in the future. Based upon all available information, Mr. Pete Willenbring, who is a hydrologist with WSB and has addressed the Council before on several storm sewer issues, suggested that the City offer to purchase the easement to the 100 -year event based upon the estimated project cost of >$9,830, or to allow those individuals to fill their lots at their own expense (alternative N4). Mr. Willenbring indicates this would be our proper course of action based upon his experience, and the City Engineer, Administrator, and Public Works Director concur with this recommendation. t1 SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of original grading plan; Copy of detailed topographic information for the throe lots showing the different water elevations and casements; Copies of the individual site plans for each lot; Copy of plat. 1 0,. 924.98.. t 2.02 q0 t05.00 East line aka(ot4�°a o°"W "'t4tas"fit- po!?�:.'rY; ' 4 f✓j2d dOW %42.os 2 S pm¢ONO/'/ i J �P.` •., 6 ! Ot -��tdit7A9e-L=d e of Pond) P ='.. -'' %4544 40'W `~+ 82•rg Q 1 X29.73 J 1•;, 133.73 �ggN%%u3 ! / m NO3°33 02,1 389.58:!J -'j' � #1 I SURVEY II NE --� * j ; / q $J J�o Tq 40.00-► 'A p h� VO lV, 1„ qcv '9 \• C � j i� G0 C27 /J Qy00• ♦ �� i �. to 9!S" 00V te2ps y� !ryh L 0 00h An y?9. �., di N J�03p0. . F `C?� Q��loa �2pi� �, \ I b� O Ica. 1,3 I� 1� t� c C. pl � I;. 7Mz Aco N CIRcLc-, g9-13 45 , , I /O BL o GiC \ s; Ica. 1,3 I� 1� t� c C. pl � I;. 7Mz Aco N CIRcLc-, g9-13 45 .h�i Pova.JC.7 � �j /�.IJRp/cone aL'�1/.- .re•J a acsb,s r fear e7e;�e ' 1-011,. r Til/ fi..a.+�I»w� rce'✓. a 11� 1 P"AHoodEleahao: Wo .9e•.vc.✓oU.v.w,�: ry r..s l.L..�z�ss✓r ow e.crr ow10 o.P .vc a c✓ e c ec , rW.o claPc 4"07W~ ^ TAYLDR LAND SURVEYORS INC. 219 WEST BROADWAY. P.O. BOX 179 _ -- i MONMEl1D. MIMES= 55362 PHONE, f 612 1 295-3388 l DRArN tW I 'K-0 I.. I ei Or —aA I smar CERTIFICATE OF SURVAE FOR CHARLES WA TERS GROwaC SQUE M RET • it Jb f0 10 /1. DEMOTES• o /RAV A0aV(/MENT SET •/RAV A/OVUMENT FOUND o LATH CVL r o bW AAV NAIL ©PROPOSED ELEVATI'OV +- DRA/NAGE ARROWS !rl • SPOT ELEVA nOVS LOT 14 B4AxK 4, MEADOW. OAK ESTATE$ WR161'1T COUNTY, N/N/YESOTA. I HEPEBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PL4N OR RE; W45 PREPARED 9Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVIS AND TH4T I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UN THE LAMS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. �o ,' r QENNIS V. TAYIAR REG. NO. DOTE (J! SCALE Ga -E DRAWN slur. 1+0 o. ,��'-. i.✓arteiar d'ss�i-asnvr 16x oB �' ':� �� 1 a 4 .rwe eziwr.-w11:.ri _412 dyb o • � .h�i Pova.JC.7 � �j /�.IJRp/cone aL'�1/.- .re•J a acsb,s r fear e7e;�e ' 1-011,. r Til/ fi..a.+�I»w� rce'✓. a 11� 1 P"AHoodEleahao: Wo .9e•.vc.✓oU.v.w,�: ry r..s l.L..�z�ss✓r ow e.crr ow10 o.P .vc a c✓ e c ec , rW.o claPc 4"07W~ ^ TAYLDR LAND SURVEYORS INC. 219 WEST BROADWAY. P.O. BOX 179 _ -- i MONMEl1D. MIMES= 55362 PHONE, f 612 1 295-3388 l DRArN tW I 'K-0 I.. I ei Or —aA I smar CERTIFICATE OF SURVAE FOR CHARLES WA TERS GROwaC SQUE M RET • it Jb f0 10 /1. DEMOTES• o /RAV A0aV(/MENT SET •/RAV A/OVUMENT FOUND o LATH CVL r o bW AAV NAIL ©PROPOSED ELEVATI'OV +- DRA/NAGE ARROWS !rl • SPOT ELEVA nOVS LOT 14 B4AxK 4, MEADOW. OAK ESTATE$ WR161'1T COUNTY, N/N/YESOTA. I HEPEBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PL4N OR RE; W45 PREPARED 9Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVIS AND TH4T I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UN THE LAMS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. �o ,' r QENNIS V. TAYIAR REG. NO. DOTE (J! SCALE Ga -E DRAWN slur. 1+0 014 "Aa jl� vla ....... ..... . 00000't jl� Council Agenda - 11/12/96 Con_oideration to ratifb the RDA's ap=val tu e tormia of tho Mortgage and Aasignmwnt of Rent for CMRF i..an No. 0041. (O.K ) A- REFERENCE AND BA .K .RO TND: The City Council is requested to consider ratifying the EDA's approval to amend the terms of the Mortgage and Assignment of Rent for GMEF Loan No. 006. Loan No. 006 was approved for Steve Birkeland, Jr. (Custom Canopy) on March 30, 1993, and is a $42,600 real estate loan with a 4.5% interest rate. Loan No. 006 had a second position behind the bank loan. The EDA balloon payment is due May 1, 1998. Payback is current and the remaining principal balance of the original $42,500 loan as of November 7, 1896, is $37,547.42. On October 24, 1996, Pat Dwyer of the Bank of Elk River, speaking on behalf of Mr. Birkeland, Jr., asked the EDA to consider the $42,600 GMEF loan taking a third position behind the original bank loan of $308,000 and a new bank loan of $60,000. Mr. Dwyer explained to members of the EDA the reason for the need of the new bank loan. As a confidential matter, Mr. Birkeland's accounting system for the IRS was changed from a cash basis to an accrual basis, which resulted in a tax liability of approximately $60,000. This is not a tax delinquency. Mr. Dwyer further informed EDA members that the 1993 appraisal of the property was $440,000 and the original bank loan was $308,000. This a 3.1 coverage for the EDA $42,600. The 1996 appraisal of the same property is $600,000, the original bank mortgage balance is $228,646, and the proposed second bank mortgage is $60,000. This is a 3.8 coverage for the EDA loan balance of $40,000. Equity has increased from $132,000 in 1993 to $161,356 in 1996. Mr. Dwyer stated the borrower has good equity, is of no risk, and is a good customer. EDA members recognised to remortgage or refinance is more costly. Additionally, they noted payback on the EDA loan was current, the 3.8 coverage is actually greater as the remaining balance of the EDA loan is less than $40,000, and equity is greater in 1996 than 1993. For these reasons, the EDA approved a motion amending the terms of the Mortgage and Assignment of Rent and authorized EDA Attorney Steve Bubul to prepare a Subordination Agreement placing GMEF Loan No. 006 in third position behind the bank's first and second mortgage. Legal fees for preparation and filing of the document are the responsibility of the Steve Birkeland, Jr., the borrower. Said motion to be ratified by the Council on November 12. M Council Agenda - 11/12/96 The Council minutes of July 8, 1996, with the noted inspection comments of October 16, 1996, were submitted to the EDA members at their October 24 meeting. However, the EDA members felt the determination or satisfaction for completion of the conditions of the approved conditional use permit was a matter of the City Council and not the EDA. At the EDA meeting, Mr. Birkeland was advised to call the city hall to schedule an inspection. With the Assistant Administrator scheduled to be out of town, Mr. Birkeland was informed to call Koropchak for an inspection. Mr. Birkeland called Koropchak on November 6. It was agreed among Wolfateller, Simola, and Koropchak that an inspection by other than the original inspector would introduce another person's perception and interpretation of the 90% opacity requirement and other conditions of the conditional use permit. Mr. Birkeland was informed on November 7 that the inspection for assessment of the conditions of the conditional use permit would be treated independently of this agenda item. He was advised to reschedule an inspection with the original inspector. A motion raWng the EDA's approval to amend the terms of the Mortgage and Assignment of Rent for GMEF Loan No. 006 authorizing the preparation of a Subordination Agreement placing the GMEF in third position behind the bank's first and second loan. A motion to deny ratifying the EDA's approval. A motion to table any action. r STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In order to prevent any undue hardship on a business with good credit standings as it relates to the EDA and the bank loans, Wolfateller, Simola, and Koropchak support alternative M1 and further recommend the need to follow-up on the assessment of the conditions of the July 8, 1996, conditional use permit. Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Monticello Economic Development Authority October 24, 1998 Stephen Birkeland dba Custom Canopy Existing Loan at Inception: 3/15/93 Appraisal $440,000 Bank of Elk River 1st mortgage -308.000 Equity ---------------- $132,000 70% L/V Monticello EDA loan ----------------- i 42,500 3.1x coverage Proposed Loan: 7/18/98 Appraisal $500.000 Bank of Elk River mortgage balance -288,845 Proposed BER second mortgage - 80.000 Equity -------------------- $151,355 70% L/V Monticello EDA loan balance ---------- $ 40,000 (estimated) 3.Bx covorago /2 4 Monticello Economic Development Authority October 24, 1998 Stephen Birkeland dba Custom Canopy Existing Loan at Inception: 3/15/93 Appraisal $440,000 Bank of Elk River 1st mortgage -308.000 Equity ---------------- $132,000 70% L/V Monticello EDA loan ----------------- i 42,500 3.1x coverage Proposed Loan: 7/18/98 Appraisal $500.000 Bank of Elk River mortgage balance -288,845 Proposed BER second mortgage - 80.000 Equity -------------------- $151,355 70% L/V Monticello EDA loan balance ---------- $ 40,000 (estimated) 3.Bx covorago /2 4 Council Minutes - 7/8/96 S. GATE MAY REMAIN OPEN; HOWEVER, A'RETURN" SECTION OF SCREENING FENCE MUST BE INSTALLED THAT IS AT LEAST 50 FT IN LENGTH AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE E aSTING FENCE, o alt THUS PARTIALLY SCREENING THE OPENING TO THE STORAGE AREA WHEN VIEWED FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. OUTDOOR AREAS SHOULD BE USED ENTIRELY FOR STORAGE d t AND NOT USED FOR PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES. OTHER CONDITIONS REQUIR D BY CODE. D'� Voting in favor. Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Tom Perrault. It was his view that the gate to the storage area should remain closed. Motion passed with Brian Stumpf absent. 12, C'00 Council Agenda - 11/12/96 13. Consideration of reviewLg bide and awarding contract for cleaning seryl (R.W.) Recently, specifications were prepared for cleaning services to be performed at city hall, deputy registrar office, and the two public works building locations. An advertisement for bids was published in the local newspaper, and a copy of the specifications was mailed to a few cleaning services that we thought might be interested in bidding. Two bids were received, one from KGM Cleaning, who presently cleans the deputy registrar and public works locations, and from Preusse's Cleaning Service, which presently cleans city hall. Of the two bids received, it appears that Preuase's Cleaning Service would result in the lowest monthly cost based on the bid proposals. The specifications called for daily cleaning at city hall, weekly cleaning at the two public works office and conference buildings, and onoo-a•week cleaning at the deputy registrar office. Since the deputy registrar is currently cleaned five times per week, I did ask for an option for twice a week cleaning, as I'm not convinced that once a week will be sufficient for the deputy registrar office due to the large volume of traffic they receive on a daily basis. The following is a summary of the bid proposals received. SUMMARY CLEANING PROPOSALS 17 Est. Ave. DMIX Hra. KGM PrAussee City Hall 2 hr. $660hno. $460hno. Public Works Buildings 1.8 hr. $280hno. $180hno. Deputy $140hno. once a wk. $80/mo. once a wk. Registrar ZJIL 1190/Mn- twiCA a wk_ $ljOhno. twieen wk, TOTALS 4 hrlday $1,090 w/2 days at $790 w/2 days at Dep. Reg. Dep. Reg. $1,080 w/1 day a wk. $690 w/1 day at at Dep. Reg. Dep. Reg. 17 Council Agenda - 11/12/96 OPTIONAL SERVICES KGM $En8Hg8 Public Works - strip, seal & wax floors $160 $69 Public Works - shampoo carpet included $64 Deputy Reg. - strip, seal & wax floors $100 $30 Deputy Reg. - shampoo carpet included Green View ln, $20 aiv Assumption - individual would work on average of 20 hrs per week at the 3 locations at a cost of $8.25 per hour = $715 per month' average. (• city supplies all equipment and cleaning supplies.) Based on the above bids, it appears that Preusse's Cleaning Service would provide the lowest cost on a monthly basis for all three buildings, including the option of twice -a -week cleaning at the deputy registrar office. Assuming the twice -a -week cleaning at deputy registrar, the total monthly cost would be $730 compared to $1,090 per month from KGM Cleaning. In addition, there would be additional charges for stripping, sealing, and waxing the floors at each location and/or shampooing of carpets, which are not included in the monthly totals. Currently, we are paying $940 per month for cleaning at the three locations, but this does include daily cleaning at the deputy registrar office. It does appear we can save a couple hundred dollars per month by contracting with Preusse's Cleaning Service for all three locations, although it would reduce the cleaning at the deputy registrar from five days to two days per week. After the bid proposals were received, we became aware of a non-profit service, Green View Inc., which contracts for providing cleaning and janitorial services for some municipalities, but generally contracts with MN/DOT for cleaning at freeway rest stops and some state park facilities. Green View also supplies cleaning personnel for Wright County at their public works building and, I believe, in some of the county park facilities, Basically, Green View Inc. hires the needy or elderly retired individuals to perform cleaning duties at these various locations at a wage rate of approximately $5.50 to $6 per hour. In addition, Green View adds an hourly fee for employer -related payroll and insurance costs and to cover administrative expenses. In my discussions with Green View, they indicated they felt they could find an individual to work for the City at about $8.25 per hour total cost under a contract arrangement. is Council Agenda - 11/12/96 In discussing this arrangement with Bruce Thielen, Wright County Parks Administrator, the County is happy with their arrangement with Green View and suggested it may be a way for the City to approach the janitorial services. It is my estimate that all three buildings would require about 20 hours per week labor, which would put the annual cost at $8.25 per hour, approximately $715 per month. Under this type of arrangement, the City would need to supply all cleaning equipment and supplies, including vacuum cleaners, mops, and whatever else is needed. Under the present contract arrangements, the City does not supply any of the equipment or cleaning items. One drawback to an independent contract with a retired individual would be that there would not be a guaranteed backup person in case of illness, unless a couple was hired by Green View. One advantage to an independent contract could be that we could increase the hours as needed, and there would be a set number of hours per week the individual would be on site. I'm not sure whether this is an advantage or not; but when a cleaning service receives a monthly salary, there may be a tendency to try to get the job done as quickly as possible. Since Green View does typically hire retired individuals, it may be more difficult for this type of individual to do cleaning of windows or areas that require use of ladders unless there was more than one individual working. Since the cost is not necessarily any cheaper when you consider we would have to purchase vacuum cleaners and/or carpet shampooers for the various buildings along with other supplies, contracting with a cleaning service still seems to be the most economical at this time. B. ALTRRNATIVE ACTIONS - 1. .TIONS•1. Accept the proposal from the low bidder, Preusse's Cleaning Service, in the amount of $730 per month for daily cleaning at city hall, weekly �y cleaning at the public works offices, and twice -a -week cleaning at deputy registrar. Accept the bid proposal from Preusse's Cleaning Service in the amount of $690 for daily cleaning at city hall, weekly cleaning at the public works offices, and weekly cleaning at the deputy registrar office. Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with Green View Inc. for supplying an independent contract individual to perform approximately 20 hours per week cleaning service at an estimated $8.25 per hour cost. Under this option, the City would also be required to purchase vacuum cleaners and other cleaning equipment along with cleaning supplies for each location. Council Agenda - 11/12t96 From a monetary standpoint, it seems like Preusse's Cleaning Service is the most economical approach at this time, including the option of twice -a -week cleaning at the deputy registrar office. Although it appears coat -wise it would be very similar, Green View Inc. could have some advantages in having an individual work a set number of hours per week, although scheduling might be a problem in that this individual would have to work evenings or very early in the morning to accommodate our office schedules. Additionally, some disadvantages to the Green View approach is that the City would have to acquire cleaning equipment that we don't have now, and there's no guarantee that if the individual was ill that there would be anyone to cover for that person. Since the cost seems very similar under the low proposal from Preusse's Cleaning Service, it is my recommendation that we contract with Preusse's Cleaning under alternative p1. Copy of bid proposals; Contract proposal from Green View Inc.; Summary sheet outlining advantages and disadvantages. 