City Council Agenda Packet 05-27-1997AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 27,1997 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Bill Fair
Council Members: Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 12, 1997.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. — QP kkL
5. Consent agenda.
A. Consideration of authorizing a 1 -day farmer's market and exemption
of permit fee. Applicant, Downtown Merchants Association.
X
C� B. Consideration of approving amendment to Contract for Private
o Redevelopment by and among the City, Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc.,
and the HRA.
C. Consideration of approval of final plat and associated development and
disbursement agreements for Cardinal Hills VI residential
subdivision. Applicant, Value Plus Homes.
D. Consideration of rezoning Cardinal Pond residential subdivision from
agriculture to R-1. Applicant, John l.eerssen.
E. Consideration of approval of preliminary plat of Cardinal Pond
residential subdivision. Applicant, John t eerssen.
F. Consideration of adoption of an ordinance requiring plan review of
plumbing plans for work in the city, and adoption of a resolution
requesting that the Minnesota State Commissioner of Health delegate
State Plumbing Code enforcement activities to the City.
G. Consideration of final payment to Bnrbarosan lk Sons, Inc., for Meadow
Oak storm sower outlet and Northeast Gillard Avenue reconstruction,
Project 83-12C.
6. Consideration of items remove from the consent agenda for discussion.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
May 27, 1997
Page 2
Consideration of renewing membership in the Wright County Economic
Development Partnership.
8. Consideration of providing 60 -day notice of withdrawal from the
City/Township Urbanization Plan.
8a. Consideration of selecting additional meeting dates with Monticello
Township to continue discussions on urbanization boundary plan
amendments.
9. Consideration of a resolution approving the feasibility study for lGein Farms
III residential subdivision, and consideration of authorizing preparation of
plans and specifications.
10. Consideration of authorizing a flood relief donation through the League of
Minnesota Cities.
11. Consideration of authorizing the sale of Lots 13 and 14, Block 3, Hoglund
Addition, located on Mississippi Drive.
12. Consideration of advertising for bids and obtaining quotes for a new 4 -wheel
drive tractor loader and trailer for the parks and street departments.
13. Consideration of electrical improvements to Ellison Park for community
events and celebrations. c q�t1u
14. Consideration of bills for the last half of May.
15. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELL40 CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 12,1897.7 p.m.
Members Present: Bill Fair, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce
Thielen
Members Absent: None
11 .�M . • l' J : �
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
THIELEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD
APRIL 23 AND THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 28, 1997, AS WRITTEN.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Consideratinn of ad ino itermt to the a8enda.
A. Councilmember Brian Stumpf requested that Council discuss
rescheduling the May 13 special Council meeting.
4. Ci 7. nam rn ntaJne ilio a- requests. and con 1 in n p
A. Bruce Pankonin of Orrin Thompson Homes stated that their proposed
development would bring approximately $lb million in family income,
of which approximately $5 million would be spent in the trade area,
and would add about 100 to the employment base. In addition, the
development would divert water from ditch 33 to a city storm sewer
system as planned by the City, which would alleviate the problems the
township and county have experienced, and the development would
pay extensive trunk atom sewer fees for a system in which the City
has already invested. Pankonin also noted that he felt it was unfair
that the public would not be allowed to speak at the joint City
CounciV(bwnship Board meeting gime representatives on the
Township Board that have an intorest in the land area to be discussed
would be allowed to speak.
Mayor Fair recommended that the public write to the City Council and
Monticello Township Board to voice their concerns regarding the joint
City/Township meeting.
Pegs 1 0
r 5.
Council Minutes - 5/12/97
A. Consideration ofadopfing a resolution s ahlishing n or 'nanrp
gy=ro 'ng; trunk storm sewer fundingVlii . Recommendation:
Adopt a resolution and ordinance amendment establishing an
ordinance supporting the trunk storm sewer funding policy.
SEE RESOLUTION 97-16. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 11289.
B. Son_aideration of a conditional o_ae ,permit allowing a townhnusp
planned unit development in an R-2 zone. Applicant. B n a l
$oRertiP Ins. Recommendation: Approve the conditional use
permit allowing a townhouse planned unit development in an R-2 zone
subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission of a detailed landscape plan that includes
substantial additional plantings along the west property
line prior to final PUD plan approval.
2. Approval of street accesses by the City Engineer prior to
final PUD plan approval.
3. Submission of proposed building elevations for review
prior to final PUD plan approval.
4. Approval of grading, drainage, and utility issues by the
City Engineer and public works department.
Approval is based on the finding that the proposal is consistent with
the comprehensive plan and is consistent with the existing land use in
the area, provisions of the zoning ordinance, and the City's use of
planned unit development with appropriate landscaping and
architectural design.
C. Consideration of a ilreliminary and finni pInt of he Par Wes
Town_homea subdivision. Applocant. Bren sel Proi s,Inc,
Recommendation: Approve the preliminary and final plat of the Par
West Townhomes subdivision subject to comments of the City
Engineer and public works department.
D. Co aid ration of approving finding a n ing that an F.n 'ro mon nl
Impact CtnLment on tho Monticello High School project is not
ueressaa+t hated on results from thn FnvironmnntaLAfigQaSMCj2t
Workghppt pencesa, Recommendation: Approve the funding that an
Environmental Impact Statement on the Monticello High School
project is not necessary based on results from the EAW process.
Page 2 0
Council Minutes - 5/12/97
ro aid ration of a conditional iig;p permit allowing construction of a
high school inan R-1 zone. Applicant- Mnntirplin School Distrier,
Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit allowing
construction of a high school facility in an R-1 zone contingent on the
following conditions:
Submission of a complete landscaping plan meeting the
minimum landscaping requirements in addition to
meeting the minimum requirements of the buffer yard
ordinance.
Complete revisions to the site plan as identified by the
Planning Commission that are necessary to improve
parking stall delineation and adequately break up the
monotony of the parking lots. This applies to both front
and rear parking areas.
Approval of the conditional use permit is based on the finding that
development of the school facility at this location under the conditions
as noted is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city.
rnnaideration of a zoning man sampntimpnt thnt would rhange an
aEricul ural digtrirl to a PS (puhhr/semi p uhli ) zonino dia ri
Ap h nn , Ream ecrion .h nnah, Recommendation: Approve the
rezoning from agricultural district to PS district based on the finding
that the proposed use is in conformance with the objectives of the
comprehensive plan and is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. Approval is subject to completion of the annexation
process. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT #290.
Cinnaideration of a condiLo_nal 12 Re permit mnuest which would nllnw a
ch meh facifi y in n PS (pLlie/sem-aLL+c) zoning diiarid, App i "n
Reaurrmbon .h inch, Recommendation: Approve the conditional
use permit to allow a church facility in a PS district with the following
conditions:
The temporary terminus of the paved parking area is
constructed to control drainage and traffic to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. A rolled asphalt curb in
this area would be an inexpensive suggestion to provide
an interim improvement.
2. The Church agrees to expand the paved parking area
prior to building expansion in the event that
demonstrated parking demand exceeds the current
supply.
Page 3
Council Minutes - 5/12/97
The Church works with the City to appropriately route
the pathway around and/or through the property to
connect with pathway routes to the east and west.
The Church provides a plan illustrating landscaping
improvements, including the control of storm water and
erosion after construction.
Approval is based upon the finding that the proposed use has met, or
will meet with appropriate changes, the conditions as defined in the
zoning ordinance, including adequate traffic access and management,
adequate setbacks to protect the neighborhood, adequate parking to
accommodate the proposed use, and compatibility with the
neighborhood and comprehensive plan objectives. Approval is also
subject to completion of the annexation process.
Congideration of supporting annexation of the Resurrection rhurch
Rite -Applicant- Resurrection Church. Recommendation: Support
annexation of the Resurrection Church site. After review of the site
plan and petition for annexation by the Monticello Township Board,
comments will be reviewed by the City Council prior to final
consideration of a joint resolution by Council.
Consideration of adoptti g an ordinance nmen ins Ch Der 4.
Section 12_ of the Monticello Zoniny Ordinance Pgtahlighina, nntenna
and antennn angor[ structure repila io & Recommendation:
Adopt an ordinance amendment establishing antenna and antenna
support structure regulations as proposed based on the finding that
the ordinance is necessary to manage and reasonably accommodate
wireless communication technology and the provisions of the 1996
Telecommunications Act. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 291.
Cnnaid ration of hiring Sun T ibod a rx to 1311 the. Bookkeeper
MaiLi=. Recommendation: Approve hiring Sue Thibodeaux to the
position of Bookkeeper for the City of Monticello at Step 1 of Grade 4,
$10.59 per hour.
K. Consideration of improv m n a to Ouflot A. M adow O k Park.
Recommendation: Approve improvements to Outlot A, Meadow Oak
Park, consisting of a concession stand/storago building/shelter, along
with a basketball court and parking lot improvements, not to exceed
the total budgeted amount of $40,000.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion
carried unanimously.
Page 4
Council Minutes - 5/12/97
None.
Assistant Administrator Jeff O Neill reported that it was discovered during a
title search that there was no record of the vacation of a portion of Palm
Street adjacent to Steve Conroy's office, previously known as the Pitt Funeral
Home. City maps show that this street was vacated; however, Conroy needs
a formal record of the vacation in order to obtain a clear title.
Mayor Fair opened the public hearing for comments.
There being no comment from the public, the public hearing was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF PALM STREET
DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO STEVE CONROY'S OFFICE ON THE NORTH OF
BROADWAY AND SOUTH OF RIVER STREET. Motion carried unanimously
. AND
10. rnnAideration of n nreliminnry and Anal replat of the HnIker's Hillaido
Addition- Annliennt_ C ria S low,
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that Chris Bulow proposed to
construct three twinhomes on a 1.07 -acro tract of land located north of 7th
Street and west of Wright Street. Tho subdivision would constitute a replat
of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Holker s Hillside Addition, and would require the vacation
of drainage and utility casements.
O'Neill noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of both
the conditional use permit and the prelimiinary plat pending the condition
that the site plan be re-examined and adjusted to meet required setbacks.
After further review of the ordinance, O'Neill reported that the site plan
would meet the setback requirements when the front of the lot is placed
along the 7th Street right-of-way, which would result in a 20 -ft setback
requirement on Wright Strout for the unit farthest to the south. The other
two units fronting Wright Street would be set back at least 30 ft as though
Wright Street was the front.
Pago 5 0
Council Minutes - 5/12/97
Mayor Fair opened the public hearing for comments.
There being no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPROVE VACATION OF THE UTILITY EASEMENTS ON LOTS 1,
2, AND 3, HOLKER'S HILLSIDE ADDITION;
APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING A TOWNHOUSE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN AN R-3 ZONE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
BUILDING ELEVATIONS ARE SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND
ENSURE THAT PROPER STRUCTURE SEPARATION EXISTS.
A LANDSCAPE PLAN IS SUBMITTED WHICH IDENTIFIES THE
LOCATION, SIZE, AND VARIETY OF SITE PLANTINGS.
APPROVAL OF GRADING AND DRAINAGE ISSUES BY THE CITY
ENGINEER AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT;
APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL REPLAT OF THE HOLKER'S
HILLSIDE ADDITION SUBJECT TO COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
Motion is based on the finding that the proposal is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, the existing land use in the area, the provisions of the
zoning ordinance, and the City's use of planned unit development. Motion
carried unanimously.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Jill Stark requested a special
home occupation permit to operate a preschool in an R-1 zone at her
residence located at 2910 Oak Ridge Drive. Because the home occupation
involves the teaching of more than one pupil at a time, it qualifios as a
special home occupation, which according to the zoning ordinance must he
processed in accordance with conditional use permit provisions.
The applicant proposed two sessions per day and a maximum often students
per session, with the first session from b a,m. to 12 p.m., and the second
session Thom 12:30 p.m. to 3,30 p.m. It was estimated that the traffic
generated by the proposed use could be approximately 40 additional vehicle
trips per day through the cul-de-sac.
Page 6 0
Council Minutes - 5112/97
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the special home
occupation permit since it was similar to the operation of a daycare, which is
a permitted use in the R-1 zone, and is consistent with the comprehensive
plan. It was also their view that there was a need for the preschool activity,
and since it would be conducted during school days only on a staggered
schedule, it would not be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Mayor Fair noted that a petition opposing the proposed preschool was
received by the City, as well as opposing letters from Michael and Janelle
Doerfler and Shelly Villaverde. A letter was also presented to the Council
from real estate broker Larry Carter.
Council discussed the differences between daycare and preschool activities,
the traffic generated by both, and whether the preschool would be better
suited in a more business -oriented area of the community.
Mayor Fair noted that the Council is obligated to see that the ordinance is
enforced and equitably applied to all applicants.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL. HOME
OCCUPATION PERMIT TO ALLOW TEACHING MORE THAN ONE PUPIL AT A
TIME UP T05 PUPILS PER SESSION. Motion died for lack of a second.
A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY BILL FAIR AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
THIELEN W APPROVE THE SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION FORA
PRESCHOOL AT 2910 OAK RIDGE DRIVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. THE APPLICANT MUST RE -APPLY FOR A PERMIT' AFTER THE
INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD. RENEWAL OF THE PERMIT SHALL
BE PROCESSED WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUMMENTS OF
THE INITIAL SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT.
2. CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO EXPANDING THE TIME
SEPARATION BETWEEN MORNING AND AFTERNOON
PRESCHOOL SESSIONS TO ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE PICK-
UPIDROP-OFF VEHICLE OVERLAP.
3. THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT PRODUCE LIGHT, GLARE,
NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION THAT WILL IN ANY WAY HAVE AN
OBJECTIONABLE EFFECT UPON ADJACENT OR NEARBY
PROPERTY.
C. NO EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED IN THE HOME OCCUPATION
WHICH WILL CREATE ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE TO
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES,
Page 7 0
Council Minutes - 5/12/97
5. NO INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL STRUCTURE ALTERATIONS
SHALL TAKE PLACE WHICH ARE NOT CUSTOMARY TO
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS.
6. NO EXTERIOR STORAGE OF BUSINESS-RELATED MATERIALS
TAKE PLACE ON THE SITE.
7. NO PERSON OTHER THAN THE RESIDENT CONDUCT THE HOME
OCCUPATION.
8. THE SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
APPLICABLE FIRE AND BUILDING CODES. THIS ISSUE IS
SUBJECT TO FURTHER COMMENT BY THE CITY BUILDING
INSPECTOR.
9. THERE SHALL BE NO EXTERIOR DISPLAY OR EXTERIOR SIGNS
OR INTERIOR DISPLAY OR INTERIOR SIGNS WHICH ARE
VISIBLE FROM OUTSIDE THE DWELLING WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THE RESIDENT IDENTIFICATION SIGN.
10. HOME OCCUPATION ACTIVITIES OCCUR BETWEEN THE HOURS
OF 7 A.M. AND 10 P.M.
11. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE PREMISES
(WITHIN REASONABLE HOURS WITHOUT NOTICE) TO ENSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SPECIAL HOME
OCCUPATION LICENSE ISSUANCE.
12. ALL APPLICABLE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS OF THE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ARE SATISFACTORILY
MET.
13. OTHER COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF.
Voting in favor: Bill Fair, Bruce Thielen, Roger Carlson. Opposed: Clint
Herbst, Brian Stumpf. Motion passed. It was Councilmember Herbst's view
that the preschool operation should be operated in a business area of the city.
It was Councilmember Stumpfs view that the number of pupils per session
should be limited to five.
Motion is based on the findings that the proposed use satisfies the intent of
the City's zoning ordinance; given the conditions required, the use is
consistent with the character of an R-1 neighborhood and consistent with the
comprehensive plan; there is a demonstrated need for this type of use; and
the traffic generated will occur on a staggered basis and is similar to traffic
created by a daycare, which is allowed as a permitted use.
Page 8 (D
Council Minutes - 5/12/97
12. Vnnaideration of reinwinng membership in thp Wright.o n y Economic
Development ParLn ershio.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that the City has received a
notice that the 1997 membership dues for the Economic Development
Pari.nership of Wright County are now due. The notice indicated that the
City's membership dues for 1997 would amount to $1,004.50; however, if the
Monticello Industrial Development Committee (IDC) or Monticello Chamber
do not contribute tlse additional $500 as in past years, the City would be
responsible for the total membership fee of $1,504.50.
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak added that the IDC would
be requesting that the Chamber of Commerce pay the $500 portion of the
dues at the Chamber Board meeting scheduled for the first Tuesday of June.
Council discussed tike economic development efforts of the Partnership, and it
was noted that city residents actually pay for the Partnership three ways,
through City and County contributions and in the salary paid to the City's
Economic Development Director.
