City Council Agenda Packet 05-28-2002AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 28, 2002 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Roger Belsaas
Council Members: Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf and Bruce Thielen
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.
2. A. Approve minutes of May 131, 2002 regular council meeting. `tom
B. Reconvened Board of Review of May 13, 2002.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments/petitions, request and complaints.
5. Consent agenda. b -
A. Consideration of ratifying new hires for community center, city hall and public works.
B. Consideration of granting annual approval for municipal liquor licenses.
C. Consideration of approving an amendment to the union labor contract.
D. Consideration of Change Order No. 1 - Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation work, Project No.
2000-16C, CSAH 75 Improvement.
E. Consideration of adoption of ordinance prohibiting the use of fertilizers containing phosphorus.
k.
F. Consideration of calling for a public hearing to consider vacation of a portion of Cedar Street.
G. Consideration of approving final plat of the Groveland Commercial Center.
H. Consideration of establishing a development review deposit/escrow account for development
projects and planning case projects.
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. Public Hearing - Supplemental Hearing CSAH 75 Improvements from Washington Street to Otter
Creek.
8. Approve payment of bills for May.
9. Adjourn
p
l
h
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 13, 2002 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Roger Belsaas, Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf and Bruce Thielen
Members Absent: None
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Belsaas called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. The Pledge of
Allegiance was said.
2. A. Approve minutes of April 22, 2002 regular Council meeting.
ROGER CARLSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 22, 2002
COUNCIL MEETING. CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
B. Approve minutes of May 8, 2002 Board of Review.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 8, 2002 BOARD OF
REVIEW. CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH
BRUCE THIELEN AND ROGER CARLSON ABSTAINING.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Brian Stumpf requested that agenda item #10 be included in the consent agenda. City Administrator,
Rick Wolfsteller, requested that annexation of the Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park be added to the
agenda.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ADD AGENDA ITEM #109 A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING
PARKING ON CSAH 75 FROM OTTER CREEK ROAD TO CHESTNUT STREET, TO THE
CONSENT AGENDA. CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
Julie Miller, 1. 111 West Broadway, expressed her concern about the pathway proposed along
Broadway and that it would require removal of the trees. She indicated that they had discuss this
issued with Virgil Hawkins from the Wright County Highway Department. She questioned whether
the width of the pathway or the alignment could be changed in order to preserve the trees. John
Simola, Public Works Director, stated that he had walked the proposed pathway and to keep the
2R
Council Minutes - 5/13/02
pathway on the north side of the pole and away from the trees was not possible and placing the
pathway on the south side of the poles would be too close to the road and would be hazardous. The
County had discussed installing curbing along that portion of CSAR 75 to stop vehicles from veering
onto the pathway but the County had not gotten back to him with a cost figure or if there would be
any county participation in the cost for this work. The Council discussed whether the pathway had to
be the 8' proposed or whether sidewalk could be installed in lieu of the pathway. It was suggested
that the city staff work with the county on this matter.
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of ratifying new hires for the Community Center, Public Works and City Hall.
Recommendation: Ratify new hires as identified.
B. Consideration of authorizing request for proposals for legal services and review scope of
work covered by contract. Recommendation: Approve scope of work and authorize staff
to prepare a request for proposals for legal services.
C. Consideration to review and accept the year end EDA financial statements, activity report and
2002 proposed budget. Recommendation: Move to accept the EDA Balance Sheet,
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance; 2002 Cash Flow
Projections; and the Annual Activity Reports as presented.
D. Consideration to approve assigning the Contract for Private Development from Front Porch
Associates to First National Bank of Elk River. Recommendation: Move to approve
assigning the Contract for Private Development by and among Front Porch Associates, LTD,
the HRA and the City to First National Bank of Elk River.
E. Consideration of concept stage planned unit development allowing a single family residential
development in the R-3 Zoning District. Applicant: Central Minnesota Housing Partnership
and the City of Monticello. Recommendation: Motion to approve concept stage PUD
based on the finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan for the City. The development is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and
will not result in a depreciation of adjoining land values.
F. Consideration of approval of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a convenience
food store in the Central Community District. Applicant: Dennis Archer/Domino's Pizza.
Recommendation: Motion to approve Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the
changes to traffic and delivery patterns are consistent with the intent of the Downtown
Revitalization Plan and the CCD Zoning District.
G. Consideration of a simple subdivision request and consideration of a conditional use permit
allowing residential uses on the first floor of structure in the Central Community District.
2
Council Minutes - 5/13/02
Applicant: Gary Nesseth. Recommendation: Move to approve the simple subdivision
creating two lots from one parcel and approve the conditional use permit subject to the
following conditions:
A. Front yard setback of no less than 20'
B. Side yard setback of 6'
C. Rear yard setback of 30'
D. Minimum building setback for buffer yard of 20'
E. Minimum landscaped yard in buffer yard of 15'
F. Applicant must provide verification of meeting the minimum landscape unit requirements of
39 units.
H. Consideration of final plat approval and amendment to the zoning map to rezone Groveland
rd Addition from agriculture open space to single family residential. Applicant: Ocello, LLC.