20 CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTICELLO, MN BID SPECIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL FORM FOR PROVIDING CLEANING SERVICES AT VARIOUS PUBLIC BUILDINGS September 11, 1996 CITY OF MONTICELLO CLEANING SERVICE PROPOSAL FORM NAME: ADDRESS: ded.9.f.� U PHONE: Day -V97^ 2G St Evening CONTACT PERSON: c la%, C -s " sa e - Please list the names, addresses, and phone numbers of three personslreferences we may contact about your performance. Name Phone Address City State Name Phone Address city State Name Phone Address City State Ia...11 Liability/Casualty insurance will be provided by CLEMC EPE: 0/IIRO Page 2 1.36 ib. Workman's comp. insurance will be provided by Mdc—affe d:euonce is not regtxed a,a h kut . u+v) 2. jZer.ssc 4 (f/o.�.'ki agrees to perform the cleaning Orcme of Room) � obligations stated in the specifications for the month sum(s) as follows: City Hall $ 4,9 month Public Works Building(s),T,3 ASL— month Deputy Registrar Building $--ZA -- month TOTAL BASE BID $ 6 9D � month BID FOR OPTIONAL SMVICES: 1. The proposer will perform tuice weekly cleaning at the deputy registrar building for a monthly cost of $ is c F* 2. The proposer would provide additional services noted below at the lamp sum price indicated: Strip, Seal & Wax Hard Floors Sha pee rn=tA Deputy Registrar $. ge,, Public Works Works Building $./ 9-0'— ssaasaassasassssassssssasss a r pssttssssssassp aasssssttais I certify the above is true and correct and that if selected I wiU agree "enter a one- year contract with the City of Monticello, Minnesota, to perforin the services described. /996 bats aEANav o e 0/111% Page 3 /3c/- CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTICELLO, MN BID SPECIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL FORM FOR PROVIDING CLEANING SERVICES AT VARIOUS PUBLIC BUILDINGS September 11, 1996 13b 4 CITY OF MONTICELLO CLEANING SERVICE PROPOSAL FORM NAME: K G I�� p l f? a, 'i n ca. ADDRESS: �(�� . C� . cn 8,�t L4 I PHONE: Day '2-(o3 - 63ct Lii Evening - (, 3Q 1, CONTACT PERSON: \,2n n �h m Q 1 P Yr Please list the names, addresses, and phone numbers of three persondreferences we may contact about your performance. -':If.]t cir�.iz44n.� '�rJ, r� g'���ca Z_� 2qS - 221 Name Phone U.S. Pn 0 5� rint;rn.[�t� rn. Address City State R..;} 0 Ant,-) N� `Oki �J4Qmn Address J Address Mb'1-4-i{,q-1 to Phrf lrl City State City State la. Liability/Casualty insurance will be provided by m'1R}�I1c.Q���/ n H Wit" k C n u i tJiZt,-�- C10 + cAQ&VV1Can0GMY) CLEAK.2V.E 901M /.3 V. Page 2 lb. Workman's comp. insurance will be provided by '� �V.Stt�BS�- ,��1ar(�/y�fn )S iiD�- YQ.c,►���ecl. Ona)ccte if Iroucnce is not reawea am is fortdy member anty) 1� 2. (iLP a v\ 1 n agrees to perform the cleaning (Ncme of Ropo,er) obligations stated in the specifications for the month sums) as follows: City Hall $ (4 �r) , 00 month Public Works Building(s) $ QM -Q0 month Deputy Registrar Building $ a 9 0 . (1Q_ month TOTAL BASE BID $ jWO .tD month4•- BID FOR OPTIONAL SERVICES: -77, '/ 1. The proposer will perform tid= weekly cleaning at the deputy registrar building for a monthly cost of $ 45-00 r;,o. wu Kh 2. The proposer would provide additional services noted below at the lump sum price indicated: Strip, Seal & Wax Hares Floory Deputy Registrar $ IOO.QD Public Works Building $ )10.00 $ t n c\,,,� %� n ubf I certify the above is true and correct and that if selected. I will agree to enter a one- year contract with the City of Monticello, Minnesota, to perform the services described. Ck- 11-9(o W\ ►� Date Signature yy\pb; ng a a t2 -gaol; ^g all h,Awa -Pltw+,% 'orca. a rv\01Tk ,0Q .p scv,,•bb; ^5 aF AA -1, rasp -goo••, �Q\oo.s wo.�u bk o", o,&)L;{; trna \ $ so• uo p o�cAssro•-. p,,, sit o� a� r� v/ II M Page 3 ' ROSEVILLE/ICE ARENA GREEN VIEW, INC. PROPOSAL July 1, 1996 — June 30,1997 CUSTODIAL EXPENSE: Labor. 1040 hours (Baud on 20 hours per week) Employee compensation per hour. OTHER LABOR EXPENSES: Employer -related costs for Payroll Taxes, Workers' Compensation Insurance and Loss Prevention, and Liability and Bonding Insurance Total Other Labor Expenses Per Hour of Labor. ADMINISTRATIVE E`ITENSES: (.administrative Salaries, Employees Payroll Taxes Expense, Fringe Benefits, Administrative Mileage, Administrative Per Diem, Administrative Workers' Compensation, Rent Expense, Postage Expense. Office Supplies, Telephone Expense, Computer Expense, and Miscellaneous Expenses) Total Administrative Expense Per Hour of Labor. GRAND TOTAL HOURLY RATE: GRAND TOTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL: /36 III. Payment: A. Green View, Inc. agrees to accept, and ROSEVILLE/ICE ARENA agrees to pay, full compensation for all services and expenses contemplated by this agreement. B. Payroll and other allowable expenses incurred by Green View, Inc. in the course of perfomtiag this agreement shall be reimbursed by ROSEVILLE/ICE ARENA upon submission of invoices. C. Under no conditions shall payments under this contract exceed the amount of S per hour of Libor, unless mutually agreed upon by both Green View, Inc. and ROSEVILLE/ICE ARENA. TV. Schedule of Payments: A. Green View, Inc. shall submit invoices for services rendered and ROSEVILLEACE ARENA shall reimburse Green View, Inc. upon receipt of said invoices. V. Records: A. Green View, Inc. shall keep such records that maintain an efficient and accurate cost -keeping system for records. VI. Audits and Examinations: A. Green View, Inc. shall afford reasonable facilities for audits and examinations of Green View, Inc.'s accounting records. W. Changes: A. Green View, Inc. is managed in reliance upon experience based operating cost projections, in other words we look at last year's costs as the basis for determining the next fiscal period's expenses. While this approach is consistent with the non-profit status and purposes of Green View, Inc., it does create a significant vulnerability for Green View should changes, particularly in mandated employee benefits/progmms occur. Therefore, in consideration of the risks described above it is understood by and between the parties hereto that in the event changes occur in the application of mandated worker/employee costs, including but not limited to unemployment insurance coverage, social security and medicare taxes, and minimum wage laws, the amount of the payment from the city set forth on the attachment to this agreement may be modified by the mutual agreement of the parties. B. This agreement may be terminated by either party at any time, with or without cause, upon not less than 30 days written notice delivered by mail or in person to the other party. /.34 ROSEVILLFJICE ARENA GREEN VIEW, INC. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT July 1, 1996 — June 30,1997 THIS AGREEN04T, made by and between GREEN VIEW, INC., 550 County Road D West, Suite 2, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55112 and ROSEVILLEIICE ARENA. Green View, Inc., a non-profit organization, has a program through which needy, elderly persons are recruited, employed, and periodically supervised in the performance of maintenance, custodial, and public service duties. ROSEVILLEACE ARENA has determined it has need for the services of these needy, elderly custodial services. ROSEVILLE/ICE ARENA desires to acquire, and Green View, Inc. desires to supply, these services. This agmTmcnt shall be in effect from July 1, 19%. through June 30,1997. It is mutually agreed that this project will be carried out under the auspices of Green View. Inc. and subject to the following cerins and conditions: L Green View, Inc. shall: A. Recruit and hire all personnel required. B. Periodically supervise all Green View, Inc. employees. C. Administrate the payroll and all fringe benefits; such as, but not limited to, payroll taxes, workers' compensation and liability insurance, etc. D. Provide bonding for those persons administratively handling funds for Green View, Inc. E. Furnish workers' compensation and liability iruurance certificates with minimum limits of $600,000. F. File all appropriate unemployment tax filings and notify RosevilleRce Arena in the event Green View's exemption status should change. ll. ROSEVILLEIICE ARENA shall: A. Provide the day to day supervision, general training and instructions. B. Provide the tools, supplies, and equipment necessary for the proper implementation of the work plans agreed to. /3= CITY OF MONTICELLO SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLEANING SERVICE CONTRACT The City of Monticello, hereinafter referred to as "the City," desires to enter a contract with an individual or firm, hereinafter referred to as "the Contractor," for daily, weekly, and periodic cleaning services of Monticello City Hall located at 250 East Broadway, Deputy Registrar located at 119 East Third Street, and Public Works Facilities located at 909 Golf Course Road, Monticello, MN 55362. Proposals for contract services should be stated in annual or monthly figures and should be inclusive. The Contractor shall: 1. Provide all cleaning equipment and supplies to be used in providing the daily, weekly, or periodic service. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, vacuum cleaner, mops, buckets, rags/cloths, squeegees, soaps, disinfectants, floor waxes, shampoos, furniture polish, and glass cleaners. 2. Provide a certificate of insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 for liability and casualty coverage. 3. Provide a certificate of insurance demonstrating workers compensation coverage. (This is not required of an individual who will not be employing other persons.) 4. Perform the following cleaning functions on a daily basis (5 times per week) at city hall: a) Vacuuming of all carpet in offices, conference room, storage/work room, and central clerical/reception area. Carpet in city council chambers shall be vacuumed as needed prior to any function. b) Sweep and mop all non -carpet floors on main level, including restrooms. c) Clean and disinfect all restroom facilities and floors. d) Maintain stock of all rostroom supplies such as hand soaps, paper hand towels, tissue, deodorants. e) Clean kitchenette area, including floors, counters, and sink. c1EAPGNCR 0/11/% l3 r Page 4 f) Clean large coffee pot when necessary. g) Clean and disinfect public water fountain. h) Dust (and spot clean as needed) all desks, tables, workstations, and counters. i) Empty all wastebaskets; collect all trash at specified site. P Spot clean walls, woodwork, floors, furniture as needed. 5— Perform the following cleaning functions on a weekly basis at city hall: a) Dust and polish desks, book cases, workstations, and counter tops. b) Wash wastepaper baskets. c) Vacuum and clean upholstered furniture (vinyl and fabric). 6. Perform the following cleaning functions approximately once each month at city hall: a) Dust and dean window blinds and sills. b) Clean windows at public entrances and exits. c) Wax tile floors. d) Remove cobwebs, dust buildup, etc., from ceiling and ceiling lighting fixtures. 7. Perform the following cleaning functions twice each year, spring and autumn, at city hall: a) Clean all windows, including the glass office dividers, inside and outside. b) Wash all window screens. c) Shampoo carpet. d) Strip, seal, and wax file floors. e) Clean upholstered flu-niture. 0 Wash all window blinds. o.&»CRV.6GE. 9/111% /3.' Page 5 8. Monitor the general condition of the facility; immediately inform City staff of worn or damaged areas so proper repair can be ordered. t 9. Inform City when City -supplied goods need reordering. 10. Perform the following cleaning functions at the public works facilities (office and training/conference buildings): Week] y: Public works office along with entry, hallways, restroom facilities, and lunch room in conference building. • Vacuum all carpeted areas • Sweep all hard floors • Damp mop all hard floors • Empty all appropriate waste receptacles • Clean and sanitize all restrooms, including wiping down walls as needed • Clean glass surfaces as needed • Dust all furniture, sills, and ledges • Dust and polish desks, book cases, work stations, and countertops Mnnthl 0 Clean windows at public entrance and sweep out area • Remove any cobwebs or dust buildup 11. $i-wprkly: (Conference Training Room) • Vacuum all carpeted areas • Empty all appropriate waste receptacles • Clean glass surfaces as needed • Dust furniture, sills, and ledges as needed Mnnthly: Dust and clean window blinds and sills in conference room and lunch room 12. Perform the following cleaning functions at the deputy registrar office (weekly): • Vacuum all carpeted areas • Sweep all hard floors • Damp mop all hard floors • Empty all appropriate waste receptacles • Clean and sanitize all restrooms • Clean glass surfaces as needed • Dust all furniture, sills, and ledges cLEAK;7VA' 9/11/% /3L, Page 6 The City shall: 1. Supply all restroom hand soap, paper towels, toilet tissue, and trash can bags. 2. Provide a key for access to the structure after hours. 3. Provide approved ladders, step stools, and small tools as needed. 4. Issue payment for services on a monthly basis, payment made the last business day of each month. 13M aE.a;v.se 9111M Page 7 14. Council Agenda - 11/12/96 The bids for the pathway snow unit were due at 10 am., Thursday, November 7, 1996. The following is a tabulation of the only bid received: BIDDER EQUIPMENT BID PRICE (Cuh d4a do m) 1 New IOOHP Factory Ordered MacQueen Equipment MT5 Trackless with New 70" St. Paul, Minnesota Blower (40 day maximum delivery) $55,331.00 A D12 -P Reduction Transfer Case for Cold Planer (not available on units already built) $4,125.00 B New 42" Sand/Salt Spreader $3,680.00 C New 70" V Plow $2,500.00 2 New In -Stock IOOHP MTS Trackless Built Sept '96 with New 70" Blower (10 day maximum delivery) $56,369.50 3 1993 Used IOOHP MT5 Trackless (626 hours) with New 70" Blower (this unit was used for mowing only, has a/c in addition to heater) (30 day maximum delivery) $47,257 In addition to advertising for bids for a new and used unit, we sent out surveys to 14 local contractors who we knew did some snow removal, and others who advertised snow removal in the area telephone books. We also contacted various public works departments and parks departments to obtain information about snow removal practices on pathways and sidewalks from the following communities: Anoka, Maple Grove, Brooklyn Center, Apple Valley and Eden Prairie. 21 Council Agenda - 11/12/96 The response from the contractor survey was very minimal (2), but there does appear to be some interest out there in regard to contracting out the snow removal on the pathways. While one contractor would like to work by the hour for man and equipment, we did receive input from the other contractor who would bid the work by the season and was equipped with a pathway type snow blower with 60+ horsepower. This same contractor indicated a 36 - hour time frame to complete the snow removal operations after the end of a storm. In many instances under normal snow falls, the actual time would probably be closer to 24 hours. There are a variety of ways that communities clear pathways and sidewalks. Most of the sidewalks are cleared with snow blower type equipment. As stated at an earlier meeting, many communities throughout Minnesota have equipment similar to what the City bid out for sidewalk snow removal. When it comes to pathway work, there appears to be more of a variety of equipment used. Several of the communities are using pickups or a combinations of pickups and snow blowers. Some communities, such as Anoka, choose not to clear their pathways in the winter time; while still other communities like Maple Grove use two high-powered pathway type snow blowers to clear 30 miles of pathway, yet choose to leave some 70 miles of pathways for seasonal use. All of this information leads us to a variety of choices. If the City were to purchase the sidewalk pathway equipment as bid above, which is less than our earlier estimates, we would be well equipped to clear the pathways and improve our performance on the other sidewalks we clear in the community. Under normal circumstances with the existing manpower in the public works department and water and sewer collection department, we could meet similar time games to that of the contract operator, probably in the range of 36 to 48 hours after the end of a storm, depending on whether or not the Council decides to clear all the pathways in the community or not. Short of purchasing the above equipment, but still considering clearing the pathways with existing forces, we could equip one of our 4 -wheel drive pickups or 1 -ton trucks with a fully hydraulic plow such as the 'Boss' which, in addition to angle plowing, converts to a V plow. When conditions don't allow the use of this equipment, we could make attempts to use our small tractor snow blowers in some areas but would more than likely use the big loader snow blowers to dear those heavy snow areas. This would be difficult in some areas if we receive a lot of snow down in the ditch across From Hawk's Bar on County Road 76 or other areas which may not be easily accessible to the large loader blower or which may be damaged by the large loader blower. Council Agenda - 1 V12/96 Contract operations would be the simplest if the contractor was properly equipped to handle the project and if the specifications could be written by the season for clearing with an escalator for an unusually bad winter. De- icing of the pathway would be a little bit tougher and may have to be done by the hour or by the cubic yard or sand/salt or other de-icing materials. Neither contractor estimated any de-icing costs, which could be large during a bad winter. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. The first alternative would be to have the pathways cleared and maintained by existing City forces, utilizing the new snow blower pathway equipment as bid above. This alternative would include awarding the purchase of the new equipment to MacQueen Equipment for $47,257 (used) to $59,459 (new with transfer case). 2. The second alternative would be to clean the pathways using the City's existing forces and equip one of our 1 -ton or 4 -wheel drive pickup trucks with a heavy duty "Boss" type plow and use a combination of other existing equipment to clear the pathways. It is the opinion of the public works department employees and supervisors that this alternative may meet with limited success depending upon the severity of the winter. 3. The third alternative would be to develop specifications based upon clearing and de-icing of the pathways within 36 hours after a storm event and bid the work out to local contractors as previously described. We should get one or two bids. 4. The fourth alternative would be not to clear the pathways. I:. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As Public Works Director, I believe the clearing of the pathways can be completed with existing forces under alternative 01, in a reasonable time firame with a high level of service. It has been the past practice in this community to hire proficient employees and to use modern properly designed equipment, and to contract out when our existing forces are not free to complete the work or the work is not generally a public works function or our employees are not qualified to perform certain work (i.e., high voltage wiring, major well repairs, etc.). In addition to existing staff during the winter, I know that the Park Board is expecting us to add manpower or contract time 23 Council Agenda - 11/12/96 to keep up with our expanding park system. If a full time position is created or added, there would be additional manpower during the winter months, and the time table for clearing the pathways could be shortened. The option of contracted snow removal services for the pathways can also be attractive and cost effective, but I think we have the work force available and, with the purchase of a multi -use piece of equipment, can do the work with a high level of service. The Public Works Director and Street Superintendent, therefore, recommend alternative #1. We also intend to use the piece of equipment purchased in the summertime for cold planing of asphalt street surfaces to greatly speed up our patching operations. I can also support alternative Y3 but would have to look for other types of equipment to mount a cold planer on for use with our street patching program. n. SUPPORTING DATA: Please refer to that data provided on the pathway system and other options as presented to the Council on 10114/86. 24 COUNCII.UPDATE November 8, ION This item was denied by the Planning Commission; and as of Friday, November 8, staff has not received an appeal by Mr. Rolf. If any Council member wishes to appeal this item, it can be placed on the next agenda. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/6/96 f 1 f: 1 11 1 • 1 l{. A. RFF .RF.N('. . AND BA .K .RO TND: Robert Rolf requests a variance which would allow elimination of the green space (setback area) between two driveways leading to the separate garages at a zero lot line duplex that he owns on Lots 13 and 14, Block 2, River Mill subdivision. Current code requires that a 3 -ft green space be established between driveways and adjoining lot lines. In this situation, the garages supporting the duplex are located on a zero lot line. Rolf owns both duplexes and requests that the separation requirement be waived via the variance process. Please note that Rolf has already paved the space in between the two drive areas and, therefore, enforcement of the code would require that Rolf remove the paved area and replace it with a landscaped area. You may recall that some time ago when the River Mill subdivision was being designed, there was considerable discussion as to whether or not we would allow the two drive areas to merge into one. It was determined by the Planning Commission at that time that the current ordinance made sense and that there is a need to maintain this separation between private drives. The ordinance was maintained with the separation in place for three major reasons: 1) the 3 -ft setback allows for car door swing and allows people to leave a vehicle without stepping on adjoining properties; 2) provides space for snow storage; and 3) provides a green space or landscape area that breaks up the impact of the large drive area that would otherwise be created by merging the two driveways. The applicant argues that the need for the setback does not apply in his case because he owns both properties and, therefore, there should be no problems associated with driveway/lot line use conflicts. On the other hand, he may own both parcels now, but they are identified separately, which means that either one could be sold; therefore, in the future, it is very likely that this single structure with two duplexes could come under the ownership of two separate individuals. In terms of the aesthetic value of the green space. I encourage all Planning Commission members to visit River Mill for yourself to see the impact of the trees and green space that results from maintaining the 3 -ft separation I think you would agree that there is a significant value of having the green space in place. It is our hope that the green space will continue to be maintained over time. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/6/96 Finally, there does not appear to be any significant hardship or valid justification for the variance in terms of the criteria used for granting a variance. Therefore, approving a variance in this case would create a significant precedent that would likely impact the balance of the development of the River Mill subdivision. In other words, approving a variance in this case would open the door to future approvals in the balance of the development. Motion to deny the 3 -ft variance to the 3 -ft driveway setback requirement. This motion could be based on the finding that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a unique hardship or situation that warrants justification of the variance; therefore, the variance should be denied. Under this alternative, Rolf would continue to have the option of having the large single driveway by merging his lots. As you may know, in the planned unit developments throughout the community, including Prairie West and lGein Farms Estates, the City does allow the green space between driveways to be eliminated because the property is all under one ownership and maintained through an association. In this situation, all maintenance and use of driveways is under common agreement, which eliminates one of the reasons for maintaining the separation between driveways. If Rolf supports his cause by claiming that he should be able to pave the middle because he owns both sides of this particular lot, then he should be required to erase the lot line between the properties, thus creating one parcel with a duplex under one ownership. If he erased the interior lot line, the property could then be treated like duplexes in planned unit developments. Motion to approve the 3•R variance request. This motion could be based on the finding that a unique circumstance exists that supporta a variance. To grant the variance in this case would impair the intent of the code and set a negative precedent for this particular development area and for the rest of the community. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/6/96 C. STIFF IZCOMMRNDATION; Staff recommends denial of the variance request. It is our view that the variance request does not identify a valid hardship for justification of the variance. To approve it would result in similar occurrences throughout the balance of the River Mill development and in other portions of the community. Now that we've seen River Mill development begin to unfold, I think it is clear that the separation requirement between driveways makes sense for the development. It helps identify private areas for vehicle parking, provides for snow storage, and serves to break up the severe impact of large driveways. It would be our hope that the Planning Commission would take action to preserve the current design plan for the area by opposing the variance request. However, the applicant does argue that he owns both properties and, therefore, one of the reasons for requiring separation is not pertinent. If the Planning Commission believes that the separation requirement should be eliminated if both properties are under one owner, then perhaps the applicant should be encouraged to merge the two properties into one. If he merges properties at such time that the property is sold to separate owners, it would first have to go through the simple subdivision process, which at that time would require that the site be brought up to code, which would mean that in order to do the simple subdivision, the 6-R green separation would have to be established. Application materials. /CITY OF MONTICELLO Planning . < COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Case o '/t. 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 65362 (812) 2952711 PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION Check Requested Action: CONDITIONAL USE - $125.00 + all necessary consulting expenses* _ ZONING MAP/ TEXT AMENDMENT - 5250.00 + necessary consulting expenses* _ SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - 550 _ SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - $250 _ SUBDIVISION PLAT - $300 + $100/acre up to 10 acres; S25/acre after 10 acres + expenses. City will refund exeess of per -acre deposit. VARIANCE REQUEST - $50 for setbaekt$125 for others + nee. consult. expenses' _ OTHER - Fee $ • NOTE: Necessary consulting fees include cost to have City Planner analyze variance, rezoning, & conditional use permit requests at the rate of S75/hr. The need for City Planner assistance is determined solely by City staff. / Applicant Name: �� li . -'1 K r 1 4 Address: X / l V Lt.', i // iR . li Phone: Home: 2 G' k' — / 7 G % Business: Property Address: G Rt. H /(✓ Current Zoning: Legal Description of Property: Lot I V Block: Z Subdivision: ?;Ile, Il t , I� Other: Describe Request A.6-4 .. fl s L n L. — n r *C 3 r i i�c� i. d , S.• > /'- c ( _4, - dYIL'lk'ay t IM Z[•, c Information provided by the applicant on this form is true and correct. Data Property Owner Signnta o Date Applicant Signature (if applicable) l (CONTINUE ON BACK..,) 41 e o� / Date Reeeived/Poid: ,' ° Receipt Number: ./ VCUSSAM.APP: 21MM5 Public Hearing Date: FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning: FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided: FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted: AL Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plot: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: FOR VARIANCE ONLY: Please identify the unique property conditions or hardship that exist that justifies granting a variance. A hardship exists when by reason of property narrowness, shallowness, shape , or exceptional topographic or water conditions, combines with strict application of the terms of the ordinance result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which the lot is located. /. 3— et-- /,•7� t: r/�t . � /�. t �u;a h.x.. :,. S..'// 1, e'w". e ., nr,f x rL._:,:.r �.1; ...<. 6-0 6:,l fJ.. ,,.11. JJr.<, r>i T..•. i /,,.,.I!1...., �n<.,. Ld 3. fi+ 3 t:<:. rdi-<k %,.•c ,/v,. 6...•, fa•wpre...:arr:.tiQ/r- rr/t. bel—If, tt. jr !A✓.F, fr• 1. •I. ♦ D/.�car./ y. ,%w /.f 4-1-4 tlY:✓<Vc! P 4A. �.Yw d.4 �i.'•. %.. .y� /tip%•. CeI. I�.✓e .��1:•[ /�. s. .%, yfNirt Cc.• .,.� er •if.: C..•i. /.s ..� /c .mow. , u,•A—a�.7t..W �/e l✓rn.... :•r {o.- vie► . a f.. liri.:lf. �r c.ir�.� cal.:/, i, 1�..•L.J a„l.•�7L✓ �..A6 ; r^e ITT- Tt:t :} a 1.. led'-; �/, M{p�•c :.//5 Yc t.o-.. 11 CA, lir.. .gin a� i7 �.•i •- RIG: ;i L•1 %/,.e Ah vd�f.erfa /.izi/ oVra fu.'� f�/ad <.� prs Hyl Dr•:ao./ 'X {.q •���..��• �.. •I..��������.���... �..►��...1N.���.I..I.... .• .... . .......... .. ..r. �.................. r. See .44 A.// AL Affil (For City Use Only) COMMENTS: i•' VCUSSAM P: 2/0006 FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning: 1 1 FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided: i FOR SUBDIVISION PWT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted: Acres Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: FOR VARIANCE ONLY. Please identify the unique property conditions or hardship that exist that justifies granting a•variance. A hardship exists when by reason of property narrowness, shallowness, shape , or exceptional topographic or water conditions, combines with strict application of the terms of the ordinance result in exceptional ( difficulties when utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which the C.Nr1 lormocated. / I ' �/ .� -�Jf ✓�. �i f i ��..✓ t C � �S i 5 V 14' .� / 7e l.+< � w /`. } .{_a A.. � JL 7y1%1r ' A.. t toW /1rje 7"6..e.t CY�j,ill h:• 7�.. C.+Sr. L�t7r...� aYe lx7 ,A :r haT �r.c llCa� ✓ak'4:- 4. (f G I !r 7�YaLS nK i ��/I v �— a •� �.t.q tia ���t %A::. tee! 7, . + e. �. L,, u.: CA; p( / - i�� .aP gy.- . _ i ... v. 9► f , i Sea" cl..rr ,.��..}l.e%. `��I'1.,, -tm. .I+r h-1,/ ✓.Y/10 4e oft,4' 111 (.. i. �..>I w.•.i ala ➢.ad�dr ew�/s sFF rir.rf �•�h�'•n` /.I:/:t J••�� ec4wi.,'f �•✓(•hSens. .................................................................f/......too ...t0000 �iiik�►i.E,:.............. (For City Use Only) COMMENTS: VCUSSAM.APP: 2WID3 :0j S 1 8'23.. E res 05.01 972.0! 160.01 922. w. 1 ^ - 55`p0 7.91 3" - O 933., h / I 1 N 91ra '�1 9332 1 ��.'O 336 936 e h ° / 938 eq 4 636t / /(if 0353 oi e 1;4 SFJ / • • / Si+471 scavx>t Pvc �ie3.'% 'e•~ Io-ewl / / I EUV.93o: ,/ •o.,� 3- ' �e 053 .1 O > `d - q� 11907 bp' A.- 9321 r/C `�v ? J �0 2-e e, ,•,• 242• 725.4 A q� S•p� d` rJ ' � 0....1a.eo -we To wisvoi: Q.r 7 MD.- 9321 Lot 13 and 14, Block '4 939.2uo t,utva RIVER MILL. 55 � RACE 142'5 Wright County, Minnes, 93951- G ELEVATIONS 6t SITE GRADES ARE \rt" .9 ERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT V a r-c�' Le FB LOCATION & ELEVATIO REPARED BY SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. '3 • So 1 bo c Is: SEWER & WATER SER' 10-10-95. Rt !, µr ad -AM L ARE FROM CITY ENGIr I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report -os prepare2 under my supervalon and that I am o duly registered Land Surveyr the lave of the Slate of Minnesota. Midwest Land Surveyors & and Civil Engineers, Inc. No certification whatsoever Is extended to subseauent owners, mor, tloo Insurers. unless this survey has been radiated for this purpose surveyor. IBB Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids, Mn. 55433 Dated this 61h day of May Pb. alp-7Ba-aDoo rest 512-7sa-9205 y / By A1ef Registration No. Minnesota Licensed Land Surveyor 3, lag-bis Book-Pogo IAQ-A Aced PII. 14I$ a Asbu01 Dated this day of _ (gL. I. V t I; PHONE M 9 10 - Z09 O CONTR: SNA -DF 7T,=F aLnSTIZILr-nc N ❑ House Footings ❑ Foundation - Formed CITY OF MONTICELLO Plumbing Rough -In DATE I TIME ❑ (Called in ❑ Plumbing Final INSPECTION NOTICE [Scheduled j ❑ e I Floor - 3rd Level ❑ CALLGD 9/Zo/qb Z: 00 P'" PERMIT M 96— 2939 c4u.Eo MAILED 9/z17 1% 9/3a/96 y:ZS Pm VIA ReeuIAR ADDRESS: 6:21A C.,MI1_t_ Rut.l VIA CEAT1f9m Ro.4r nfAIL 154 OWNER: u,nt_y � t f C�IFpBM`TC)y4' PHONE M 9 10 - Z09 O CONTR: SNA -DF 7T,=F aLnSTIZILr-nc N ❑ House Footings ❑ Foundation - Formed ❑ Plumbing Rough -In ❑ Garage Footings ❑ Foundation - Backfill ❑ Plumbing Final ❑ Floor - Basement ❑ Framing ❑ Mechanical Rough -in ❑ Floor - 3rd Level ❑ Insulation ❑ Mechanical Final Other ,DRIV[Wkj ❑ Shestrock ❑ Building Final COMMENTS: 0Rlu� u,nt_y � t f C�IFpBM`TC)y4' Rev 1=fl P�,4NS INSPECTION RESULTS: REASONS: Inspector: JOEME -WiMC ❑ Approved— Proceed ❑ Work Not Ready ❑ Unable to Inspect ❑ No Permit Issued ❑ Stop Work ❑ Corrections Not Done ❑ Correct Work -Proceed ❑ Do Not Occupy Correct Work -Cell ❑ Unable to Access for Inspection Wywim NEIcT 15 DA Y S Call 295-3060 for the next Inspection 24 hours In advance. I-NCLCf-o.A Z0N1N6 0kNk44,1Cs � 3-5 [b]9 A PPRwsb PLANS/ Fd W ELVV4_ 0AJ INSPNOTC.WK4: 09/05/95 WhiteAnspector File Yellow/Site Notice CITY OF MONTICELLO INSPECTION NOTICE v PERMIT #: 76 - 293$ ADDRESS: (,j(, tv1ILt- RUN RDAT-1, OWNER: PHONE M 7/0 - 7QQ0 I DATE TIME I ICalled in ❑ Plumbing Rough -in Scheduled Garage Footings j Completed ❑ Plumbing Final CALLED WJD J j 2:,- p-.1 cAL.LEp 9 2-,1% q. -is pn /HAILED q/30196 VIA REFuI,AA � VIA CERTIFIED MAIL A Ll 138.92q. 159 • _AL -a 4w0fw&wA10; ■ • ❑ House Footings ❑ Foundation - Formed ❑ Plumbing Rough -in ❑ Garage Footings ❑ Foundation - Backfill ❑ Plumbing Final ❑ Floor - Basement ❑ Framing ❑ Mechanical Rough -in ❑ Floor - 3rd Level ❑ Insulation ❑ Mechanical Final Other'DRIVEWAY ❑ Sheetrock ❑ Building Final COMMENTS: I>RIVE WAV Zb'ES Nar LONFf)i21��� Alk ROU�l1 pl�Alt"a cLI_iV Mn-nn-,Ellr3 A1-1 r'+R�IA141,1C7= ATION 9>=c_Tlc�� nr 1 ir= DF - S ri79 u1HIcH 7nNINb STATF� IN NRtT t4T- ( •• • DRi YE I4,AV< SHALL V�- Am A 7AINIrguM THREE (-3) PM—r f iQw& iH P VOILA; MQ;' RT4LIN6 IN QM TAn�MAl DL71ZKl5,-.