Councilmember Bruce Thielen suggested that there should be some sort of
performance measurement so that benefits received from the Partnership can
be reviewed.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council to table
authorization to continue membership in the Economic Development
Partnership of Wright County until the activity and financial report can be
reviewed.
13. Co aid ration of Bab of LotA 17 and 14 Block =1. Hogl and Adrh tin n. located
on Mia iasippi Drivo.
Public Works Director John Simola reported that. in 1980, the City accepted
Lots 13 and 14, Block 3, Hoglund Addition, in exchange for park dedication
fees and engineering foes owed on MacArlund Plaza, expenses owed on the
Thomas Park plat development, and remaining assessments for sanitary
sewer, water, stone Bower, and street improvements. The City's total
investment in each lot was estimated at $8,424,
Simola went on to note that the lots have been difficult to maintain due to
unsuitable Boil and wet conditions. In 1990, a geotechnical exploration of the
lots was performed to determine the suitability for building homes on the
lots. The investigation indicated that the house pad areas contained 8.5 ft to
10 ft of organic peat swamp deposits and peat/silty sand fill mixtures. In
addition, the ground water was within 3.5 R from the surface. Tho cost for
Page 9
Council Minutes - 5/12197
soil correction for both lots in 1990 was estimated between $10,000 to
$15,000. City staff suggested that after review by the City Attorney for
proper procedure, the Council consider liquidating the lots at a reduced price
so that the buyers could perform the necessary soil correction for single
family home construction, which would put the lots back on the tax rolls.
Council discussed whether the lots were considered park land, which would
required a public hearing prior to the sale of the lots. Councilmember Brian
Stumpf suggested that the Council wait for the City Attorney's opinion on the
matter prior to making a decision.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILL FAIR AND SECONDED
BY BRUCE THIELEN TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE OF LOTS 13
AND 14, BLOCK 3, HOGLUND ADDITION, AND DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE
THE ITEM FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. Voting in favor: Bill Fair, Bruce
Thielen, Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Brian Stumpf. It was
Councilmember Stumpf s view that the Council should wait for the City
Attorney's opinion prior to holding a public hearing. Motion passed.
14. Di cuRsion ofrel ora ion of animal sh l nr.
Public Works Director John Simola reported that in anticipation of
constructing a new animal shelter, $160,000 was placed in the 1997 budget.
Staff reviewed various options for animal control and noted that the City has
averaged 406 animals through the shelter during the past three years, with
12 cities currently contracting for use of the Monticello shelter. During that
time, average expenditures were $31,482 and revenues were $20,829, for an
average net cost to the City of $10,663 per year.
Simola presented three options for Council consideration. The first option
would be to not build a new animal shelter and contract with the Pets Under
Police Supervision ( PUPS) in Maple Grove for boarding animals from the city
of Monticello. The net cost to the City for this option was estimated at
$43,822 per year based on an average of 127 animals per year. The second
option would be to build a new animal shelter sized for city of Monticello
animals only. Operating expenses for this option would drop slightly, but
revenue would drop to approximately $800 per year, with a net cost to the
City of $26,671 per year. The third option would be to build a new animal
shelter large enough to handle animals from Monticello as well as the 12
cities currently contracting to use Monticello's facility. Expenses for this
option were estimated at $31,482 per year; however, if an administration
charge of $46 per month were charged for contracting communities and
impound charges were increased slightly, revenue would be approximately
$29,429, resulting in a not cost to the City of $2,063.
Page 10 0
Council Minutes - 5112/97
Mayor Fair requested that Council first discuss whether the City would
continue contracting animal shelter services for other communities.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUNIPF AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO CONTINUE CONTRACTING WITH OTHER
COMMUNITIES FOR ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES. Motion carried
unanimously.
Council then discussed location and cost of a new animal shelter. It was
suggested by staff that the Council consider building the new facility on
property currently owned by the City in the industrial park, which also
houses the water reservoir. It was staffs view that the shelter should be
located away from residential areas since the animals must occasionally be
let out on runs and the shelter wouldn't be soundproof.
The proposed design and cost of the shelter were also discussed, and it was
suggested that proposals should be reviewed by City Council prior to
preparation of plans. The Public Works Director requested that staff be
allowed to begin studying options for design of the building for future Council
consideration.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO BEGIN
STUDYING OPTIONS FOR DESIGN OF A NEW ANIMAL SHELTER. Motion
carried unanimously.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that at the previous Council
meeting, the Council voted 3 to 2 to increase the sewer access (SAC) fee from
$1,500 to $3,000 effective June 1, 1997, with comments accepted on the
proposed increase until June 1. Wolfsteller noted that in order for this item
to be reopened for further discussion, a motion for reconsideration would
have to be made by one of the three individuals who voted for the increase
and passed by a majority. Councilmember Brian Stumpf had indicated to
staff that he would be entering a motion for Council to reopen discussion
regarding the fee increase at this meeting.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
THIELEN TO REOPEN DISCUSSION OF THE SEWER ACCESS FEE. Voting in
favor: Brian Stumpf, Bruce Thielen, Roger Carlson, Bill Fair. Opposed:
Clint Herbst. Motion passed.
Page 11 (3
Council Minutes - 5/12/97
Councilmember Bruce Thielen suggested that Council consider holding a
public hearing on the increase. In addition, it was his view that the City
should establish a gradual increase of the fee to reach a total of $3,000 over
an 18 -month period, and then establish a formula for annual increases
thereafter. Councilmember Stumpf agreed, noting that after discussing the
increase with builders and developers, it appeared that an immediate $1,500
increase was too much for them to absorb. Mayor Fair added that gradual
increases would help to avoid stifling development.
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill suggested that Council increase the fee
$500 this year and wait for results from the fee schedule study prior to
discussing further increases.
Councilmember Roger Carlson noted that he was in favor of smaller
increases every six months until the $3,000 amount was reached and then
establish a formula for annual increases.
City Engineer Bret Weiss noted if Council determined how much of the
treatment plant debt they intended to pay with the sewer access fees, it may
be easier to establish a formula for increases. He estimated that an annual
SAC fee increase of 6'% could possibly pay for in excess of 50% of the
treatment plant.
` AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO INCREASE THE SEWER ACCESS FEE TO
$2,000 ON JUNE 1, 1997, AND TO $2,500 ON JANUARY 1, 1998, AND INSTRUCT
CITY STAFF TO BRING RESULTS FROM THE FEE SCHEDULE STUDY BACK TO
COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION BY JUNE 1, 1998.
Builder Tom Holthaus explained that fee increases in January would be
better for builders since that would be the slowest time of the year. June
increases would be difficult because commitments have already been made to
customers.
BRIAN STUMPF THEN AMENDED HIS MOTION TO STATE THAT THE SEWER
ACCESS FEE WOULD INCREASE $1,000 ON JANUARY 1, 1998, AND INSTRUCT
STAFF TO BRING RESULTS FROM THE FEE SCHEDULE STUDY BACK TO
COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION BY JANUARY 1, 1999. THE AMENDED
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN. Voting in favor: Brian
Stumpf, Bruce Thielen. Opposed: Clint Herbst, Bill Fair, Roger Carlson.
Motion failed.
Page 12 0
Council Minutes - 5/12197
A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY BILL FAIR AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TD INCREASE THE SEWER ACCESS FEE BY $500 ON JANUARY 1,
1998, $500 ON JANUARY 1, 1999, AND 7$300 ON JANUARY 1, 2000. MOTION
INCLUDES INSTRUCTING CITY STAFF TO RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH
RESULTS OF THE FEE STRUCTURE STUDY, A RECOMMENDATION ON
WHETHER THE FEE IS TO0 HIGH OR TOO LOW, AND AN ESTIMATE OF HOW
MUCH OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DEBT COULD BE PAID
WITH SEWER ACCESS FEES.
Councilmember Bruce Tl hielen clarified the motion by stating that when staff
returned to Council with the results of the fee study, a formula would also be
presented for annual increases to the fee.
Voting in favor of the motion: Bill Fair, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen.
Opposed: Brian Stumpf, Clint Herbst. Motion passed.
16. Conaideratinn of hills for * o first h llf of Mny.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE BILLS FOR THE FIRST HALF OF MAY AS
PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously.
17. (`n�aideration of iLmw added tha w� nda,
A. It was the consensus of the Council to reschedule the special Council
prioritization workshop of May 13 to Wednesday, May 21, 1997, at
4 p.m.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLS0N
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
C
Page 13 2)
C 5A.
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
ofint fee. AonLcanL Downtown Merchants Association- - (R.W.)
A RFFF F.NrR AND BACKGROUND:
The Downtown Merchants Association is interested in promoting a 1 -day
farmer's market in the downtown area as part of the planned all -city garage
sale event on Saturday, August 9. Since the City currently requires a permit
under the transient merchant ordinance for individuals or organizations that
want to sell farm or garden fruits and vegetables during the summer, the
Downtown Merchants Association should also be obtaining similar approval
of a license, although the daily $10 fee could simply be waived by the
Council, as this is a non-profit organization.
The farmer's market is being proposed on the empty lot owned by the HRA
(north side of Broadway), and the Association will be getting permission from
the HRA.
A ALTFRNATrVF A .TIONS:
1. Approve the issuance of a 1 -day farmer's market permit for the
Downtown Merchants Association as part of the August 9 all -city
garage sale event and waive the permit fees.
2. Do not approve a permit.
Although a farmer's market where more than one individual may be selling
fruits and vegetables is not normally a permitted use under the transient
merchant ordinance, the Council does have the authority to consider this 1 -
day event similar to other transient merchant vendors we do allow during
the summer. It is recommended that the authorization be given subject to
the HRA approval of using their property and that the permit fee be waived
for this event.
None.
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
513. Consideration of nUproving nmendment toGontrart for Private
RedevolnUmont1 1,nmong the r : 1.: ,
and 1 : H1
At the May 1997 HRA meeting, the commissioners voted to amend the
Contract for Private Redevelopment between the City, Cedrus Creek
Craftsman, Inc., and the HRA of January 13, 1997, extending the date of
construction commencement and completion and the date of recording and
filing of the final plat for Prairie West Second Addition by one year. The
commissioners felt the non-performance by the developer was beyond the
control of the developer, Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc. (John Komarek). The
developer agreed to pay all costs associated with amending the contract.
Because the City is a party to the contract, the Council is requested to
consider approving the amendment.
The Private Redevelopment Contract of July 3, 1996, is the `closing date"of
the Hanawalt, Banyai, Gille, and Katzmarek properties. The contract was
amended January 13, 1997, and this second request for amendment prevents
the developer from default of the contract. The amendment includes
extending the date for recording and filing of the final plat for Prairie West
Second Addition from April 1, 1997, to April 1, 1998. Additionally, the
amendment includes extending the construction commencement date for
phase I of the Prairie West Second Addition from July 1, 1997, to July 1,
1998, and the construction completion date as described in Section 4.1 (a) on
the amendment; the completion date of phase II of the Prairie West Second
Addition and Prairie West First Addition by December 31, 2002.
At the closing, July 3, 19%, the HRA provided up -front assistance in the
amount of $217,000 for redevelopment of the project area. $32,500 of the
$217,000 was for property within the TIF District, and a second not -to -exceed
total of $32,500 will be paid the developer upon conveyance of townhome
parcels as per the contract. Lastly, the developer will receive an additional
$65,000 NPV pay-as-you-go assistance, and the HRA will recover $65,000
NPV for its costs. Both NPVIs 0 8.5%, interest to commence to accrue from
the closing date.
Because the completion date for the construction project was extended per
this amendment, the first payment date of the HRA recovery costs is
modified from August 1, 1999, to August 1, 2000, and the final payment
modified from August 1, 2012, to February 1, 2016. The HRA recovery cost
is $65,000 NPV 0 8.6%. The interest will commence to accrue from the
closing date or July 3, 1996.
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
The first payment date of the developers pay-as-you-go assistance is
modified from August 1, 1999, to August 1, 2000, and the final payment
modified from August 1, 2018, to February 1, 2021. The developer's $65,000
NPV @ 0% interest rate from closing date or July 3, 1996, through May 31,
1997, and ® 8.5% from June 1, 1997, and thereafter.
The HRA committed a total assistance of $315,000 within the redevelopment
project area to encourage the removal of blight for the development of quality
housing.
A motion to approve amendment to Contract for Private
Redevelopment.
A motion to deny amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment.
A motion to table any action.
C. STAFF RF.COMMF.NDATION:
Staff recommends alternative ttl. Here is the net effect of the amendment:
The commencement date for payback to the developer and HRA is delayed
one year, total payback to the developer and the HRA is delayed by four
years, the developer's payback interest will accrue from June 1, 1997, not the
date of closing, and the district will now run the maximum life of 25 years.
The developer agreed to pay the costa associated with amending the contract.
In reference to the enclosed letter from the developer's attorney, Brad Larson:
Within the Contract., phase I refers to the TIF District which lies within
Prairie West Second Addition, and phase 11 refers to areas outside the TIF
District within the Prairie West Second Addition and the Prairie West First
Addition. Secondly, the developer was advised of the torrens title relating to
the Gille property by the HRA Attorney. Lastly, HRA members agreed their
role is not to place judgment on design standards set by the City Engineer or
City staff.
Letter submitted to HRA members from the developer's attorney, Brad
Larson; Copy of the Amendment for Private Redevelopment.
le[cnl ;Parson 6v')ludr,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
913 Woo BMWoy
P.O. Boa 446
BRADLEY V. (ARSON Monatab. Mhr*WM 5-1,=-0446 SALLY B. NELSON
STEVEN J. MUTH oAMLEGU
JAMES G. METCALF. o' COUNSEL TELEPHONE
"gm m, May 7, 1997 (612) 295.3272
FAX
(612) 295.3132
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
ATTENTION: 011ie Koropchak
Re: Contract for Private Development by and among the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc. and the HRA of the City of
Monticello
Dear 011ie:
I .vrite this letter to you on behalf of John Komarek, President of Cedrus Creek
Craftsman, in response to your April 7, 1997, default notice letter which you are giving
pursuant to the contract between Cedrus Creek and the HRA.
1 wanted to make sure that you were aware and there is of record an explanation of
why the final plat for Phase I was not filed and recorded by Anri1 1 1997. 1 further wish to
clarify that Phase I under the HRA agreement is actually�ehase Nf the West Prairie plat
master plan. As you are aware, Phase I is of record and there are six (6) units constructed
and the foundation has been poured for Units #7 and 98 and the lot is staked for Units 49 and
10. This was the intended orderly course of development as infrastructure was present and
could be utilized to consecutively accommodate the build -out from east to west.
In addition, there were title problems with regard to the former Carlson parcel which
necessitated the commencement of a quiet title action to clear the tide which work %%us done
by anomey Schroeppel. The GWe parcel, in addition to being tar title property flowing from
the State of Minnesota with its attendant legal appendages, was and is tonens titled. As you
are aware, torrens title is a completely separate recordation system that is sanctioned by the
district courts in Minnesota and utilizes a separate recording system in the county recorders
office. Because this Gille parcel was torrens in the midst of a townhouse development
having abstract property on both sides (the Katzmarek parcel to the west being abstract), the
most logical course of conduct was to decertify the Gille parcel from the torrens system and
s6Q-
City of Monticello
Page Two
May 7, 1997
return it to the abstract recording system as if left torrens over time would be overly
cumbersome for future townhome owners, mortgagees, and the homeowners association
causing all of those parties extraordinarily high recording fees every time an affirmative act
was done that was going to affect title or any parties interest in the property.
When preparing to commence the torrens district court action, we found there were
lost documents from the closing between the city and Mr. Komarek which delayed setting
the matter on for the hearing which finally occurred on March 30th. Under normal
circumstances, that final hearing on March 30th would have been the termination of the
torrens proceeding and the plat could have been recorded, subject to other conditions of the
HRA contract. However, since the torrens was being decertified, it never having been done
in the history of Wright County, the torrens examiner after the hearing chose to further
review court documents and has requested a second and final hearing, already having
approved all final documents for that heating which is scheduled to occur on June 22, 1997.
Some of the delay of the initial hearing was due to the fact that one of the parties in title,
Cortlen Cloutier, has subsequently deceased and his heirs had to be traced around the
country as well as Mr. Gille's location who was finally located in Valley City, North Dakota.
Further, on behalf of Cedrus, I wish to reaffirm for the benefit of the HRA that, in
fact, the final plat has been approved by the City Council with the sole contingency being
approval by the city engineer. There have been engineering plans promoted with regard to
surface water that have involved numerous staff meetings and expense incurred by all parties
with regard to the ponding issue including two 30 page hydrology reports prepared by two
separate hydrologists that support a more user-friendly, park -friendly, environment -friendly
approach to solving the ponding issue. To date, the city engineer has not responded.