Recommendation: Approve the final plat, development agreement and the amendment to
the zoning map rezoning Groveland 3rd Addition from agriculture open space to single family
residential. Res. # 2002-26, Ord. Amd. #375
Consideration of an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to recent
amendments to the Residential Development Standards. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Recommendation: Move to approve the Subdivision Ordinance amendments based on a
finding that the amendments support the Comprehensive Plan goals of higher quality housing
development. Ord. Amd. # 376.
J. Consideration of ordinance amendments clarifying single family zoning standards based on
recent district standards adoption. Applicant: City of Monticello. Recommendation: Move
to approve Zoning Ordinance revisions based on a finding that they support the City's
adoption of new residential zoning standards Ord. Amd. #376.
K. Consideration to approve a resolution calling for a public hearing by the City Council on the
proposed adoption of a modification to the redevelopment plan for Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-30 therein and the adoption of a tax increment financing plan therefor.
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing by the City Council on
June 24, 2002 for the proposed adoption of a modification to the redevelopment plan for
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the proposed establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-30.
L. Consideration of adopting resolution in support of designating Yucca Mountain as the national
repository for spent nuclear material. Recommendation: Adopt resolution in support.
Res. #2002-23.
Council Minutes - 5/13/02
M. Consideration of a request for concept stage Planned Unit Development for Otter Creek
Crossings Business Park. Applicant: Otter Creek, LLC. Recommendation: Approve the
Otter Creek Business Park concept PUD, based on a finding that the concept is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Land use Plan.
N. Consideration of granting a license of use over an easement on the Groveland Commercial
Center Site. Recommendation: Motion to grant a license of use over a city easement for the
Groveland Commercial Center with license to include an exculpatory clause holding the city
harmless for damage to the building that might occur in the rare event that the sewer line
would need to be repaired via excavation.
10. Consideration of adopting resolution prohibiting parking on CSAH 75 from Otter Creek
Road to Chestnut Street. Recommendation: Adopt the resolution prohibiting parking on
CSAH 75 from Otter Creek Road to Chestnut Street.
BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE
ADDITION OF AGENDA ITEM #10. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
None.
7. Public Hearing - Compliance with Wild and Scenic Rivers Act - Hans Hagen Development -
Riverwalk
Deputy City Administrator, Jeff O'Neill provided background on the development of the project
noting that two items were to be considered; approval of the concept stage planned unit development
and also to consider comment on whether the development complied with the provisions of the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act. The Planning Commission and the Design Advisory Team had approved the
development stage planned unit development.
Jeff O'Neill pointed that the development is short 5' of space necessary for the green space, sidewalk,
28' two way road and pathway. The staff and developer studied this and proposed some options.
One option was to eliminate the green space between the sidewalk and the curb. Another option
would be to reduce the road width from 28' to 24' with one way traffic and parking on one side of the
street only. This option was presented to the Planning Commission and DAT and they felt that was a
good option. The Council asked John Simola, Public Works Director, how he felt about the reducing
the road width and changing it to one way traffic. He indicated he was opposed to the reduction since
narrowing up the street would be irreversible. He also had concerns about the parking. It was noted
that a proposal for a parking lot in the park area was not presented to the Council. Mayor Belsaas
asked how close to the river the pathway would be. Jeff O'Neill noted there was quite a drop in
4
Council Minutes - 5/13102
grade just beyond the curb until you got to the Carlson property and then there was more room.
Jeff O'Neill also stated that the hearing was an opportunity for the Department of Natural Resources
to comment on the proposed development and its compliance with Wild and Scenic Rivers
regulations. The report prepared by Steve Grittman, the planner was submitted to the DNR but they
had requested additional information which was being sent and after reviewing that the DNR would be
submitting their comments so any motion by the Council should be contingent upon approval by the
DNR.
Hans Hagen, 941 Hillwind Road, Fridley, the developer of the project, discussed the options. He
stated that they wanted to keep the road as far to the south as possible. Currently the road is 26' and
increasing it 2' to 28' would put the sidewalk right on the curb. Reducing the width of the street from
26' to 24' he felt was a better option. Traffic would proceed one way to the west, going from Walnut
Street to the west. This would allow parking on one side of the street and a 4' green space between
the sidewalk and the curb. Brian Stumpf expressed his concern about reducing the width of the street
and he suggested that perhaps reducing the green space to 2' instead of 4' would be a better option.
While he was not adverse to it being one way traffic, he was against it reducing the street width since
it was already narrow in that area. Clint Herbst felt that 26' was overkill for a one way roadway. John
Simola indicated that they had received comments from residents expressing concern about the road
not being wide enough and he noted that operating equipment like snowplows is difficult on a narrow
street.