•* INSPECTION RESULTS: REASONS: Inspector:7015 MERCHAK ❑ Approved— Proceed ❑ Work Not Ready ❑ Unable to Inspect ❑ No Permit Issued ❑ Stop Work ❑ Corrections Not Done ❑ Correct Work --Proceed ❑ Do Not Occupy �( Correct Work -Cell ❑ Unable to Access for Inspection Wimr 4 NI;Wr IS DAYS, Call 295.3080 for the next inspection 24 hours In advance. ENCLOSURES: ZONING ORtINAOCZI F§y 3-S" Pqq APPROIItvA PLANS, FRoN'r El.EvATION S INSPNOTC.WK4: 08/05/85 WhlteAnspector File Yellow/She Notice 4 G IFWN'T ELkVAT I ONJ Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking area design which requires backing into the public street is prohibited. (d) No curb cut access shall be located less than forty (40) feet from the intersection of two (2) or more street right-of-ways. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines. (e) Except in the case of single family, two- family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance with the following standards., WALL WALL TO INTERLOCK TO TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCK ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM 30 48.6' 44.5' 40.3' 45 56.8' 53.4' 50.0' 60 62.0' 59.7' 57.4' 90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0' Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in length. (f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet in width with the following exception: Curb cut access in industrial and commercial zoning districts may exceed twenty- four (24) feet with the approval of the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Denial by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator of curb cut access in excess of twenty-four (24) feet may be appealed following the procedures outlined in Chapter 23 of the zoning ordinance. (10/11/93, 0242) (g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a minimum three (3) feet from the side yard property line in residential districts and five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in business or industrial districts. (h) Driveway access curb openings on a public street except for single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than forty (40) feet from one another. (i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five (5) percent. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE j,3 - 5- &19 COUNCIL UPDATE November 8, 1888 Co aid ratinn ofCalling for a p ih1S�arino nn a mmp=henaive elan amendmnn - ld .nti 'n8 erewth Art+aa on the CherburnP Cminfv hnrriar nt hP ci v. (J.0.) According to Steve Grittman, the Planning Commission viewed alternative #2 as the preferred alternative with modifications. It is their view that the project should be actively monitored as a township plat but to keep the door open to the prospect of annexation. The City should engage in negotiations and conduct studies necessary to determine feasibility of annexation of the property for reasons outlined in Grittman's report. Under this alternative, staff and members of the Planning Commission will be in attendance at the public hearing conducted by Sherburne County Planning and Zoning. 1 J7, i,, ins, . L a -de. Nr mvl J NOU-01-19% 0957 NRC 612 595 9837 P.02/08 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUN I TY PLA N N MING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: October 31,1996 RE: Monticello - Plat Proposal for Big Lake Township FILE NO: 191.07 - 96.12 The City has been notified that a large tract of land (approximately 200 acres) just across the Mississippi River in Big lake Township has been submitted to Sherburne County for Pmflminary Plat approval. The County Planning Commission will hear the proposal for on November 21. The area consists of a three-quarter mile stretch of dveRront and mature hardwood forest. Although physlpdy separated from the City of Monticello by the River, it nonetheless tedTdcaly borders the City, since boundary lines typically run to the center of watercourses. The proposed plat consists of approximately 60 large, unsawered lots in a standard subdivision arrangement No ctuster ft concept has been proposed. Staff is bringing this development to the attention of the City for a number of reasons. First the MCP, under its direction from the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority, has discussed a potential for expansion of the City across the River in order to take advantage of both riverbanks, and the attendant views of Monticello davebprnont flan both directions (among other reasons). The second reason is ora of impact on ft City of Monticollo created by development outside of, but adjacent to, its boundaries. Third, thorn is some question as to whether or not davelopment of land within the Mississippi W11d and Scenic Rtm condor should occur In the p", proposed for environmental reasons. Finally, the new residents will be a part of the Monticello community, but without voice, once the land is developed and occupied. 8778 WAYZATA EOULEVARD. sUITC 55F ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 80416 PHONE 6 1 rt•e9e•0e3e VAX 0 1 8.605.0837 A NOU-01-1956 09:57 NFC This discussion focuses on the second and last reasons. The fust reason is being more thoroughly explored in the MCPS downtown planning process. The third reason will get extensive study through the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process which the plat will require as an unsewered subdivision In a sensitive environmental area. In many ways, new growth in areas such as the subject property is a part of the Monticello community. The area is a part of the Monticello School District. The residents of the area wig rely on Monticello for most of then commercial goods and services. These and others combine with several municipal service impacts to suggest that the City should examine development In the area and consider whether or not the owners of the land should be approached regarding potential annexation of the area to the City of Monticello. Among the municipal impacts which are often raised by this type of development are the Wowing: • Public Library maintenance and operations. • Public Street use and maintenance. • Park Facggles use and maintenance. • Pathway development and use. • Recreation organizations. • Economic Development activities. • Housing, especially provision of eNordable housing 'falx share'. • Fire Protection contracts and responsibilities. • Senior Citizen facilities and programs. • Public Transportation use and funding. Moreover, suburban -style development in unhroorporated areas often relies upon other governmental unite to provide basic seMces. For Instance, the County will typically provide bask sheriff patrol, administrative servioes, planning, zoning, buildirtp, and environmental health Inspection services, and others. As a result of City and County provided services, development such as the one proposed offer► fags to share In the full cost of the impacts It creates. VVhat this means for the City is that municipal taxpayers may dNdkv* *Rft dW the reskW is of the un:,......a a.; areas to many rmatidpel activities. In some churnstences tMs •subsidy' eRect is mirror. In others, however, R can los slgnlflcartt. For these t,aaaons, the Statutes were ostabgshed to encourage arhnexatlons In areas Which are urban or suburban in character. The City may respond to this Issue in several ways. These we summstrtred below. 1. Annexation of the subject area. a NOU-01-1956 09:5a NRC 612 595 9837 P. 04/08 This option would permit the City to regulate land use in the area, including the potential extension of municipal utilities to the area. This option would require at least the following actions, and possibly others: a. Preparation of an annexation petition filed with the Minnesota Municipal Board. b. Call for a public hearing on the amendment of the Ciys Comprehensive Plan to address growth and land use In the area of the proposed plat (and other affected areas). 2.' Active monitoring and review of the project as a Township development This option would not anticipate annexatiom but would suggest that the City will participate in the plat and Environmental Assessment Worksheet review process to encourage a development of minimal impacts on the City and the environment 3. Passive monitoring and review of the project as a Township development This option would piece the City m ft role of usual observer, but with only informal review (at most) of the project's progress. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that an active role in this project Is Important to the City's Interests. At the very least the proposed project will have impecls an both the private and public services provided by Monticello residents and businesses. In addition, the extent to which the north bank of the River is modified will impact the CiVe expressed Interest in refocusing its attention on the Mississippi River asset A development which fails to take into account these impacts could have a highly unfortunate effect on Monticello. The greatest degree of hpad management would result from the City* annexation of the subject area. it is acknowledged that such a proposal could be highly controversial end, possibly, expensive to Implement However, without a solid growth strategy, the coats whim a poor development aeates could far outatrtp the costs of &WW winexation. Moreover, any development of this area will Impact the quality of the River, both aesthaticelly, and biologically. The City has an h in net in preserving, and enhancing, the River es it flows through this region. Short of annexation, steft would encourap* acl" participation in the plat and environmental review process, WWo the municipal **nice costs mentioned above would SWI exist the development's negative impacts on the River (arid thus on Mont He's use and enjoyment of the River) can be minimized, 0 c NO 1-1996 09:58 NX Wdh any of these mss, a wM be important for the Chy to be Main of Its choice. The Planning Commission, MCP. and pardmilady, the City C"Idl, will have to be solidly behind the Citys action, due to the time and cost of pursuing the objecthre. While the annexation option noted above can, and should, be inifted with an hoot toward coopm tion and muWal interests, annexation can be a controversial and adversarial 0 COUNCIL UPDATE November S. 1996 M-113iamr- TheThe Planning Commission approved this variance, and there has been no appeal; therefore, this variance stands unless the City Council requests that it should be placed on the Council agenda. If any member of the City Council wishes to appeal, please say so, and the item will be on the next agenda. L C Planning Commission Agenda - 11/6/96 f.�11iC�:77Z:iTLC' •TTTitCT:'f;iTTf ..,: Dave Peterson of Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford requests a variance which would allow a corner of a proposed building expansion project to encroach into the minimum setback area along the lot line that borders Sandberg Road. This request precedes a future request for a conditional use permit which would allow a large expansion of his facility at the site. The applicant desires permission to obtain this variance prior to completion of the detailed work and associated pursuit of the conditional use permit that will follow. As you recall, some months ago Dave Peterson submitted some conceptual drawings and plans outlining expansion to his facility. These plans were reviewed in conjunction with review of the expansion to the outside sales area. When the approval for the outside sales expansion conditional use permit was granted, he noted that he would be coming back to the Planning Commission to detail his plans for expansion of the building itself. In order to obtain approval for the plans and associated conditional use permit that have been prepared to date, Peterson will need a variance to allow a corner of the proposed expansion building to be placed 5 R inside of the setback area. As you can see in the proposed site plan, the percentage of the structure actually encroaching in the setback area is very small. The total square footage of the setback variance would amount to approximately 55 sq ft. According to Peterson, the need for the variance stems Gum the shape of the lot relative to the placement of the existing building. In order to justify the expansion, he needs to build sufficient space to create room for d repair bays. Without the variance, he will be limited in the number of bays 121 that can be created, thus impacting the viability of the project. Approval of the variance will not have a negative impact on adjoining property owners or use and operation of the city right-of-way. R ALT . NAT ACTIONS: Motion to approve the variance request based on the finding that the shape of the lot relative to the placement of the building limits reasonable expansion of the building without a variance. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/6/96 Under this alternative, the Planning Commission can take the view that the variance is necessary for the property owner to obtain reasonable use of the property and the shape and configuration of the lot combined with the location of an existing building limits reasonable use of the property without a variance. Therefore, the applicant has demonstrated that the hardships associated with this site are unique and the associated approval will not set an unwanted precedent. Motion to deny the variance request. This motion could be based on the finding that a significant and unique hardship has not been demonstrated. It could be argued that nominal expansion could occur on site without the granting of the variance and, therefore, the applicant should be required to work within the code in achieving goals for expansion. Planning Commission could take the stance that the situation is not unique, which means that approving the variance would result in a precedent that would force approval of future similar requests in the future. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance. It is our view that this site is relatively unique and that there are sufficient special circumstances that we can point to to justify the variance in this situation. D SUPPORT N . DATA: Copy of site plan. CPI'Y OF MONTICELLO Planning COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAIt1'MENT Case 0 9' tit/), 250 E. Broadway, PO Dox 1147 rn �Monticello, MN 55JG2 (012) 205-2711 PUBLIC I1EAItING APPLICATION Check Requested Action: CONDITIONAL USE - $125.00 + all necessary consulting expenses' ZONING MAP/ TEXT AMENDMENT - $250.00 + necessary consulting expenses' _ SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - $50 _ SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - $250 _ SUBDIVISION PLAT - $300 + $100/acro up to 10 acres; $25/acre alter 10 acres + expenses. City will refund excess of per -acre deposit 2, VARIANCE REQUEST - $50 for setback/$125 for others + nec. consult. expenses' _ OTHER - Fee E • NOTE: Necessary consulting fees Include cost to have City Planner analyze variance, rezoning, & conditional use permit requests at the rate of $76/hr. The need for City Planner assistance is determined solely by City staff. Applicant Name: David B. Peterson Address: P. 0. Box 68, 194 and Hwy 25, Monticello Mn 55362 Phone: Home: 295-8883 Business: 295-2056 Property Address: 100 West Oakwood Drive Current Zoning: rB -3 Legal Description of Property: J Lot: • Block: Subdivision: Other: See Aunth d Describe Request4 Permission to place corner of or000sed remodeled building within rhn 30 feet set back requirement. The corner of building will extend into 30 fast net hack approximatelyf feet. The square footage within the eat back nron if; anoroximntely Sr -4j, SQPW square feet. Information provided by the applicant on this form is true and correct.. September 16, 1996 .,Gi-v Date Property Owner Signature Dato Applicant Signature (if applicable) (CONTINUE ON UACII».) Data Recoived/1'aid: .l e ItaciptNurina : 1411L VCUSSAAS.APP: 2100/NB Public HearirrQ Date: 1T�1L FOR ZONING MAP AMENUMMT ONLY: Pro N/A posed Zoning: FOR SIMPLB SUBDIVISION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided: N/A y FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted: N/A Acus Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat: Street Address: City: Slate: 'Lip: 1'Itunc: FOR VARIANCE ONLY: Please identify the unique property conditions or hardship that exist that justifies granting,a variance. A hardship exists when by reason of properly narrowness, shalluwness, shape , or exceptional topographic or water conditions, combines with strict application of the terms of Ute urdinauce result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and legally permissible within Ute district in which tic lot is located. 1. Not allovinR this small intrusion will dramatically affect the enlargement of the entire service area. 2. The average setback from SandborR Road is SS' B". 3. The addition does not block views of the intersection of Sandberg Road and Oakwood Drive. 6. The incursion will occupy only4psquare feet of the set back area. .0 -LO • ................................................................................................................ (For City Use Only) COMbUWM VCUSSAMAPP: VWID5 0