Needless to say, my client has found the whole process more than frustrating. The
issues have not been trying to cram more units into the subdivision but to make decisions
with regard to livability of the green space over time.
On a final note, I would like to emphasis that this has always been a team
development approach to a redevelopment problem. Since last August, great strides have
been made with the redevelopment site which has included the removal of the existing
buildings and the creation in Phase I of over S1,000,000 of tax base which has created
approximately 518,000 new tax revenue for the community. The tax revenue generated to
date, though not being within the TIF district, is a total benefit to the extended community
revenue base. Given the good faith efforts by all parties concerned, it would be the formal
request of Cedrus Creek that the Contract for Redevelopment by amended to reflect a one
666
City of Monticello
Page Three
May 7, 1997
(1) year extension of all performance dates in order for the contract documents to realign
themselves with realities of the development.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
B VUgls
cc: Cedrus Creek Craftsman
Respectfully,
METCALF, LARSON & MUTH, P.A.
'Bradley V.)Larson
John Komarek ����
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _ day of . 1997, by and among
the CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"),
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR CITY OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota
(the "Authority"). and CEDRUS CREEK CRAFTSMAN, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the
"Redeveloper").
WHEREAS, the Authority, the City and the Redeveloper entered into a Contract for
Private Redevelopment dated July 3, 1997 (the "Contract") regarding redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Property described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Contract has been amended on December 4, 1996 and January 13, 1997
to alter the time for completion of certain actions; and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined a need to further alter the completion schedule
and enter into this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. The parties agree and understand that the Closing Date as defined in the Contract was
July 3, 1996.
2. In Section 3.9 of the Contract regarding tax increment assistance to the Redeveloper,
the opening paragraph and subsection (a) are modified as follows:
In addition to the assistance described in Section 3.8, the Authority shall pay to the
Redeveloper $65,000 (the "Principal Amount") together with interest thereon at the rate
specified below (the "Semi -Annual Payments") pursuant to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, including without limitation the following terns and conditions:
(a) Interest shall accrue on the unpaid Principal Amount at the rate of 0% per
annum from the Closing Date until May 31, 1997, and at the rate of 8.5% per
annum from June I, 1997 thereafter.
Section 3.9 is fiurther modified to provide that the first Payment Date is August I, 2000 and the
final Payment Date is February I, 2021, and those dates are substituted wherever the dates
"August I, 1999" and "August I, 2018," respectively, are used in Section 3.9.
3. Section 3.10 of the Contract regarding recovery of Authority costs is modified to
provide that the first Payment Date is August 1, 2000 and the final Payment Date is February 1.
2016, and those dates are substituted wherever the dates "August 1. 1999" and "August 1, 2012."
respectively, are used in Section 3.10.
aan�:��ei S8D
1071 YO.0�
C
4. Exhibit F of the Contract is revised as shown in Exhibit F attached hereto.
5. In Section 4.1 (a) of the Contract the definition of Phase 1 is revised to read as
follows:
(a) "Phase I" means the construction of a total of 10 Townhouse units
in the TIF District as follows:
(i) 4 twinhome Townhouse units by no later than December 31, 1998;
(ii) 4 additional fourplex Townhouse units by no later than December
31, 1999; and
(iii) 2 additional fourplex Townhouse units by no later than December
31, 2000.
6. The first paragraph of Section 4.3 of the Contract is revised to read as follows:
Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall commence construction of Phase
I by July I, 1998. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall complete the
constriction of Phase 1 by the dates set forth in Section 4.1(a). Subject to Unavoidable
Delays, the Redeveloper shall complete the construction of Phase 2 by December 31,
2002. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed or provided
by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property shall be in conformity with the
Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the City.
7. Section 4.5 of the Contract is modified to provide that the final plat of the
Redevelopment Property must be approved and recorded by April 1, 1998.
B. The parties agree and understand that the Assessment Agreement referenced in Section
6.7 has been executed but not yet recorded as of the date of this Agreement. The Assessment
Agreement shall be modified to reflect the changes in construction schedule described in this
Agreement, shall refer to the planed legal description of the TIF District, and shall be recorded
upon filing of the plat.
9. The Redeveloper agrees to reimburse the Authority for all legal and financial advising
costs incurred by the Authority in connection with this amendment to the Contract. The
Rcdeveloper shall pay such costs within 10 days after receipt of an invoice therefor from the
Authority.
10. This Agreement supersedes all prior amendments to the Convect. The Contract
remains in full force and effect and is not modified except as expressly provided herein.
W012!4012 Or
a4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Authority have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed in their names and on their behalf and their seals to be hereunto duly affixed and
the Redeveloper has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf as of the
date first above written.
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1997
by William Fair and Rick Wolfsteller, the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
=W1911 1! 4�04 3 5 6 F
=11
11
C
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
By
Its Chair
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1997,
by Brad Barger and Olive Koropchak, the Chair and Executive Director of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, on behalf of the
Authority.
0•rf1�2�61
1011�0.6�
Notary rolsc
s6G
CEDRUS CREEK CRAFTSMAN, INC.
N
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1997 by John Komarek, the President of Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc., a Minnesota corporation.
on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
This Document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
saill;401
w190.o0 5
ino-i'%
A
EXRIBIT F
ARTICLE III PAYMENT TABLE
Redeveloper
Payment Date Authority Retentioq &mL Annual Pavmen�
August 1, 2000
2.345
1,564
February I, 2001
2,345
1.564
August I. 2001
4,495
2,997
February I, 2002
4,495
2,997
August 1, 2002
5,316
3,544
February I, 2003
5.316
3,544
August 1, 2003
5,316
3,544
February I, 2004
5,316
3,544
August I. 2004
5.316
3,544
February I, 2005
5,316
3,544
August I, 2005
5,316
3,544
February 1, 2006
5,316
3,544
August 1, 2006
5,316
3,544
February I, 2007
5.316
3,544
August 1, 2007
5,316
3,544
February 1, 2008
5.316
3,544
August 1, 2008
5.316
3,544
February I, 2009
5,316
3,544
August 1, 2009
5.316
3,544
February I, 2010
5.316
3,544
August 1, 2010
5,316
3,544
February 1, 2011
5,316
3,544
August 1, 2011
5.316
3,544
February I, 2012
5,316
3.544
August I, 2012
5,316
3,544
February 1. 2013
5,316
3,544
August I. 2013
5.316
3,544
February 1. 2014
5.316
3,544
August I, 2014
5.316
3.544
February I, 2015
5.316
3,544
August I, 2015
5.316
3,544
February I, 2016
4.930
3,930
August I, 2016
0
9,844
February 1. 2017
0
9,844
August 1, 2017
0
9,844
February I. 2018
0
9,844
August I, 2018
0
9,844
amrrr.ar F' I � g�
rnr» • 54
A
C
ars..
w.ls•s. F•2
Redeveloper
Payment Date_
Authority Retention
Semi -Annual Payment
February 1, 2019
0
9,844
August 1, 2019
0
9,944
February 1, 2020
0
9,844
August 1, 2020
0
9,844
February 1, 2021
0
5,361
ars..
w.ls•s. F•2
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
As you recall, a few weeks ago the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat
of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision and granted preliminary plat
approval. Subsequent to the approval of this plat, City staff has been
working on completion of the development and disbursement agreements and
has reviewed the final plat of the subdivision. The developer has decided
that he would like to pursue installation of the public improvements through
a private development process. This is the process that was used for the
River Mill development and for the Meadow Oak 4th Addition and will be
used for the first phase of lGein Farms III development. Under the private
project approach, the developer prepares plans and specifications, which are
reviewed by the City Engineer, and the developer contracts privately with a
contractor to install the utilities, which are inspected by the City as they are
installed. The development agreement outlines terms and conditions
associated with the private development approach. The disbursement
agreement guarantees the City that funds are act aside and available for
completion of the project once it is started, thus allowing the City to sign the
plat with confidence knowing that the actual improvements will be completed
as identified in the plan documentation. The development agreement and
disbursement agreement pertaining to this site are fairly standard; therefore,
I have not included them in your packet. A copy of both are available at city
hall for you to review in detail if you so desire.
Items that aro unique to this site that are included in the development are as
follows:
The development agreement requires that Value Plus Homes provide
the City with a landscape casement that will enable the City to
complete installation of a pilot project for planting of low -maintenance
grasses in the area between the pond and the roadway. Please note
that the City has obtained a bid from a landscape service to complete
installation of the low-maintenanco grassy area at a 3 -year cost of less
than $1,600. This quote is currently under review by the Parks
Commission. It appears likely that the Parks Commission will
recommend that this service be contracted out to a firm that can install
these grasses and maintain them for a time period (3 years) necessary
to establish long -terra viability of Cho ground cover.
r Council Agenda - 5/27/97
` 2. The development agreement includes tree planting as an item to be
covered under the disbursement agreement. This means that the
developer remains on the hook for installation of the trees. The City
will not release all the funds in the disbursement agreement until the
full complement of tree planting has been a000mplished. This is an
improvement over past practice which required that the City hold
funds in escrow when occupancy permits were needed prior to
completion of tree planting. Requiring one disbursement agreement
for the entire site will be significantly more efficient than collecting
escrow and monitoring compliance on numerous individual lots.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the final plat and associated development and
disbursement agreements for the Cardinal Hills VI residential
subdivision.
2. Motion to deny approval of the final plat and associated agreements.
C_ STAFF F..O F.NDATIQ:
The City Administrator recommends alternative ql.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of final plat.
Q ISjuea '
�Ml
r
C
CARD12VAL DILLS
...----------
-T-
83 lu
,.. r r 694 • •, •+�rrr t•
=
ui ll .r I oi-.' 1 tF;? $ `�.•; _..• � s`376i J�• ii
S-1 ot-
-71
UIS
) a +d t I
-07
9 �.} F
int
. � v ��yv�j•. • v i I . �'j ! i i7�'�I I .iJ� •} ( f V^11 wr � �
1 ��•". }�11 �/lil�xxt l\I+M\ vtS''� ��1D w.`•L`.
•\y� , � (ail �} : Ii: I t:'� fpri lj r�!ri lr-_:
- I 174 �{,i• 1 .'viii. _ � �;. ��"`� \� tfi
jI rj� 4 � ♦4
ll,+lr_'lJ�lJ3-�Js•'�-��—J•fJ+_�.` ..�
IN
w �a a uvr'•'P`•
f3.r r MAtr tr!•n wr •v W
�F
14
_..1__1!__
..tet`": ; .: ; �:�.:..:•:'.el�. �.o
vm 0 a p ncrr}
JCC
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
5D. Congideration of rezoning Cardinal pond residential su t gion
m 'gdeulture to R-1. ApplicanLJohn l&ers_sen. AND
•�'r.'rt ..: , , , •re-r��>�rr. arr�rrr. r�r:�zrrr rrn� •zrr
A_ REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grlttman for detail
regarding the plat and for notes pertaining to the Planning Commission's
recommendation. City Council is asked to review the attached report from
Steve Grittman and consider granting approval of a rezoning request and an
associated request for preliminary plat approval of the Cardinal Pond
residential subdivision. Planning Commission reviewed these requests and
recommended approval subject to a number of conditions outlined in the
Plarucer'b report.
Please note that the final design of the sanitary sewer system serving the
plat has not been resolved and hinges on timely completion of phase 11 of the
1Gein Farms III development. As you may know, the original plan for
development of sanitary sewer service hinged on connecting the Leerssen
development to the trunk line extending from Klein Farms III. We now know
that the Leerssen project may proceed with or without immediate
development of the trunk line with the Klein Farms development. This can
be accomplished by connecting the Leerssen site to the Cardinal Hills
development to the north. However, the cost to the City and to Leemsen is
slightly higher if the connection is made to the north vs. the west via Klein
Farms.
Decision 1--Consideratiom of rezoning from agriculture to R-1
Motion to approve the rezoning from AO (agriculture) to R•1 (single
family residential). Motion is based on the findings identified by the
Planning Commission on page 3 of the Planner's report.
Motion to deny the rezoning request firom AO to R-1. Motion is based
on the findings identified on page 4 of the Planner's report
Decision 2—Consideration of preliminary plat approval
Motion to approve the preliminary plat for Cardinal Pond as presented
subject to approval of tho rezoning and comments by the City Engineer
and public works deportment.
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
C2. Motion to approve the preliminary plat for Cardinal Pond subject to
approval of the rezoning and the conditions identified on page 4 of the
Planner's report.
This is the option recommended by the Planning Commission.
Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat of the Cardinal Pond
residential subdivision.
Motion to table preliminary plat approval pending outcome of wetland
impact analysis.
4T FF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as requested and approval of the
plat with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, or staff
recommends that the item be tabled until the wetland issues are resolved.
It should be noted that the park dedication fee associated with this plat has
not been negotiated at this point. According to current policy, the amount to
be provided to the City in cash in lieu of land is 10% of the raw value of the
land. The City will need to sit down soon with Leerssen to discuss this item
along with other financing issues associated with the final plat and
improvement process. These issues will be identified and summarized in the
development agreement that will be provided to Council in conjunction with
completion of the final plat process.
As a final note, Marc Macnamara of WCS indicated the possibility that one of
the lots may need to be removed because the building pad is located in a
wetland area. Therefore, the preliminary plat may need to be adjusted.
Accordingly, the final decision on this aspect of the plat will occur after
review by a technical panel and after review by the City Council. The City
Council will make the final decision on the wetland issue because the
application was submitted before WCS was appointed by the Council to
administer the wetland laws.
Copy of Planner's report.
N12 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
IMC COMMUNITY PLANNING - OCSIOM - MARKMT RESMARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello Plarming Commission
FROM:
Daniel Licht / Stephen Grittman
DATE:
24 April 1997
RE:
Monticello - Cardinal Pond Rezoning and Preliminary Plat
FILE NO:
191.07 - 97.03
W. John Leernen is requesting approval of a rezonfng to R-1 of his ten acre parcel at the
southwest comer of the Cardinal Hills development, and a preliminary plat approval for a
20 lot subdivision. The parcel Is along the east side of Fallen Avenue, across from the
park area to be dedicated as a part of the 10oln Farms 3rd Addition, The Cardinal Hills
residential area borders the proposed plat on the east and north, Agricultural land in
Monticello Township borders the plot to the south.
Rezoning: The Cardinal Pond property is zoned A-0. Agricultural upon annexation Into
the City. Rozaninp to R-1 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's discussion
of development In this area, as well as with the sunow ing land uses. The
Comprehensive Plan cells generally for low densly residanUst development for land to the
south and west of the current City boundaries.
Preliminary Plat.
Plat Desligm The following comments address Issues related to Ilia design and layout
of the proposed plat:
577e WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE See ST LOUIS PARK, MINNLUOTA 68d I e
PNONZ e I e•686•9O3e FAX e I ¢•e90-Oe37
STiEO'd LfBfi 56S Zig 7M MIgt
C
• The proposed design of Fallon Court raises several issues. At such time as the
street Is extended to the south, the proposed design will leave the dwellings on Lots
13 and 14 set back further and perhaps built at odd angles in comparison with other
structures on that side of the street when the cul-de-sac is eliminated. Assuming
the street will be extended south, the cul -de -sae should be modified to be located
entirely within the right-of-way, or perhaps a hammer head design that would allow
turnarounds.
• Section 115-3 (B) of the Subdivision Ordinance states that cul-de-sacs should not
exceed 600 feet In length. Fallon Court, as presently designed, exceeds 600 feet
in length. it Fallon Court is not to be extended to the south, the cul -de -sae should
be relocated further north, with the lots arranged. in a more typical manner so as to
surround the cul-de-sac, such that the length of Fallon Court does not exceed 600
feet.
• The proposed street, Fallon Court, Is�(1
feet wide. This width would accommodate
traffic frau a larger nunTber of potential future lots to the south. We would question
whether a future platting of the south property should be designed to circulate much
traffic through Cardinal Pond. Instead, we would envision a design which allows
a small amount of aeeeas to the neighborhood, but discourages significant levels
of through traffic, As a result, we believe a 30 foot wide street would be adequate
for Cardinal Pond.
• The rear yard of Lots 19 and 20 are art oft by the proposed ponding areas and
wetlands. To ensure that the ponding areas and wetlands aro maintained, the
applicant should:
Revise the plat to Include the ponding areas and wetlands within the
adjacent lots; or
2. Plot the area around the ponding arose and wetlands as an outiot. A
homeowners association that would own the outlot in common would be
required to be formed to Provide for mWntenance.
All proposed lots meet the minimum lot size and width requirements of the R-1
Districtand have aoA two buildable area whNn required setbacks to accommodate
e single family dwelling with the following exceptions:.
1. Lot 13 has a limited buildable area with the power line easement to the
south, the proposed pedestrian path to the north. and the dove of the cul-
do-*= to the east
TT/M*d UIM 565 ET9 ow IM191 l66T-M-"
A
Lot 17 will have little private open space as a result of the curve of Fallon
Court and that the rear yard of Lot 11 abuts the side yard of Lot 18. Also,
the configuration of the dwelling with frontage to the east creates an
inconsistent front building line with other dwellings to the south.
Pedestrian Access The applicant is proposing to provide a pedestrian trail from the cul-
de -sae to Fallon Avenue between Lots 13 and 14. The width of the proposed pathway Is
only ten feet, whereas City policy has required 30 feet in the past. The provision of a
pedestrian trail within the power line easement along the plats southern boundary is a
better alternative in that it would allow for a 30 foot wide trail and avoids placing the trail
between two dwellings.
The City should also consider requiring a pedestrian trail along Fallon Avenue from the
power line easement to a school crossing just to the north of the plat It does not seem
reasonable to expect pedestrlero to cross Fallon Avenue at the power line easement, walk
through the park to the west, than re -cross Fallon Avenue to get to the school campus.
Wetland Alteratlons. The applicant Is proposing to after an eldsting wetland area to
provide for additional lots. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the proposed wetland
mitigation by edding additional wetland area in the southwest portion of the plat. The City
Engineer should review and approve the propbaed wetland mitigation to vertfy a 2:1
mitigation ratio, as required by the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act
Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plans. The eppllcant has submitted grading, drainage
and utility pians for the proposed plat. Said pians will be subject to review and approval
of the City Engineer.
Park Dedlcatlon. The applicant will be required to make the appropriate park dedication
contribution In the form of land dedication and/or cash contribution. All park land
dedication and/or cash contributions will be made at the time of final plat approval.
Decision One: Rezoning From A-0, Agrtwttural to R-1. Single Family Resldelttlsl
Approval of Ow rezoning from A-0 to R-1, ^
Potential findings supporting this decision would be: T GJAOP
Proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Proposal Is consistent with surroamding arra uses.
T1N0'd LEE 565 PT9
SDCe
O1 IS191 L66T—M-"
b. Denial of the rezoning from A-0 to R-1.
Potential findings supporting this dedsion would be:
• Proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Proposal is inconsistent with the odsting uses in the surrounding area.
• Proposal is premature.
Decision Two: Request for Preliednary Plat Approval of Cardinal Pond
a. Approval of the preliminary plat for Cardinal Pond as presented. subject to approval
of the rezoning and comments of the City Engineer and Public Works.
b. Approval of the preliminary plat for Cardinal Pond, subject to approval of the
rezoning and the following conditions:
1. Fallon Court is redesigned with a width of 30 feet, curb to Cab.
2. The proposed cul-de-sac street is redesigned in one of the following
manners:
• ��a. If Fallon Court Is to be mdended in the future, the cul-de-sac shall be
wDe redesigned and bated entirely within the public nght-of-way adjacent
to the plats southern boundary, subject to review and approval of the
City Engineer and public works: or
• tfT C s to be�ent cul�aec, it �ed
Ina ir�l -with a m I of
ubjed to revs end ap of the Eng rend Ilc
(Staff recommends Viet the through -street option Is mora attractive to
facilitate Uaffic distribution In this plat and for neighboring property.)
3. The maintenance of the proposed ponding areas and wetlands be
addressed In ono of the following manners:
• The plat be revised to locate the ponding areas and wetlands within
the area of adjacent Iota: or
• The ponding areas and wellands be platted as an oullot The
applicant will be required to provide for a homeowners association
4
'OD
TT/M'd ZM36 MS M X" K19T
subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure
maintenance of the outlot
4. The proposed pedestri an trell be relocated to a location within the existing
power line easement.
5. The plat be revised to provide a pedestrian trall along the east side of the
Fallon Avenue right-of-way.
6. The City Engineer ve" appropriate wetland mitigation at a 21 ratio.
7. The City Engineer end public works review and approve all grading,
drainage, and utility plans.
S. The applicant make appropriate . die► cash
contributions K final plat approval is granted
8. Wright County Sal and Water Conservation District vwty the wetland
delineation, and the rnitigetion plan proposed by the applicant
10. ail.
( C Denlal of the preliminary plat of Cardinal Pond.
C.
The proposed reoonIng and preliminary plat is gonerally consistent with the City's
Comprehenalve Plan, as well as eucsting end planned uses in @te sumourtding area.
However, a number of significent issues regrading the prollminary plat remain to be
addressed, most notably the design of Fallon Coat and the malrtlaro a of ponding and
wetland areas within the plat. As such, staff reeanrnertds approval of the appiicarWe
request with conditions as cited In Dedabn One, Altemetive a and Dedelon Two,
Alteanetive b.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A: Site Location Map
Exhibit B: Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C: Grading, Drsinspe and Willy Plans
5
5*0r
11i9B'd 4M 665 E19 MN O'C191 G66S�C-ilii
pts\*1e1�
•A 4epa1 ri.t ows
pMPpe
00
1,122.
ar►cot
Cp
,
O��e�9 A R a�1►tl
CA" 1�,
PIREMMINAZZY PLAT OF'
CARZMATA-L POND
7
ie
7'V OF JIMAIWICRY.T, WAM1137COUNTY, MAr.
3iP
rr
M14-
MAP -
r, -F,
Z2 -------
i-1, Lev
=;T
Err
EXHMIT
5F.
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
(F.P.)
Plumbers working in the city of Monticello are currently required to submit
plans to the Minnesota Department of Health for plan review and approval
prior to obtaining permits from the City. This is very inconvenient and
causes permitting confusion and project delays. Prior to delegating plan
review responsibility to the City, the Minnesota Department of Health
requires that the City have an ordinance requiring plumbing plan review.
The attached resolution has also been required by the Minnesota Department
of Health to describe the intents of the City. These actions will provide for
more orderly and more convenient plan review and permitting for plumbers
working in the city. The delegation of plumbing plan review to the City will
have no effect on the city budget and will enable more effective use of staff
resources.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS;
1. Move to approve the resolution and ordinance as provided.
2. Move to deny the resolution and ordinance.
C_ STAFF RFCONLMENDATION;
The City Administrator recommends approval of the resolution and
ordinance.
Copy of resolution; Copy of ordinance.
RESOLUTION 97-
RESOLWION ACCEPTING PLUMBING REVIEW
DELEGATION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello desires to provide convenient and direct plan
review, permit and inspection services to licensed plumbers working within the city
of Monticello; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted the Minnesota State Building Code,
including the Minnesota Plumbing Code, Chapter 4716, providing for plumbing
permits, bonds, review and approval of plans, and inspections of plumbing, which
regulations are not in conflict with the plumbing standards on the same oubject
prescribed by the State Commissioner of Health; and
WHEREAS, the State Demographer has estimated the population of the city of
Monticello to be 6,334 as of April 1, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the City has sufficient, highly -
qualified staff to fulfill the responsibilities of enforcement of the Minnesota State
Building Code, including the Minnesota State Plumbing Code:
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the City of Monticello City
Council does hereby request that the Minnesota State Comissioner of Health enter
into an agreement with the City of Monticello, delegating from the Minnesota
Department of Health to the City of Monticello full responsibility for enforcement of
the Minnesota State Plumbing Code, including permitting, plan review and
inspections for all buildings and structures in the city of Monticello, other than
those public buildings and facilities that by specific statute or rule must be
reviewed and inspected by the Minnesota Department of Health.
Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of May, 1997.
Mayor
City Administrator
C
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.1 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY
ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING PLUMBING PERMIT REGULATIONS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, is hereby added to the City Code to read as follows:
This Ordinance] shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
publication according to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this 27th day of May, 1897.
William Fair
Mayor
ATTEST:
Rick Wolibteller
City Administrator
v�,eaoac.or. Baur 5F�
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
Barbarossa & Sons has completed the work on the above -referenced project.
The original contract amount for the project was $327,199.45, the amount
including change orders was $343,579.29, and the total work completed
based upon certified quantities of work amounted to a final oontrad total of
$341,418.80. The final balance due the contractor at this time is $18,549.40.
1. The first alternative is to authorize final payment to Barbaros" &
Sona in the amount of $18,549.40 upon receipt of all final lien waivers,
etc., for the project.
The second alternative is to not make final payment to the contractor
at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Engineer that the City Council make the
final payment to Barbarossa & Sons for this project as outlined in alternative
01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of final payment document.
C
Orr
0MS)&=hEsdielen
(� May 22, 1997 300 Part Ptace East
` 5775 Wayzata Boukvard
MITMWPL as, tar 55416.1228
612-595.5775
1.600-753-5775
FAX 595.5773
En veers
Honorable Mayor and City CouncilPianmArc uecu
City of Monticello s ;rs
P.O. Box 1147
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362.9245
Re: Meadow Oaks Storm Sewer Outlet
and Northeast Gillard Avenue Reconstruction
S.P. 8680-133
City of Monticello Project No. 93-12C
OSM Project No. 5489.00
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Enclosed are four (4) copies of Construction Pay Voucher No. 5 / Final Payment, on the
referenced project in the amount of $18,549.40.
C 1) Satisfactorily showing that the contractor has complied with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding State Income Tax and;
2) Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the contractor by reasons of
the contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured.
Please make payment in this amount to Barbarossa & Sons, Inc., 11000 93rd Avenue North,
Osseo, Minnesota 55369.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCIIELEN-MAYERON
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
dJhn M. Menttr, P. .
Vice President
Enclosure
c: Tom Bose - City of Monticello
( Rick Wolfsteller - City of Monticello
cc
bt3Mo0'CWuW FWw!iro car cSG 14
tp.Mnar hrr�e
CONSTRUCTION PAY VOUCHER
Estimate Voucher Number: 5 Date:
May 20, 1997
OSM Project Number: 5489.01 Period Ending:
May 20, 1997
Project: MEADOW OARS STORM SEWER OUTLET / FINAL
1 S.P. 8680-133
CITY OF MONTICELLO 93-12C
Contractor: BARBAROSSA & SONS INC.
11000 93RD AVE. NO.
OSSEO MN 55369
Contract Date: April 11, 1995
Work Started:
Completion Date:
Work Completed:
Original Contract Amount
327,199.45
Total Additions
16,379.84
Total Deductions
0.00
Total Funds Encumbered
343,579.29
Total Work Certified to Date
341,418.80
Lees Retained Percentage
0.00%
0.00
Lees Previous Payments
322,869.40
Total Payments Incl This Voucher
341,418.80
Balance Carried Forward
2,160.49
APPROVED FOR PAD®7T, THIS VOUCHER 18,549.40
APPROVALS
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 6, ASSOCIATES, INC.
Pursuant to our field observation, as performed in accordance with our
contract, and based on our professional opinion, materials are
satisfactory and the work properly performed in accordance with the plane
and specifications and that the total work is:
100% completed as of may 20, 1997.
We herby recommend payment of this voucher.
Signed: Signed _�&A0,A;—
Construction
Observer Project Manager%Bngineer
BARHAROSSA 6 SONS INC.
This is to certify that to the beet of my knowledge, information, and
belief, the quantities and values of work certified herein is a fair
approximate estimate for the period covered by this voucher.
Contractor: Signed By
Date: Title
CITY OF MONTICELL,O
Checked By: Approved for payment:
Date:
v
Authorised Representative
Date:
PAGE 1 5am6 B
N
Council Agenda - 6!27/97
At the previous meeting, the Council had requested that this item be tabled
for two weeks to allow for representatives of the Wright County Economic
Development Partnership to be in attendance to answer questions regarding
the Partnership's programs. In addition, the Council had requested
additional information on the activities and accomplishments of the
Partnership and how it relates to the City of Monticello.
The new executive director of the Partnership, Mr. Marc Nevinski, will be in
attendance at the meeting. Also enclosed with the agenda is some additional
background information on the accomplishments of the group and the
proposed benefits that the City of Monticello would receive by continuing its
membership. As the staff has pointed out in the past, we believe that many
of the programs being proposed by the County Partnership already exist
locally with the City being fortunate to have our own Economic Development
Director and program. You will notice under the major accomplishments of
the Partnership is the fact that there is an enterprise loan fund that can be
utilized to assist companies locating in Wright County. A question you may
want to ask Mr. Nevinski is whether or not the City of Monticello would be
able to utilize this enterprise loan fund for a business locating in Monticello
if we did not continue our membership. At this point in time, 1 believe it's
hard to point to a specific industry or project that has directly benefited the
City by being a member of this organization, but again, what's good for
Wright County is ultimately good for the City of Monticello.
As I noted at the previous meeting, our membership dues would amount to
$1,604.60 if the Monticello I DC or Chamber of Commerce did not contribute
the $600 that they have done in the past few years. The Council had
previously authorized contributing two-thirds of the proposed membership
dues contingent on the other third being picked up by the IDC. Since the
Monticello IDC has technically merged with the Chamber of Commerce,
funding would unlikely be available through the IDC, and I'm not sure
whether the Chamber of Commerce would continuo the $600 contribution on
the City's behalf.
10
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
Motion to approve continued membership in the Economic
Development Partnership of Wright County at an approximate annual
cost of $1,500 based on the current due structure for 1997.
Under this alternative, the City would continue membership under the
assumption that the IDC or Chamber of Commerce would not be
picking up the $500 portion.
Motion to approve membership contingent upon the City's contribution
remaining at the $1,004.50 level as invoiced without picking up the
IDC amount of $500.
Motion to deny continued membership in the Economic Development
Partnership due to a duplication of efforts already being accomplished
through our own economic development program.
While it may be difficult for the City to point to specific benefits or projects
that the City has received through its membership, I believe it would still be
important to show a spirit of cooperation with the organization by continuing
the membership. Any promotional activities done by the Partnership to
bring in outside industry and business to Wright County will likely get a
company looking at Monticello as a potential site to relocate. As far as the
membership dues of $1,504 is concerned, I believe the IDC intends to request
that the Chamber continue contributing the $500 toward the overall City
membership fee. Initially the IDC had agreed to contribute the $500 as an
encouragement for the City Council to continue the membership in the past.
Letter from Economic Development Partnership; May 12 Council agenda
item.
c
C ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A Noµ Psora PatvArE / Puux I'MMM HIP
April 10, 1997
Rick Wol(kteller. City Administrator
City of Monticello
230 E. Broadway. Bos 1147
Monticello. MN 33362
Dear Rids Wolfsteller.
It has become time again to renew Monticelto's support of the Economic Development Partnership d Wright County
(EDPWC). The partnership. established in 1993. has a mission to promote Wright County as a desirable place to live, work
or own a business. The EDPWC's focus is on supporting develogsuw on a countywide basis to enhance and impraro the
quality of life and economic well being of Wright County.
The group manages and administers the Wright County Enterprise Lama Fund The purpose of the loan fined is to
encourage econo nic development by supplememing conventional fin mmng sources available to now and existing
businesses. The revolving loan fund can help banks pt together loan packwos for their customers by supplementing comer
equity to mat bank lending guidelines while providing a lower than market source of funds for a portion of a company's
financing needs. In keeping with both economic and ccu m mity well being, the law must serve a public purpose by
creating new jobs that pay a livable wage and also increase the community tax base.
EDPWC is f landed through membership dues and a $30.000 finding glint from Wright County. Key members already in
the alliance. along with Monticello. include most cities in the county as well as four townships. All d the utilities in
Wright County support the partnership through active membership. Other important support coma from the Wright
Technical Center and the private Industry Workforce Council 3 (PI WC 3), who are committed to provide the training and
support needed for a productive local workforce.
We encourage you to have any Monticello businesses and individuals who want more infomatlon about the partnership.
voluntary board membership or the application and lam process for an Enterprise Fwd bon to contact any EDPWC Board
Member or their local bank for furter assistance.
Agwn. wee thank Monticello Ibr their past and present support of the partnership.
Sincerely.
Cathy Tkitius. Treasurer
cc; Mayor Bill Fair
W,., tkvm tl, is
6160 Ebcmic Drive, PO On 323. Rockford. MN 33373. (611) 677.3076 0/4 4
Council Agenda - 5/12/97
12. Consideration of renewing membership in the Wright County
Economic Develo,p_m nt Partnership- (R.W.)
The City recently received a notice that the 1997 membership dues for the
Economic Development Partnership of Wright County are now due. The
notice indicated the City's membership dues for 1997 would amount to
$1,004.50, the same amount as last year's; but it should be noted that an
additional $500 was contributed by the Monticello IDC, making the total City
contribution $1,504.50.
The City had originally approved membership in the Development
Partnership in December 1993 and paid a membership fee of $1,500, out of
which $500 was contributed by the IDC. This same split was true in 1994,
1995, and 1996. With the recent decision by the IDC to turn over their
finances to the Chamber of Commerce, it is uncertain whether the Chamber
will continue the $500 contribution toward the City's original membership
fee. Although our invoice only shows a fee of $1,004.50, I assume the
Monticello IDC or the Monticello Chamber of Commerce will get a separate O
statement for the additional $500 like they have contributed in the past.
According to the Partnership fee schedule, the City's contribution without the
IDC or Chamber participation would still be in the $1,500 range.
In the past, our Economic Development Director, 011ie Koropchak, has been
involved with the Partnership as a Board member. 011ie is no longer serving
in that capacity, and participation by City staff has been very limited
recently in this Partnership. Originally when the City considered
membership in this newly -formed organization, there were concerns that
many of the activities proposed by the Partnership would be duplications of
efforta and programs that the City currently has. With the City having its
own Economic Development Director, many of the programs being proposed
by the County Partnership already exist locally, including revolving loan
programs, marketing efforts, and other consulting services we provide. The
basic reason for joining the Partnership was that, although we had our own
economic development department, what's good for the county would
ultimately be good for the city of Monticello in encouraging tax base increases
throughout the county. In addition, I believe there were also concerns that
the City of Monticello did not want to be labeled as the only enmmunity that
did not belong to the County organization and, thus, felt obligated to
participate even when we may not realize as many benefits from this
organization as other smaller communities would.
MW
Council Agenda - 5/12/97
CEnclosed with the agenda is a list of the members who have paid dues over
the past few years. As you can see, most cities have continued membership
in the organization, including the largest contributor, the City of Buffalo.
R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve continued membership in the Economic
Development Partnership of Wright County at an approximate annual (4L
cost of $1,500 based on the current dues structure for 1897. �0
Under this alternative, the City would continue membership but }' �
would also agree to pick up the additional $500 that the IDC or
Chamber of Commerce had paid in the past.
C
2. Motion to approve membership contingent upon the City's contribution
remaining at the $1,004.50 level as invoiced without picking up the
IDC amount of $500.
3. Motion to deny continued membership in the Economic Development��
Partnership due to the duplication of efforts already being
accomplished through our own economic development program and
due to the fact that larger cities are required to contribute a larger �1%
base amount than smaller communities, which are likely to benefit
more.
C. STAFF RF..OMMRND TION:
While the staff certainly believes that programs being initiated by the
Partnership are, without a doubt, duplicates of programs and activities we
currently provide, we would hate to be the only community not participating
in the Partnership for that reason. Wright County has begun to supply
funding in the amount of $30,000. Based on the 1996 membership list, it
appears that most communities are still members of the Partnership, and we
are not aware of any that are not planning on renewing in 1997. Although
we only received an invoice for $1,004.60, it is assumed that if the City is
going to continue membership in this Partnership, you would have to support
alternative #1 if the Chamber does not wish to contribute the $500.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter and invoice for membership dues; List of communities who have paid
membership dues.
14
Xo�
4&>
C ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A Non-PaoFrr PRrvATLIVu c PARTNrx Hsu
DATE: May 21, 1997
TO: Bill Fair
FROM: Economic Development Partnership of Wright County
RE: Membership Renewal
The Economic Development Partnership of Wright County has been in existence since
August of 1993. Originally an all volunteer organization, the Partnership now has a Hill
time director to promote the organization and oversee its daily administration. The Board
of Directors consists of representatives from a wide variety of backgrounds in both the
private and public sectors. All of these parties have one thing in common: A vested
interest in the growth and prosperity of Wright County.
Major Accomplishments:
• Completion of an Overall Economic Development Plan which led to a grant for
the City of Cokato.
• Developed a networking relationship with Benton, Sterns and Sherburne
counties.
• Developed working relationships with the Minnesota Department of Trade and
Economic Development and the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund.
• Implemented a county wide business survey.
• Assisted Eden Electronic and Product Technologies in 1996/1997 with
expansion projects utilizing the Enterprise Loan Fund.
Benefits for the City of Monticello:
• EDP will serve as a marketing tool and lobbyist for the county.
• EDP will provide a central source of information and support services,
including financing, site availability, and employee sources.
• EDP will foster cooperation and collaboration between local govemmewk
educational and financial institutions, utility companies, and business, as well as
adjoining counties and state government.
EDP understands the Council's concerns regarding the duplication of services and the
amount of benefit that the City will receive. Representatives from EDP will be present at
the May 27 council meeting to address those concerns.
Economic growth is interconnected. The Partnership is designed to represent and market
Wright County as a single econornic entity to create a healthy and diverse environment for
new and existing businesses, as well as to increase job opportunities within the county. A
healthy, growing economy is beneficial to each city, business, fhrrily, and individual in the
county.
ro [lax R3, 6800 Eumoc Dam •cocoon, MN ssm (612) 477-3086; FAX (612) 4'.1056 7 b
C
Economic Development Partnership
of Wright County, Inc.
Balance Sheet
as of May 14, 1997
Executive Director Account S 487.12
EDP Checking Account 17,795.10
Investments (CDs) 31,957.38
EDP Savings 30.000.00
Total Assets 580,239.60
Liabilities / Eauity
Liabilities $ .00
Equity 80.2398.60
Total Liabilities / Equity 580239.60
?e
I
61
1997 Budget Comparison
as of May 14, 1997
Revenues
Baden
FAceived to Dry
Dues
Utilities
S 8,700.00
S 6,913.00
Municipalities
8,000.00
4,642.70
Township
1,000.00
210.00
Bankers/l-enders
2,500.00
2,500.00
Honorary/Associates
500.00
250.00
Businesses
500.00
.00
Telecommunicatioat
2,000.00
1,000.00
Misc. Revenues
.00
.00
County Contn't)utimn
30,000.00
30,000.00
Total Revenues
S 53,200.00
$45,515.70
Variance Favorable (Unfavorable)
(S 7,684.30)
Dishumements
Executive Director
$32,500.00
Expended to
Ragular Acm Exeenm
S 2,125.00
Date
Acct.
S .00
PayroU Withholdings
2,495.00
403.70
.00
OfEce SuppGes/Pastage
1,000.00
222.79
69.55
Printing
1,200.00
535.55
.00
Non-profit Filing Fee
525.00
.00
.00
Dues(Membemhip
500.00
160.00
.00
Meeting Expenses
800.00
.00
.00
Seminars/Confereaca
750.00
.00
.00
Miscellaneous
180.00
.00
.00
Ins. Package
2,400.00
164.73
.00
Vehicle Allowance
1,850.00
.00
.00
Telephone
300.00
.00
.00
Total Disbursements
S ".W.00
S 3,611.77
S 69.35
Variance Favorable (Un&vomble)
S40,818.68
?F
Economic Development Partnership
of Wright County, Inc.
Membership Listing
Dues Paid as of 5/14/97
cities
324
3"5
3"6
322
Albertville
500.00
500.00
500.00
Clearwater
Annandale
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
Buffalo
1686.30
1685.00
1685.00
1685.00
Clearwater
159.70
159.70
159.70
159.70
Cokato
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
Delano
.00
.00
.00
.00
Hanover
193.90
178.60
178.60
178.60
Howard Lake
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
Maple Lake
.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
Monticello
1016.90
1004.50
1004.50
Woodland
Montrose
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
Otsego
.00
50.00
1000.00
.00
Rockford
766.50
766.50
766.50
St. Michael
.00
.00
.00
South Haven
119.30
119.40
119.40
119.40
Waverly
160.00
.00
160.00
Township
Albion
.00
.00
Buffalo
.00
.00
Chatam
.00
.00
Clearwater
215.00
215.00
Cokato
.00
.00
Corinna
.00
.00
Frankfort
393.50
393.50 393.50
Franklin
.00
.00
French Lake
.00
.00
Maple Lake
.00
.00
Marysville
.00
.00
Middleville
.00
.00
Monticello
.00
.00
Rockford
.00
.00
Silver Creek
300.00
.00 300.00
Southside
.00
.00
Stockholm
.00
.00
Victor
.00
.00
Woodland
210.00
210.00 210.00 210.00
7G
Economic Development Partnership
of Wright County, Inc.
Utilities
Minnegasco
Northem States Power
Wright -Hennepin Electric
Telecommunications
AT&T
Lakedale Telephone
U.S. West
Banks/Lendine Instl1mgolms
Annandale State Bank
Citizens State Bank of Waverly
Oakley National Bank
Rockford State Bank
Security State Bank of Maple Lake
State Bank of Cokato
Highland Bank - St. Michael
Associates
FNB - Elk River
Clearwater Area E.D.C.
Minnesota Technical
Monticello Industrial Development
United Power Association
Wright Technical Center
Businesses
Deck Rescue Plus
KRWC Radio
Westwood Professional Services
OMP Contributors (19941
City of Cokato
Wright -Hennepin
Minnegasco
CMIF Grant
Wriaht Coumv
IM
1"5
1965.00
2313.00
2300.00
2300.00
.00
2300.00
.00 .00
1691.00 1850.00
.00 .00
I"6
2313.00
2300.00
2300.00
1000.00
.00
.00
750.00
.00
.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
500.00
.00
.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
250.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
50.00
50.00
2500.00
.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
$00.00
.00
50.00
.00
50.00
.00
.00
75.00
.00
.00
100.00
.00
.00
100.00
$00.00
$00.00
$00.00
2500.00
2500.00
rmi
2313.00
2300.00
2300.00
1000.00
750.00
250.00
250.00
500.00
750.00
250.00
7#
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
Mayor Fair requested that this item be placed on the agenda.
C4— 0,4,'xl d#koPCow `
12
250 East Broadway May 23, 199?
P. O. Box 1141
Monticello, MN
55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
Dear Fellow Council members:
As you review the Council agenda for May 27, 1997, you will note I intended to make a
motion to the Council that we serve the Township with written notice of the City's intent to
withdraw from the 10 -year joint resolution urbanization plan entered into with the
Township in 1990. This is allowed under the terms of that joint resolution. My intended
motion would also include the provision that if the Township agrees to amend the urban
service boundaries in the southeast section of the Township to accommodate the two
parcels that meet all the criteria for inclusion in an urban service area and allow those
land owners to move forward with their petitions of annexation, then the notice to
withdraw would be cancelled. I've decided, however, to table my intended motion for two
weeks to allow the Council time to consider all the ramifications associated to my intended
motion.
On Tuesday, May 20, 1897, this Council and the Township Supervisors met for the
purpose of discussing urban service areas as a whole. I was disappointed but not surprised
by the lack of substantive issues brought to the discussion by the Township. There was a
two-hour time limit on the meeting; and frankly, we would have been through with any
substantive discussion in about 15 minutes if I had not brought a position statement and
supporting evidence to the meeting. The only outcome of the meeting was to agree to have
more meetings with no specific agenda suggested. It was at that time I decided to advise
the Township of my intent to present the motion described above unless they showed a
gesture of intent to meet in good faith by agreeing to amend the urban service boundaries
on the two parcels of land that have been the focus of attention for months.
It has been suggested to me by some Council members that my action was rash; that I may
have been motivated by the heat of the moment. To clear up any misunderstanding, it was
not a position I took in the heat of the moment, and as to its rashness, judge it as you wish.
During the days I spent preparing for that joint meeting, I tried to consider all the possible
outcomes and what the implications were for each. Through that process, it became
clearer and clearer tome that if the two parcels that have become the catalyst in this issue
offla of Pubtie worb, 902 GW Cawu Rd, MowticeJ" MN 33862 • PAom, (61VA23-3170 • Fax., (912)283.5170, at 1
City Council Members
May 23, 1997
Page 2
C—
are
are not dealt with now, then the Township may choose to stonewall any substantive
discussion and insist on ongoing meetings simply to achieve through attrition and delay
their goals to keep these parcels from being annexed.
The question that kept returning to my thoughts was, "Is the Township truly concerned
about urban service areas as a whole, or is that simply a ploy to stop action on these
parcels for other reasons that may be more personal rather than what benefits the area as
a whole?"
I have concerns about this because something just doesn't smell right. These land owners
made their original requests in July 1995 and August 1996. For sound engineering
reasons raised by the City's Consulting Engineer, these land owners were asked to delay
their requests until questions were answered about the sewer line capacities and the
wastewater treatment plant capacity. These land owners agreed to delay their requests for
amendments to the urban service boundaries and annexation. Our two most experienced
Council members were involved in that issue; and in reading through Council minutes,
there were never any suggestions that these parcels would experience opposition because
they were outside the present urban service boundaries. At that time, as presently, they
met all the criteria of the urban service areas, and their proposed uses were consistent
with the City's comprehensive plan. As I understand it, at about the same time, the
Township also reviewed the City's comprehensive plan and never expressed concern about
more growth in the southeast area. However, since February 1997, the atmosphere around
these properties has become very hostile, and the actions that have occurred make me
wonder if someone or somebodies have a more personal interest in these parcels than just
concern about urban service areas as a whole.
Since February, individual Council members have been contacted and queried by certain
Township Supervisors and a County Commissioner expressing their opposition to these
two parcels being annexed. I'm the Mayor of Monticello, yet to date I have been totally
avoided by those parties. If they have legitimate concerns, I would think the Mayor should
also be advised as to what they are.
Additionally, the level of acrimony that has surfaced in the past two months has not been
about urban service areas as a whole. At the Council meeting of March 24, 1997, when the
Council was to review the Township's response to the land owners' requests for
amendments to the urban service boundaries, certain public officials suggested that a City
staff person had altered the minutes of the Planning Commission's review of the land
owners' requests and that, in fact, the Commission was not in favor of the urban service
bowidary amendment. These allegations led to the Planning Commission reviewing the
matter again, voting unanimously in favor of the request again, and asking the City
Council to reconsider its majority vote to support the Township's opposition to the request
for amendments to the urban service boundaries.
From that point on, the efforts by those opposing these two parcels has been to say their
concerns are about the urban service areas as a whole and not about these two parcels
specifically.
City Council Members
May 23, 1997
Page 3
H
My response to that new position is, prove it to me. Remove all doubt about personal
interests in those parcels by agreeing to adjustments of the urban service boundaries for
them because they meet the criteria as defined today and are compatible with the City's
comprehensive plan. Nothing that can be presented at future meetings with the Township
to discuss urban service areas as a whole will alter what is known about these two parcels;
and thus, they should be resolved and removed from the bargaining table. Then we can go
forward knowing that the Township's concerns, which they have not yet even articulated,
are not just a diversion to forestaill action on these particular parcels. This is a reasonable
request, but it requires political resolve from this Council.
If, however, the Council chooses to sit down in extended negotiations on this issue with the
Township with no political resolve, the implications are critical.
First is the fundamental question of who exercises control over our city limits. Will it be
the Council or the Township Board? If the current parcels are not resolved and we
suspend the criteria for assessing their compatibility to our comprehensive plan and the
MOAA land use guide, then it follows that no other parcels can be reviewed by this Council
in the interim for however long that may be. To me that means that the city boundaries
are locked up, and we have given the keys to the Township to decide if and when we can
consider future development.
Additionally, are we to relegate our comprehensive plan to an insignificant document that
we refer to only when it's convenient? That seems to be what has happened on this issue
with the Township.
Next, what are going to be our options to generate revenue to pay for the significant
investment we have in our infrastructure if we are going to reject growth? We have
invested in oversized sewer lines, storm sewer systems, and a wastewater treatment plant
expansion. We face a significant risk of losing tax revenues (tom NSP. We are in the
process of looking at MCP proposals, a National Guard Training and Community Center,
relocation of city hall, a 6 -year capital improvement plan. All of these things are
predicated on a stable growth in our tax base.
What will be our imago as a community? It disturbs me that over this issue, I have heard
comments from Council members and Township Supervisors about us vs, the outsiders. Is
this what we want to be?
Where will the commercial and industrial growth come (tom if we inject the population
baso needed to support it?
Can we expect future development if we don't have the political resolve to defend our
/ comprehensive plan and our land use guides that aro in place today?
Can other political entities such as the School District and Hospital District trust our
policies if we don't show the resolve to defend them?
City Council Members
May 23, 1997
Page 4
All of these tangible and intangible things plus many more will be affected by how this
Council decides to move forward. If we don't have the political resolve to protect the
interests of this community today, I do not expect we will have it at the bargaining table
with the Township.
This city is struggling with a number of significant growth issues, and most of us as
elected officials do not bring a great deal of political experience with us. Our Councils and
Mayors come and go with regularity either because the obligations wear us out or we fail to
show the leadership the community hopes for.
On the other hand, there has been significant stability on the Township Board and years of
experience in fighting annexation battles. They are united in their resolve and believe
they have nothing to lose by delay and obstruction. I happen to believe they are wrong.
The Township residents who look to this city for parks and recreation, senior services,
schools, hospitals, doctors, entertainment, community celebrations, churches, and a sense
of belonging will also suffer if we allow the will of a few to prevail over the interests of the
community.
What harm does the Township suffer from two parcels of land coming into the city at the
land owners' requests which meet all the criteria of the urban service area land use guide
and our comprehensive plan? It would be better to move forward on settling these two
parcels and then see if we really have a conflict with the Township.
I have tried to reasonably explain why I feel the Council should invoke the option to
withdraw from the joint resolution urbanization plan unless the Township Supervisors
show good faith on the two parcels that have been before the City since 1998 and 1998.
I realize I have presented a lengthy rationale for the motion I will be proposing. Therefore,
1 intend to table my motion for two weeks to allow this Council to dilly review my thoughts
on this issue and the information I presented at the joint meeting. I encourage the Council
to hear other opinions about the implications attached to our current course of action.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
C1714 OF MONTICE
William Fair\
Mayor of Monticello
WF/kd
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
1 8a. Consideration of salseNng additional meeting dates with Monticello
Township to cont rare discuRgiong on urbanization hon aa nlan
amendments, (R.W-)
A- RF.F .RRN .. AND RACKGROUND:
It is my understanding that it was the consensus of the Township Board
Supervisors and City Council members in attendance at Tuesday's joint
meeting that additional meeting dates should be established to continue
discussions on possible amendments to the urbanization plan boundaries and
orderly annexation areas. If it is the consensus of the Council that additional
discussions with the 'Township be continued, the Council may want to select
a number of times and dates that wouid be agreeable and present the request
to the Township for their concurrence.
If additional meetings are scheduled, possibly the Council will want to
consider creating a committee to continue the discussions rather than
meeting as an entire governing body. Since I'm not sure iF this was discussed
or considered at the joint meeting last Tuesday, this may not be a direction
you want to take.
IR ALTFRNATIVIE ACTIONS:
Council could select one or more dates for continuing discussions with
the Township Supervisors over the urban service boundary and/or
orderly annexation area boundaries.
Under this alternative, I am assuming the Council consensus was to
keep the dialogue continuing in an effort to reach a solution to the
urban service boundaries and future annexation proposals.
Do not select any additional meeting dates at this time.
Since no specific action was taken at the joint meeting last Tuesday, it is
assumed the Council will want to continue meeting with the Township either v
as a whole or as a committee for the purpose of finding a resolution to our
differences. If somo action has been taken prior to this agenda item that
would eliminate the need for future meetings, this item can be simply
ignored. J
r �\
D. SUPPORTING DATA; � yt
None.
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
1�
� 1• ! 1 � :�M 1 1 1 1
Attached you will find the feasibility report for lGein Farms III. City
Engineer Bret Weiss and Public Works Director John Simola will be in
attendance to review the report. Project financing and timing issues will also
be discussed.
crease note that the trunk line improvements under Klein Farms III serving
she property to the southwest of Klein Farms III will be paid by Emmerich up
front. The City will later provide credits to Emmerich against future trunk
fees. Emmerich is requested to pay for this expense up front because the
City is installing this line sooner than it would have had the original plan
been followed. Please note that the total cost of the trunk line does not
change --only the timing of the improvement. Because the cost is greater now
than it would have been under the original plan, Emmerich is required to
pay this added early expense as noted above.
1. Motion to approve the feasibility study and authorize preparation of
t ' plans and specifications for Klein Farms III, phase II, contingent on
the developer providing a deposit in an amount equal to the coat of the
plan preparation.
Motion to deny approving the feasibility study and do not authorize
preparation of plans and specifications.
The City Administrator recommends approval with adjustments based on�
discussion.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of feasibility report: Copy of resolution. � v
f
0
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
lLengueofMinnesoltaCifies.
A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A few weeks ago, Mayor Fair had noted that members of the Wright County
Mayors Association had supported the idea of Wright County cities
considering pledging some of their state snowplowing disaster
reimbursement funds to help flood -stricken cities in western Minnesota. A
number of cities across Minnesota had questioned the League of Minnesota
Cities as to whether donating funds to flood relief programs was a
permissible expenditure of city funds, and the League has determined that it
would be permissible.
The Mayor had asked that this item be placed on the agenda for full Council
consideration. The original idea of the Mayors Association group was that
some cities were going to be receiving an unexpected reimbursement through
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help with our extra snow
removal cost we incurred this past season. Basically, the City has received
$13,400 in federal disaster assistance and could possible receive an
additional $2,600 from the State for the snow removal cost overruns. I
believe the idea of the Mayors Association was to use some of the state or
federal funds we will be receiving toward a contribution to help flood -stricken
cities.
While it is true that the City did receive over $13,000 in federal assistance to
help our snow removal budgets, it is also obvious that the City has incurred
costs for snow removal in excess of our budgeted estimates for 1996 and 1997.
For example, the City has previously only budgeted for overtime for snow
removal labor plus repair parts and material items such as sand and salt.
Our expenditures averaged about $20,000 under this budget method for the
years 1993, 1994, and 1995. For 1996, we were approximately 80% higher
than the 3 -year average at $36,000. Again, this is only overtime and supplies
and did not include any regular street department payroll. For 1997, to date,
our budget for the year without any equipment purchases would be $22,000.
Through March, the City had expended approximately $16,000 of this
budget, which means we may exceed our budget when considering that we
still have to cover the snow removal operations coming this fall with the
$7,000 remnining. As a comparison, our expenditures for a typical January,
February, and March snow season range from $2,700 in 1995 to $12,000 in
1996. In any case, we have spent more so far this year than we have had in
the last few years. The bottom line is, although we did get an unexpected
reimbursement by the President declaring Minnesota eligible for federal
disaster assistance for snow removal costs, we did certainly spend more than
we had budgeted. If the Council would like to dedicate some of these
15
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
reimbursed funds for assisting other communities, you are legally authorized
to do so. Rather than directly trying to send funds to a certain community or
agency, it would be recommended that if the Council chose to make a
donation, the funds be sent to the League of Minnesota Cities and let them
distribute to the cities that need assistance.
In recent conversations with staff at the City of Buffalo and City of Cokato,
these communities indicated they had not taken any action in regard to
donating any of their snow removal reimbursement proceeds for flood
assistance. As is the case in Monticello, the communities were supportive of
flood relief donations and assistance that were being arranged by local
volunteers, but the cities in general had not contributed any funds directly.
k 1. Council could authorize a direct donation be made to assist flood -
U stricken cities by sending funds to the League of Minnesota Cities for
C distribution. I. -tP3
Council could decide to not take any action regarding a direct
contribution at this time.
C_ STAFF F..O MFNDATION:
At this time, I have been unable to confirm any county -wide attempt by cities
to contribute some of their snow removal assistance funding toward flood
relief assistance in other communities. In the two cities that I had recent
conversations with, this type of donation had not been considered by their
councils, but that's not to say they may not consider it in the future. From a
legal standpoint, the City is authorized to make such an expenditure, and I
believe it's really up to the City Council to determine whether you feel it's
appropriate to do so.
Snow removal budget comparisons.
16
i
CITY OF MONTICELLO
SNOW REMOVAL COMPARISONS
BY OUR BUDGET METHOD
O.T. only + repair parts & sandlsalt:
1993
$20,405
1994
23,662
Average $20,017
1995
15,986
80% higher than 3 yr. average ( )
1996
36,070
Estimated expenditures by using all labor costs and an hourly rate for
equipment -
1993
$62,020
1994
84,318
3 -yr. average $67,423
1995
55,931
77% higher ( )
1996
119,443
1997 to date (O.T. only for labor, eta):
$udpgt F.:n_ M W31
Without snowblower $22,210 $14,930
1996 typical yr. through 3131 $12,368
1995 2,727
1994 6,500
Federal snow emergency assistance expected:
Federal share $13,413 Paid
State share 2,679 Unknown if Itunding available
City share 1.720
$17,712
BNOWREMCOM. &=? /D
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
, . W
A RRFFRFNCF AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting, this item was tabled for additional research as to
the proper procedures and whether the City had legal authority to sell these
parcels. Please refer to the May 12 agenda supplement for additional
background on these lots proposed for sale.
I received a research memo from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding
the sale of park property that indicated if property had been acquired by a
deed containing no restrictions on its use, in most cases, that property could
be resold for other purposes. As we noted previously, the City did acquire
these properties without any restrictions on the deed, as we accepted the lots
as payment of the park dedication fees we had requested in cash for the
Thomas Park and MacArlund Plaza subdivisions. In addition, City Attorney
Paul Weingarden also reviewed the history of the City's acquisition of these
parcels and confirmed that the City should have legal authority to resell the
properties since they did not contain any restrictions on the deeds.
Mr. Weingarden did note that since the City did receive the deed for these
parcels as partial consideration of a park dedication cash requirement,
proceeds from the sale of the lots should be dedicated to the park fund for
park improvements. This would seem to be a logical use of the funds; and
the reason the staff is proposing these lots be sold is to get the parcels back
on the tax rolls and hopefully have some homes built on the properties since
we will not use the property for park purposes. Returning any of the
proceeds to the park fund would be a very appropriate use of the proceeds.
Since the two lots are side-by-side, and soil correction is needed on both
parcels, it is recommended that we offer the lots for sale as a package, which
should make it easier to correct the soils if done together. While we do not
have a firm estimate as to the cost of soil corrections for each lot, it will likely
be substantial. In any case, it is recommended that the minimum bid per lot
be stated at $9,000 each as a starting point. If for some reason we are unable
to receive any bids for the property, we could further investigate the cost of
soil corrections ourselves and then determine whether it would be beneficial
for the City to improve the lots prior to sale as building sites.
R ALTFRNATIVE ACTION :
r�() 1. The first alternative would be to offer Cho lots for sale to the highest
bidder as a package with a minimum bid of $9,000 per lot, with the
new owners being responsible for all soil correction and erosion control
and maintenance of the hillside.
A
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
2. The second alternative would be to do nothing at this time.
STAFF F..O FNDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works
Director that the City proceed with the liquidation of the two lots as outlined
in A 1 above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of May 12 agenda supplement; Map showing location of the two lots.
is
Council Agenda - 5/12/97
13. Co aid ration nfgnlp. of Lots 14 and 14- BI .k 9- Hoglund Addition;
located on MiasiArdlDpi Drive. W.S.)
In 1980, the developer of MacCarlund Plaza and owners of the Thomas Park
development approached the City in regard to "exchanging these two lots for
the $3,368 they owed in park dedication fees for MacCarlund Plaza and also
requested that these lots cover the expenses owed on the Thomas Park plat
development, which they recently purchased from Stuart Hoglund." Park
dedication fees for Thomas Park still owing amount to $2,600, with
additional engineering fees owed on MacCarlund Plaza in the amount of
$1,600. After more discussion, the City agreed to accept these two lots in
exchange for park dedication fees and engineering fees owed on MacCarlund
Plaza and the amount still owing for Thomas Park. The above total is
$7,568. In adding the 1976 assessments for sanitary sewer, water, storm and
street of $9,280, the new total is $16,848, or $8,424 per lot. There are also
assessments against the lots for the street overlay project.
These two lots abut the north edge of the MacCarlund Plaza townhouse
development and abut the southerly side of Mississippi Drive. The rear
portion of the lots are taken up in rough hillside with a significant elevation
change. The lots themselves are elevated somewhat above the street, but
unsuitable soil conditions and wet conditions make the lots almost
unmowable. We have gotten our mowing equipment stuck on more than one
occasion in this area. We also get numerous complaints f-om the
MacCarlund Plaza townhouse residents about the non -manicured condition
of the hill.
In 1990, the City contracted with American Engineering & Testing, Inc., to
perform a geotechnical exploration of the lots to determine the suitability for
building homes on the lots. The soil investigation indicates that the house
pad areas contain 6.5 ft to 10 R of organic peat swamp deposits and peat/silty
sand fill mixtures. In addition, the ground water was found from within
3.5 ft from the surface. The geotechnical firm recommended that the organic
materials be replaced with a granular fill and the homes be supported on
shallow spread footings. They also recommended that dowatering be
performed. A couple other alternatives were suggested, one included placing
the homes on spread footings on top of a deep foundation system of driven
pilings. A rough estimate for the soil correction for both of the lots if done at
once, back in 1990, was in the area of $10,000 to $15,000.
If the lots were given to the City in lieu of payment of park dedication fees
and engineering fees and serve no real purpose as a park and are a nuisance
to maintain both the weeds on the hillside and the soft lower ground, it may
Is ,,A
Council Agenda - 5/12/97
be in the best interest of the City to liquidate these two lots at a reduced
price so that the buyers could do the necessary soil correction, hillside
stabilization, and build single family homes on the lots and put them back on
the tax rolls.
R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to sell the lots to the highest bidder
(hopefully at least $8,424 each, our original investment) based upon
procedures recommended by the City Attorney and have the new
owners responsible for soil correction and erosion control and
maintenance of the hillside.
2. The second alternative would be to do nothing.
S. STAFF MO NDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works
Director that the City liquidate the two lots as outlined in alternative N1.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of text from soils report; Copy of map showing the two lots.
/ ` TGLUN
3
m
16
D ADDITION
2 Itoo'_.
oo, V 13 12
1033, too'
�` -.•� '�C -�---MITI. q_V.c.
to __moo �s _- i/ s. oP
-
I
• - loo
10
BOO' �' 12 • 11 • O 9 ' 8 • 7 0
ADD.
l•w)l.oc. loo' - . too*
b
40' PERMANENT -�� r __
EASEMENT / / r' -r -T -T- -'I--; r�-T-,-�--r-1 r-�•-r-1-�--� f--T--'r- r
i i II : i i i i I 1 90 I I i 6. I ' 7
112 3�516 �1�2i3 4 5 6� �1�2 314�5I8i 1�2�3 �5�6� 1�2 3�4I5�6i
�iI i , � i �JJeL� i (�i i J� ('s L; I I `� ' 1 L� 4s'ii i '� �J i �i i rJ_� (1
Ll _i 1.. _� L.Li LJ_J L1a L J LLJ L 1_J Jr' LJ_J IJ.J LJ_. LJ.. �.L� L1_i
YAll- 4 -
M,-^r.4r,5M,1
M.T. -...T.,
-'- gr12 3rrrT�nr
,541�13
Lr-U-LIOLU �7 L1; L 'K
/
1 / 2 QLD 0
O
O�� PROPOSED MACARLUNO PLAZA de. `
TOA - 9- P. V. c. sno
c INVERT ELEV. AT MANHOLE 944.00
INVERT ELEV. AT STUB END 944.26
Council Agenda - 5/27/97
12. Com+ideration of advertising for bids and obtaining quotes for it new
4 -wheel drive tractor loader and trailer for the park and street
dejort-eIIts. US.)
A RFFIFRIFNrF AND BA .K •RO
The park and street departments have had the need for an additional smaller
tractor loader for several years. We began the budget process for this tractor
loader and trailer in 1994 by placing the first portion of a three-year
puxrhase program in the budget. In 1995 we budgeted $21,500, in 1996 an
additional $16,250 was budgeted. The final one-third in the amount of
$20,000 was budgeted this year, for a total of $57,750.
The City only has one other smaller tractor loader, and that is a 20 -year-old
2WD 2500 International. What we are looking for this time is a 70 to 80 hp,
4WD tractor loader with hydraulic -operated boa scraper, quick hitch bucket
with optional loading forks and, of course, an all-weather cab with rollover
protection. We are also looking for a trailer that can be pulled behind one of
the street & park department's one -tons, and could also be used to haul
mowing equipment.
Staff would like the authorization to advertise for bids for the 4WD tractor
loader based upon specifications written around the 210 LE John Deere and
the 670 LXT Case, and obtain quotes for trailers based upon specifications
similar to the Felling line of industrial trailers. We would bring all of the
information back to the Council at the second meeting in June. Enclosed you
will find some general information on the tractor and trailers.
B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTION4;
The first alternative is to authorize City staff to advertise for bids on a
new 4WD tractor loader based upon specifications for the John Deere
and Case, and to obtain quotes for a trailer based upon specifications
along the Felling industrial trailer line, all to be returnable to the City
Council to review at the second meeting in June.
The second alternative is not to authorize bids and quotes.
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director,
and Street & Parks Superintendent that the City Council authorize
advertisement for bids and quotes as outlined in alternative M 1.
D_ SIIPPORTIN(l DATA;
General information on equipment.
19
'AGO C)
Am
...........
Y:.-� 57 � � E R
F1- SIANUAKU1'tA1UKtb: - WOW deck
180E-3 - 21,400 lb. GVW at 55 m.p.h. - 4" crossmembers
- 3-6,00016. axles - Adjustable lunette eye
e Electric brakes (6) - 10,000 lb. drop foot jack
- LT235/85R 16 10 ply tires on 8 bolt wheels - Flip -up channel type ramps
- 80" between fenders (102" over-all width) - Stake pockets
- 16' standard length OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT:
e 26" deck height - Gooseneck
hhown wttn optional grated beavertail and spring assist lift on full width ramp.
FT- STANDARD FEATURES:
- 4" crossmembers
200E-3 a 21,400 lb. GVW at 55 m.p.h.
a Adjustable lunette eye
e 3-7,000 Ib. axles
- 10,000 lb. drop foot jack
{ e Electric brakes (6)
a Flip -up channel type ramps
- 235/85R 16 LT tires on 8 bolt wheels
e Stake pockets
- 80" between fenders (102" over-all width)
- 16' standard length
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT:
- 26" deck height
- Gooseneck
e Wood deck
- oil bath axles
'NOTE: Please call for special prices on additional customizing. Ia ^ J
"EW SERIES'.'.
�.. .d ^ +
NOTE: The "EW series is similar to the "E" series, with the exception that the deck is extended to the full width
of the trailer. The fenders will be 4 to 7 inches above the bed. This is obtained by the crossmembers being welded
to the top of the trailer frame. Whereby on the "E" models the crossmembers are placed between the main frames.
FT- STANDARD FEATURES: • 16'standard length • Adjustable 2" ball coupler
7EW • 6,000 lb. GVW at 55 m.p.h. • 26" deck height • 2,000 Ib. swing -up lack
• 2 - 35M Ib. axles • Floor plate deck • Flip -up channel type ramps
• Electric brakes • 5" structural channel
• F78x15 tires iron main frame OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT:
• 76" between fenders • 2" channel and angle • 205/75D 15 tires
(%" over-all width) crossmembers • Hydraulic surge brakes
FT-
STANDARD FEATURES:
10EW
•9,980 lb. GVW at 55 m.p.h.
• 5" structural channel
• 2-6,000 Ib. axles
iron main frame
• Electric brakes
• 3" Sr 2" channel
•7.00x iSLThmson6boltwheels
crossmembers
• 76" between fenders
(96" over-all width)
FT-
ANDARD EQUIPMENT:
12EW
12,5W lb. GVW at 55 m.p.h.
• Floor plate deck
2.6,000 Ib. axles
• 6" structural channel Iron
• Electric brakes
main frame
• 7.50 x 16 tires on 8 bolt wheels
• 3" channel crossmembem
-7 5" between fenders
F
(96" over-all width)
FT-
STANDARD EQUIPMENT:
14EW
• 14,900 lb. GVW at 55 m.p.h.
• 2.7,000 Ib. axles
• Electric brakes
• 950 x 163 tires on 8 bolt wheels
• 72" between fenders
(96" over-all width)
• 16'standard length • Adjustable 2.5/16" ball coupler
• 28" deck height
• 2,000 lb. swing -up jack
• Floor plate deck
• Flipup channel type ramps
• 5" structural channel
iron main frame
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT:
• 3" Sr 2" channel
• 7.50 x 16 tires on 6 bolt wheels
crossmembers
• Hydraulic surge brakes
• 16'standard length
• 2,0001b, swing -up jack
• 28" deck height
• flip -up channel type ramps
• Floor plate deck
• 6" structural channel iron
OPRONAL EQUIPMENT:
main frame
• 235/85R 16LT tires
• 3" crossmembers
• Hydraulic surge brakes
• Adjustable 2-5/16"ball coupler
• 16'standard length
• 1,000lb. lack
• 28" deck height
•Flip -up channel type ramps
• Floor plate deck
• 6" structural channel Iron
OPRONAL EQUIPMENT:
main frame
• 2.5/ 16" ball coupler
• 3" channel crossmembem
(12,500 GVW)
• Adjustable lunette eye
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT FOR "EW SERIES:
• Hydraulic brake • Slide out ramps • Wood dock • Grat.X dock
• W between lenders • Split of full width ramps • Ad4oable hmetn eye • Undertost or prime urdersWe
(1(12" overall width) • Toot box • V drop axles Gooseneck. r�
• 2 dovmd • Additional or shorter length • Spring a=las on naps • MW, 12000 lack 1 9 _ L
r
C
Council Agenda - 6/27/97
1r •, ., :.� , ,
Two major events that take place in Ellison Park have placed additional
loads on the decades old electrical systems. Riverfest, of course, is a big user,
along with the arts and crafts program. We have also received requests from
individuals renting the gazebo and the log shelter for improvements to the
electrical systems. After Riverfest last year, the Lions have requested that
the City make improvements to the electrical system. I have been working
with Wes Olson of Olson & Sons for the past several months to investigate
the outdated system in the park and the needs of the Lions. Mr. Olson and I
have also been working with NSP to look at possible main service
improvements.
The existing system at the park consists of a 100 amp electrical service on the
west end, which is an inappropriate location and is under-utilized, and a
second location north of the restrooms and east of the log shelter. This is also
100 amp service but is over -utilized. From discussions with Mr. Olson and
NSP, it appears it would be best to relocate the 100 amp service on the west
and to establish a new 200 amp service at the site near the log shelter.
Additional branch circuits would then be run to the various structures, and
temporary load centers would be available to be plugged in at specific areas
for specific events. All of the 110 volt systems would be GFI protected
(ground fault interrupter) for safety.
Since it has been cumbersome to coordinate and determine the needs, we are
a little late in getting this information to the Council. In fact, as of the
writing of this information, I don't even have the final recommendations from
NSP and the cost estimates from Olson & Sons. We also at this time don't
know how much of the cost the Lions are willing to cover. We hope to have
this information for you by Tuesday evening's meeting and have invited a
member of the Lions to attend.
20
ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
05/22/97 13:30154 Sewule of Bills CLOSOS-VO4.30 COVERPAGE
G1540R
C�
Report Seloction:
ZN GROUP... 00522 COl04ENT.. , A/P CHECKS 5/22/97
DATA -;E-10 DATA COMMENT
0-05211997-054 A/P CHECKS 5/21/97
0-05221997-053 A/P CHECKS 5/22/97
D -C5231997-055 A/P CHECKS 5/21/97
Run Instructions:
+obo Banner Cooies Faro Prinlar Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
02 SCED N S 6 C36 10
C
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
05/22/97 13:31:00
C-MOOR NAPE
OESCRIPTION
ARARARX
CITY HALL SUPPLIES
B 6 C PLUMBING 6 HEATING
PLUMBIR8-WOREN'S SR-C17Y
BERGSTROM'S LATIN 6 GARDE
SOj,EK010
BMICK'S PmI COLA 0011
PC)
SRO INTERTEC CORPORATI
CONSULTiNO SERVICES
0 I'S RUNKIPAL SUPPLY,
PN-SNOVELS,GAS CANS, ETC
OANLHETPER 01STAMTINO
SEER
RISC
BEER
C NSI -ALCOHOLIC B4"ER6MIM
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
BEER
B_ER
DICK WO.ESALIE CO., INC,
DEER
RISC TAXA5LE
LIG.CR 51092 WFLIE3
OCJ3.E 0 EIEC'OIC
CITY hALL -1EAK ROOM
ENOINL'RINO R;PRO SYSTER
1/2 CET -FRED PATCH
'AIRlN1.r1AX
A24L A GTP PSV TAX PTO
3:'9fR Ci.:VGY
r LtWWJ PAPER S".:N4:,'i7
142'x, •P, 6As11
Schedule of Bflls
APOUNT ACCfgiNT NAME FOND 6 ACCOUIIT
51.00 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101 -4194G.2119
99.98 REPAIR 6 NTC - BUILDINGS 141.41940.4010
321.26 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 101.45201.2211
01.9S RISC TAXABLE Up, 49750.2540
4,111.25 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 43S.49201.3199
566.21 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43120.2199
3,052.56
BEER
609.49750.2520
27.20
RISC TAXABLE
609.49150.2540
4.066.00
BEER
609.49750.2520
169.60
RISC TAXABLE
609.49750.2540
6.111.16
•VENDOR TOTAL
96.50
BEER
609.19150.2520
135.03
BEER
609.49750.2$20
211.50
'VENDOR TOTAL
11067.00
BEER
509.49750.2620
16.20
141SC TAXACLE
660.40150.2540
41.54
L100R STORE SUPPUES
609.49754.2140
1,125.54
$0302 TOTAL
66.71 RISC REPAIR 6 MTC CUP%l 101.41940.2209
291.50 RISC PRINTING 436.49201.3599
65. EJ TUVEL EXFEN5E 101.41110.6110
14.09 ;C3TU 107.432E0.1220
:44 42 RIM OPERATIQ SiPPPLIEJ 6C0.40754.2153
CITY OF MONTXCELLO
GL6AOR-VO4.3D PAGE 1
CLAW INVOICE P03. F/P 10 UNE
765062 054 60039
I
18635 053 00001
I
31095 C54 00081
I
66003569151 054 00033
6641
8101
0110
2C�3
190684
4-:49-51111
933160
!Rr FL1;=IAL SYSTEM
CITY OF NOTICE=
05122/0 13:31,00
Schedule oPBille
61.5108-VO4:30 PAGE 2 jl
7OOR NAME
9ESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
ACCOUNT NAME FOND i jk=VT
CLAIM INVOICE
P13 PIP 10 LINE
I
-LICKER'S T.Y. 6 APPLIAN
DUPLICATE
13.25U
NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.42401.2199
120491
054 00013 ,
RECORDER REPAIR
35.28
REPAIR 3 ITEC - MACH 6 EQ 101.4194 0.044
46291
054 00012
22.03
lWDDR TOTAL
TYLES EXCAVATING L H0.7EY
RIVER TERR PUMPING
100.00
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.42501.3199
7299
054 00054
3 9K SERVICES
01FDRMS-RICH,JOHN M
75.45
UNIFORM RENTAL 602.49490.4170
054 OOD11
UNIFORMS-RICH, MATT
72.95
UNIFORM RENTAL 601,49A40.4170
054 00019
WIFCRMS-JOhV S
33.00
UNIFORM RENTAL 101.43110.4110
054 OD019
IOIIF03318-ELM, TOM 8
132.02
UNIFORM RENTAL 101.4311$,1110
054 00020
XFOR7S-STREETS
314.30
UNIFORM RENTAL 101.4312 3.4170
054 03021
LNIFORN3- JOHN L
50.30
I:NIFORM RENTAL 101.45201.4170
054 00022 `
SHOP RAGS
26.74
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.2199
054 00023
M-DEEP REG
20.95
REPAIR 3 MTC - BUILDING$ 101.41990,4610
054 00024
643S-PUBLIC NORMS
170.02
REPAIR 6 MTC - BUILDINS3 101.4312 7.4010
054 00025,
MIRON,/SALES TAX
123.14
RISC OTHER EXPENSE t01.43120.4199
CS! 00026
1,020.00
'VENQOR TOTAL
WNER'S OFFICE PRODUCT
LDS CHARGE
0.35
POSTAGE 60149440.1220
31704.0
054 00059 i
.;EQRAL RENTAL CENTER
9; 17 SEEDER
126.74
EQUIPMENT RENTAL 101.4520 1.050
10023
053 OCCA4
012 OPEN TRAILER
21.30
BIMCLI09 FARM C• hiSES 602.49400.4105
13719
053 COC45
IAO.04
•V5MR TOTAL
ZLEWU PRI4TIN3. INC.
1KSPECTIOS NOTICED
75.00
PRINTED FORTS 6 PAPER 101.12401,2030
054 00013 `
:AIM CO a 4 COMPANY
Ilr
FRE:-IT
241.00
FREfO11T 603.49750.1130
053 60050
110:,02
13,162.04
L10UDR 601.49750,2510
053 03051
0i4
2,307.29
MINE 609.41750.2330
G59 00052
RISC TAXABLS
25.50
MISC TAMUE 601.497b0.2540
053 03053
LIC:1-1
717.70
LIQUOR 509.497.51011510
51551,51659
CE5 03001
MIN:
160.51
MINE 609.40753,1530
51059,51555
055 000C3
10,CO3.01
t1'ENCOR TOTAL
[IH Grb RID: INC
W
11588.70
EEER CC1.69750.2520
'.091211190913
033 ;0:40
I;ER
3,140.50
EEER 600.49950.!620
131211
055 Cu8:1
7,C3S.20
-VENCOR TOTAL
I AWK EUI ANZ-R:M A7-N.
1
MPTP CX,O, E-' i;YEY
3,581.50
RISC Pa�:E IOKAL SERVIC 436.49201.1107
1D112
C53 00014
II
8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
CITY OF WaICELLO I4
CS/22/97 13:31.00
Schedule of Bills
USAOR-YO4.30 PAGE 3
CNOOK HANE
'DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACt011NT
CLAIM INVOICE
POS F/P 10 -LINE
HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
MR HOSE
16.50
REPAIR 5 MTC - BUILDINGS 101.42I01.4010
053 08016
OIL SEAL
22.28
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 101.45101.2210
053 00011 %i
U -BOLT 6 HANGER -FIRE DEP
5.52
REPAIR 6 MTC - VEHICLES 101.42201.4050
053 00018
ADHESIVE 6 SPLASH HJARD
26.60
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 502.49490.2211
053 000tH
OILER,RESPIRAT
38.12
SMALL TOOLS 6 EQUIPMENT 101.43127.2410
C33 00020
VOLTisIER,SMITCH
41.76
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 101.43120.2210
051 00021
NOSE END
25.45
EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 101.43125.2210
053 00022
FITTINGS 6 COUPL-DISC
79.81
BIOSOLIOS FARM EXPENSES 602.44480.4385
053 00023
ROCM 6 FLOOR MAT
33.74
RISC REPAIR 6 MTC SIPPLI 101.43115.2299
053 00024 I�
RATCHET.SCREMDRVR.MAINT
7.02
SMALL TOOLS 6 EQUIPMENT 601.49"0.2410
053 00025
SOLTS
7.68
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 101.13120.2211
053 00026 1
304.40
-VENDOR TOTAL
HDA ENCINEE41110, INC.
WP -MONTH ENDING 3/31
21,024,00
PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 436.49201.3030
164-12370
053 00015
HENRY 6 ASSOCIATES
11TER PARTS
1.365.00
METERS 6 VALVES FOR RESA 601.49440.2271
2704
054 00069
HERNES/JERRY
LICRARY CLEANINO CONTRT
227.50
PROF SRV - M''STODIAL 211.45501,3110
5/16 TO 5/31
054 C0003
FRATECH
TELEVISED PIPE/LEAKS
2,080.00
RIS: PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 602.10190.3199
970336
051 00010
I
INTER COXF OF SLOG OFFIC
FRED PATCH-SERTNARS
210.00
CONFERENCE 6 SCHOOLS 101 ,42401.3120
002030 P 053 00043
M 01 L CORPAHY
FUE'L-FIRE DEPT
C9.59
MOTOR FLELS 101.42201.2120
051 60030
IN HATCO SALES CO
wRF lIC1T-CME TRUCM
113.15
REPAIR 6 RTC - VEHICLES 101.12101.1050
7500
054 OCC00
JIC- V WZ4TICELL0
CA.,FIELD LINE
190,48
MISC OPERATIND UPP41ES 101.15201.2199
104100.104109
063 "C6D
J0'S AUTO CLECTRIC 11,
S'AGTER RFPAIR
52.50
REPAIR 6 MTC - VEHICLES 101.46201.4050
054 06011
4i,,NSON GM 1110LC5AI: .
FREICNT
$5.50
FUMIJ 603.49150.2313
053 0:021
1.1"aa
647,15
LIQUOR 6CD.19150.2510
:SI C0o.0
NIA:
1.231.85
NINi t09.e9Tb0.213D
051
fp,lo-
81.50
FQICJT 609.497ED.Wo
05 C IO
U1L LR
878.15
LIOLDR 8C0.IBT5D.I31G
055 O:o21 j
$IN-
615.90
MIN's 800.10150,23.0
CS5 Z=22C
D,810 65
'VENDOR TOTAL
!I
SAC FINAXIAL SYSTEM
05/22/97 19:31:00
SctrAlo of Bills
9IDOR NATO
DESCRIPTION
ARM
ACCOUNT NAME
FUND 6 ACCOUNT
KEN ANDERSON TRUCKING
6 ANIMALS
31.95
RISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC
101.42701.3199
MARTIE'S FARM SERVICE
35,90
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
101.43120.2199
32.06
RISC OPERATINP SUPPLIES
101.45I01.I199
95.11
RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
602.49490.2099
163.21
•VEIIOOR TOTAL
MEOTOX UBMTORIES
DRUG TESTING
46.01
MISC.PROFESSIOMAL SERVIC
101.43110.3199
DZ3tl TESTING
46.00
MISC.PROFESSIONAL SERVIC
101.43120.3199
92.01
OVEHOUR TOTAL
MICR .S TRJCKING, INC
FRE:CHT
36.00
FREIGHT
609.49750.3330
MICRGBIOLOGICS, INC.
COLIFORM
30,01
RISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC
601.49440.3199
COLIFORM
4S.00
RISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC
601.49440.3199
75.00
*VENDOR TOTAL
CMTKNE0ASCO
UTILITY -CITY HALL
126.60
GAS
101.41940.3030
UTILITY -DEP AEG
33.11
OAS
ID1.41090.3330
UTILITY -AN SHELTER
4+9.11
GAS
101.42701,3030
111ILITY-PARKS
45.15
GAS
101 .45201.3030
UTILITY -NATER
11.11
GAS
601.4940.303D
UTILITY-FIRi HALL
50.00
OAS
101.42201.3030
OT-1'Y-OIOP/.ARA6E
161.02
CAS
101.431I7:3030
JTILITY�110?ARY
70.0
GAS
211.45501.3030'
1.154.31
$VENDOR TOTAL
K7 CEPT CF IMM 6 E=4
AR09LAX SCERO GRANT REIN
2,40.0
GRANT REIMS - AROPLAX
222.46501.6602
A!Y U C FLTCO
34 CIIIIEN
2,03.91
SENICA CENTER OTRIEUII
101.45175.3110
KMI:CLLIO ANIMAL CONTRO
ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT
2,259.40
PC6f SRV - ANIMAL CTRL 0
101.42101.3120
M�ITICELLO TIR:3
LEGAL
902.14
LECAL NOTICE IRKICATION
101.41631.3510
6'„141 FLOWIA3
40,11
CENFRAL RMIC INFUNATI
101.43110.3920
E%31L3SC31LE AO
93,11
GENERAL FaIC INFORMATI
191.42401.3520
FJE:IC NFAD143
ISS.15
LEGAL QTIQ F.'UICATION
101,41910.3510
4':R FLL.^.IIAJ
IZ3 11
GENERAL PUELIC IAF82MATI
601.49440.3020
1%4
68.50
CERE2AL GJLLIC IKFUXAT1
101.43230.:320
C::CYJ:l1u
;NT[RN,T
241.51
CMU4 PeMC Ik;ZRRATI
101.4t91G.C520
SEA::ON PAW KA -3 A3
4100
CENERAL DjsLtc IKFURATI
191 45:33.6920
CLAIM INVOICE
26
49779141
49779141
492943
110519
110934
CITY OF XXTICELLO `
61540R-VO4.30 PAGE 4
POS F/P ID LINE
053 00042
054 OOG40
054 00041
054 00042 E
MAY CONTRACT
MAY 1601
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
05/22/97 13:31:00
ADOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
KONTICELLO TIMES
REWARD-FIRES IN CITY
INTEREST
ADVERTISING
NATIONAL BUSHING PARTS 6
BATTERY,FILTERS.LENS
ALTERNATOR, FILTER
WATER PUMP i SUPPLIES
ULTRA BATTERY
BEARINGS 6 ATWOOD SURGE
UNDERCOAT,PAiNT.PRINER
FARM-WICK DISCONNECT
NEWTON MAWFACTURING CON
MKTG-MUGS
NORTH STAR TURF, INC.
FERTILIZER
WORTHERN STATES POWER CO
iiATER
SEWER COLLECTION
STREET LISHTS
OLSOX, USSET,AGAN 6 NEIN
LECAL THROUGH 4/20107
ONE CALL M16EPTS, INC.
O%t CALLS FOR APRIL
OFA-SCHELEN-MAYERO4 6 A9
P?"rh-PROF SERVICES
ACCT COP1E3-INTER CR11O
APRIL, EXTRA SERVICES
PA*�3113 6 SONS
WIN"e
P;ILLIP3 NINE 6 SPIRITS
I.:=
W:C,,
FwEiw
f 171�i`
WIN:
Schedule of 117114
AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACCOUNT
39.90 GENERAL PUBLIC 3NFORMATI 101.45201.3520'
00.29 RISC_ OTHER EXPENSE 101.41301.4399
199.67 ADVERTISING' 609.49754.3499
2,233.46 'VENDOR TOTAL
103.13 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 101.43120.2211
214.40 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 101.43120.2210
43.91 VEHLCLE REPAIR PARTS 101.43115.2211
64.51 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 101.4520,1.2211
160.32 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 101.45201.2210
160.83 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 602.49490.2211
14.16 SIOSOLIDS FARM EXPENSES 602.49480.4385
701.28 'VENDOR TOTAL
934.42 RISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.45501.3199
35.53 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.45201..2199
17.51 ELECTRIC 601.19440.3910
27.00 ELECTRIC 602.49400. 3010
4,119.91 ELECTRIC 101.43160.3010
4,765.22 'VEN009 TOTAL
11001.00 PROF SRV - LEGAL FEES 101.41601.3040
020.00 RISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.49440.3199
3,033.46 PROF SRV - ENOINEERIN3 F 441.49201.3030
200.05 PROF SAV - EN31NEEPIK F 101.43110.3030
CC1.67 PROF SRV - EK3INEERIN3 F 450.49201.3330
4,047-90 'YBi003 TOTAL
1,261,40 NINE 0:9./9760.2530
',222.62 LI=R 000.49710.2510
151,33 NINE 6C9,40750.253C
:3157 FailGHT OC9.497C0.3333
93.73 K207 BGA 45150.3333
1,4:2.18 LIMR C:0.49750.2510
3,971.0 NINE 00;.19763.25;;
40.2 N:Sr TANAM :0;.10953 2540
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL640R-Y04.30 PAGE 5
.1
CLAIM INVOICE POO F/P 10 LINE
054 00064
OSt 00065
ACCT 111716 054 00055
652236
143226
70ADACT
287327,28028
287321,Y89348
EB7H1,I81328
269327,289020
053 00030
053 00031
053 OOD32
053 00033 f
053 00034
053 00035
053 00036
054 OOC81
054 00053
051 00.127 1
054 OC32G
054 00029
C51 00015
053 60083
CS3 mi,
C53 00012 i
053 60013
C:5 OQOIO
653 90:04
C33 OCOCS
D.3 =61.5
C55 000:;
CSS 03.03
m C:C:4 'I
CBS CC::3
ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
05/22/97 13:31:00
C
cADOR NAME
OESCRIPTION
PXILLIPS`,WINE 6 SPIR17S
PHOTO I
F:':.R DEVELOPING
FILM OEYELOPINO
FILM DEVELOPING
FILM OEVELCPIKG
PIPELiKE SUPPLY, INC.
RIDOIO KNEEL SCREN
PRa1SSE'S CLEANING S -.RVI
CLOANIAO/CITY HALL
CLEANIKG/MIR YETI
CLEAHINO/MBLIC NORMS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61
Iif.TP CCNIAACT-MAY *. 991
f*ALITY NINE i SPIAI-S C
CNINE
LIQUOR
WINE
L IQ':OR
RED'S RUIL
FIRE TOM 111-4JFFa l
RH:AX'S HOUSE OF LCTTE
L4,415 FCR hARJ HATS
=Is Gworel ICE
IC.
R1YAL PRINTINJ 6 GTr-,CE
,[--AL FRA110 6 FIL=S
A FOv%�,RE(4FG3CEM w
C0R 6 TAPE
A ZIR D Z31 INC
C:AR1N tFT,SPAI tiO PIN
C; 1F JE049 V.A71
C
Schedule of Bills
AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAVE FUND 6 ACCOUNT
6„121.23 •VEM TOTAL
44.52 KISC OTHER EMPWE 436.49201.4399
181.85 RISC OTHER EXPENSE !36.19201.1399
10.65 RISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.43115.4199
10.26 NISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.43115.1399
250.28 -VENDOR TOTAL
55.40 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 601.19410.2199
460.00 PROF SV - CUSTODIAL 101.41940.3110
120.00 PROF SRV - CUSTODIAL 101 41990.3110
150.00 PROF SRV CUSTODIAL 101./3110.3110
730.03 'VENDOR TOTAL
35,240.12 PROF SRV - PSS, INC 602.49480.3080
251.31 NINE 609.49150.2530
19.26 LIQUOR 609.19150.2510
503.16 NINE 609.49750.253i.
062.15 LIAR 609.49150.!510'
1:103.16 •YENOQA TOTAL
91.00' REPAIR 6 PITT: - VEHICLES 101.4J201.4050
295.21 RISC OTHER EXPEM 43G.49201A399
114.00 9150 1AXACLE 039.49750,2540
21.07 RISC OFFICE S01)1.10 !0;.0]!15 2009
3.73 RISCCF:ICE SUPPLIES 101,43115,2099
16.73 CUPLICAT 110 6 COPY SUPPL ;71.43110.2020
42.01 '0rg TCTAL
03.09 VEHICLE Re?AUR P4519 4,:-^” 2211
5.524,07 OTHER Elr IXNT 053 4020' 5001
%CCO.111 IVES"; TCTAL
CITY OF NOMIICELLO
61.5/0A-YO4.39 PAGE 5
CLAIM INVOICE POI PIP 10 LINE
52214 OSt 06081
054 CC031
054 00031
497670,497670 OY 06023
191070.491679 G55 OGC24
053 03OSS
135;CA
053 00056
053 00J51
2502
053 G0051
51165717.001
054 00002
MAY
054 OOG04
NAY
054, 00005
NAY
OR ODC05
52214 OSt 06081
054 CC031
054 00031
497670,497670 OY 06023
191070.491679 G55 OGC24
054 OO�ii
135;CA
054 CC315
G34 G J30
2502
Gi4 C:CC3'
053
054 0:1n
266
0:1 COD1D
157CC4
C!S 63:61
01;3
-mi P 053 �.:3.
ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
CITY OF MONTICELLO
05/22/97 13:31:CC
Schedule of Bills
8L540"04.30
PAGE
7
WOR NAME
i
l DESCRIPTION
OMNI
ACCOUNT NAME
FUND 6 ACCOUNT
CLAIM INVOICE
Paz F/P 1D
LINE
$ENTRY 55TEMS
ANNUAL VARGA TEST-LIQUOR
38.79
REPAIR 6 ATC - OTHER
609.19151:4099
131095
054
00016
SNARE CORPORATION
SNARE LUSR39EL
326.41
MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
101.43120.2199
141917
054
OCC66
SNERBURNE COUNTY CITIZEN
LIQUOR-ADVERTISING
52.40
ADVERTISING
609:19754.3499
055
OOQ20
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT SUP
LIME 41X
27.85
MISC TAXABLE
609.19150.2510
359053
054
00070
WLINE1
63.12
RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES
5019.4975/.2199
359453
OSI
0007,
91.27
+:VENDOR TOTAL
f
IDS TELECOM
f
PARRS
310.11
TELEPHONE
101.45201,3210
053COGO2
CITY NAL
2,1.70.13
TELEPHONE
101.41301.3210
053
0=3
ANUfAL
71.76
TELEPHONE
:01.42701'.9210
C53
J00O1
M1T;3
115.23
TELEPHONE
601.40440,1216
053
00305
A.W.
201.96
TELEPHME
101.13910.3210
053
00003
C
C53
03C07 +
PM INSP
50.19
TELEPHONE
101.43115,3210
453
0066:
LIOZJR
234.53TELEPHONE
6C9.1915a.32f0
053
0:079
FIRE OPT
51,62
TELEPHONE
101,47201.3210
453
00C;O
3,526.01
'VENCOR TOTAL
UMP?. JISTRIWTINO C07'.P
Ci--R
7,144 40
BEER
609.49750.2520
Oil
06033
NISC TAXACLE
17.10
MISC TAXABLE
600.49750.2$40
055
003!7
E a
1,770.03
BEER
609.19750.2520
lCW37,IC6700
055
00016
15,632,35
•VENOOR'TOTAL
VIAIN3 OFFICE SUPPLY [RC
OITY FALL-OFFICE SUPP
05.94
RISC OFFICE WRIES
101.41301.2699
575010
G54
0O014
V13IONARY SYSTEMS, LTO
4I4;,OW3 WTMARE
2,395.00
SOFTWARE
101.42201.3091
054
0:037
:( PPCA CONTRACT
550.03
MAINTENANCE AUECMINTS
101.42201.1190
034
OOC3J
2,965.00
'VENDOR TOTAL
WAM-474 SUPPLIC3 C63F02
WE0 FOR RESALE
1,723.46
METERS & VALVES FO) RE:A
601.40440.2271
G53
GOCdJ
WICON WWI !1,'C/THF,
I= TAR
2C9.09
MIO: NLN TAXABLE
60.40750.rKa
400500
C53
C.147
CrN CP c,,r;00
04.12
RISC MaATING S-iJPPL1ES
60).4075/.2100
409".13
:35
0.323
TAN RISC
77.70
RISC Ka TAXABLE
60).107 ;0.2550
aC9C0)
C59
C.-M
S,fvalA
C,)3
FC-1111T
6B).197SC.9):)
4093:7
O.5
:CCC?
C372.:6
4VENJOR TOTAL
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
CITY OF M ITTCELE0
05/22/97 13:31:00
Schsdu)u of Bills
81.540R-04.30 PAGE 0
ENOOR WS
OESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
ACCOUNT NAME FUND d ACCOUNT
CLAIM INVOICE POI F/P 1D LINE
ARIGH"-HEANEPIN COOP ELE
MANAN FARMS
6.79
MISC OTHER EXPENSE 436.49201.4399
053 00056
Y.A.C.A. OF MINNEAPOLIS
!
CONTRACT PAYMENT
625.00
MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.45117.3199
MAY 1991 054 0000) '
2IEBAR'
DURCOAT-97 FORD RNSER
297.35
REPAIR 3 MTC - VEHICLES 101.42401.4050
10696 053 00041
I'
1�
( NI
67C FINANCIAL SYSTEM
F�05/22/97 13:3f:CO
t� 0DOR NAR;
l CFSCRIPTIDN
REPORT TOTALS:
Sch.nvle of Sills
AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACCOUNT
181,49O.Oi
RECORDS PRINTED - 000177
CITY OF NON'I:EL,C
GL541R-VO4,3D PAGE 5
CLAIM INVOICE PO4 F/P 10 LINE
BRC FINAVCTAL SYSTEM,
05/22/97 13:3206 Schedule of Bills
CFBNO RZCAP:
FUND JESCRIPNON DISBURSEMENTS
101 GENERAL FUND
28,313.06
211 LICZARY FUNO
304.15
222 5CERG (ECW RECOVERY GRANT)
2,413.45
CIS 93.OSC PATHWAY PROJECT
4,111.25
436 93 -IAC NNTP EXPANSION PRJ
30,963.35
411 95-02C ALEIN FARMS
3,833.46
450 S6.04C KOY251MOOT IKPR
604.67
501 RATER F00
4,218.28
602 SEVER FOO
39,630.08
609 KNICIPAL LIOUOR FUND
66,162.25
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 161,490.01
DANK ;IECAP:
BANK 9AXE
DISEURSEMENTS
M^
CaL
GENERAL CNECXIN3
114,127.75
AR LI$6*2 CHECXINO
65,162.26
TOTAL ALL 11OKS
101,490.01
THE PRECEDING LIST 0, GILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AID APPROVtO FOR PAYMENT.
DATE ............ APPROVED BY ............. .... I ......... I....
CITY OF MONTICELLO
OL06C3404.30 RECAPPAGS
GL5A C R
C Council Update - 5/27/97
Citv Proiect No. 93-14C. Wastewater Treatment Plant Exnnnsion. (J.S.)
The construction project at the wastewater treatment plant has been progressing according
to schedule. Much of the underground piping is in place and did require some dewatering at
the lower depths. The storm water pond and much of the interconnecting piping is now
complete. The footings for the administration building, as well as the below grade poured
walls are complete.
In the area ofthe headworks building (raw wastewater processing) the basement floor is now
complete and approximately 100 lineal feet of headworks building walls and portions of
Tank 3 walls have been poured. This includes two counterfort reinforcements. The total
concrete poured in the area of the SBR system to date is 1300 cubic yards. The second
construction payment paid this month brought the total payments to $890,000, out of the
slightly over SI I million portion ofthe construction project
The project is currently on schedule, and although we have had some surprises on the job
during construction, none of them have resulted in any significant cost impacts to the project.
We have been working closely with A K P, HDR and PSG in seeing that the project is
completed on time. The schedule calls for the first tank to be up and running at SBR facility
by IR198, with the next two tanks on line 4/1/98. We have been debating whether or not to
bring the third tank on line on April I, or delay until the summer of 1998. This may aid in
keeping our other processes going and protecting equipment in the third SBR tank from
winter weather. Completion of the project is still schedule for October 1998.
If there are any questions about the construction project or if you wish to take a tour ofthe
facility, please contact me.