Roger Belsaas questioned whether the sidewalk needs to be 5' because there is a pathway on the
other side of the street. John Simola stated that most of the recent sidewalk installation has been 5'
but there are places in the city where the sidewalk is not that width.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO KEEP THE ROAD AT ITS CURRENT WIDTH, LEAVING
CITY STAFF TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRAFFIC FLOW IS ONE-WAY OR TWO-
WAY, REDUCE THE GREEN SPACE TO T AND THE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK TO BE
DETERMINED BY STAFF WITH APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
Fred Patch stated that the 2' of green space would be difficult to sod and that 3'-4' would be better
and would be more aesthetically pleasing.
BRIAN STUMPF AMENDED HIS MOTION CHANGING THE GREEN SPACE TO 3' AND
THE SIDEWALK TO 4' BUT KEEPING THE ROAD AT ITS CURRENT WIDTH.
There was no second to the motion.
BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON
5
rJa
Council Minutes - 5/13/02
THE FINDINGS THAT THE PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE
AREA AND CONSISTENT WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. MOTION INCLUDES
ESTABLISHING ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ON FRONT STREET AND IS SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. ROGER CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH ROGER BELSAAS AND BRIAN
STUMPF VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Brian Stumpf noted that his vote was not in opposition to the project but in reducing the width of the
street.
Noting that this was a public hearing, Mayor Belsaas opened the public hearing. A resident on Locust
Street expressed her concern about the road. At the present time with parking on both sides of the
street it is difficult for traffic to get through. If parking is restricted on Front Street the vehicles will be
parking on Locust and that will compound the problem on Locust. Mayor Belsaas then closed the
public hearing and left the motion stand.
s. Consideration of a development stage planned unit development and approval of preliminary
plat. Applicant: Hans Hagen Homes..
This was included with item #7.
9. Consideration of a request by Marian Jameson for vacation/turnback of Old Territorial
Road.
City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, provided background on the item. The Council is asked to
provide direction to the Jamesons for proceeding with the vacation of Old Territorial Road. It was
pointed out that only a portion of the road was vacated by the township in 1953. The Jamesons had
been under the assumption that the road had been vacated in its entirety. Compounding the problem
is the uncertainty on whether the road was ever turned back by the state and what entity had authority
to vacate the remaining right-of-way. Legal counsel for the Jamesons has been looking at the proper
way to handle this and is recommending a quiet title action since the property may be developed at
some point in the future. The Jamesons attorney felt that the courts would be unlikely to give title to
road to the property owner and he felt the City would probably end up with title. In that case how
would the City handle a vacation request. Would they approve the vacation of Old Territorial Road
and would they consider turning the right-of-way back to the property owner at no cost. The staff
also questioned that portion of Old "Territorial Road from Washington Street to the railroad tracks and
whether there was any purpose in the City retaining that right-of-way.
The consensus of the Council was that the City should vacate the entire right-of-way of Old Territorial
Road. Since the Jameson property needs access to a public road they would either need to obtain an
easement for access purposes or the portion of Old Territorial Road from Washington Street to the
railroad tracks would have to remain a public road. The Council felt it should be up to the property
6
aA
Council Minutes - 5/13/02
owner to negotiate an easement for access.
CLINT HERBST MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION OF
OLD TERRITORIAL ROAD AT THE SOONEST DATE AS PUBLICATION
REQUIREMENTS CAN BE MET PROVIDED THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR NEGOTIATING AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS TO THEIR
PROPERTY AND SHOULD THE CITY DETERMINE TO VACATE SAID ROAD THE
RIGHT OF WAY WILL REVERT TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER AT NO COST.
BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Consideration of adopting resolution prohibiting parking on CSAR 75 from Otter Creek
Road to Chestnut Street.
Included with consent agenda.
11. Consideration of approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids
for Groveland Third Addition.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE GROVELAND THIRD ADDITION
CONTINGENT UPON ALL BOND DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITS BEING IN PLACED.
CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Consideration of holding workshop for the purpose of development of assessment policy for,
street and utilitv reconstruction for upcoming proiects.
The Council set a special meeting for establishing assessment procedures for reconstruction projects
for Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 5 p.m. John Simola will confirm that date with the city engineer.
Kiellberg Annexation: City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, informed the Council that within a week or two
the sanitary sewer being constructed to serve the Kjellberg property will be ready for connection. At the
present time the property is not annexed into the city. The City's policy on providing utilities to property
outside the city limits is that they pay a different rate (3 times that of city residents) for service. The City did
not believe that Kjellberg would agree to the non-resident utility rate but with the current legal action relating
to the MOAA Board it is uncertain whether the State Planning Agency will act on any annexation request.
The Council discussed the situation and whether the City would want to allow connection to the system to
occur with guaranteed payment or whether the City should make an exception to their policy.
BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THE
KJELLBERG MOBILE HOME PARK AT THE SECOND MEETING IN JUNE. BRIAN STUMPF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH CLINT HERBST VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
Council Minutes - 5/13/02
13. Approve pavment of bills for May.
BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENTS OF BILLS FOR MAY. ROGER
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Adiourn
ROGER CARLSON MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 8:15 P.M. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Recording Secretary
8 D Pt
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW
Monday, May 13, 2002 - 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Roger Belsaas, Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf and Bruce Thielen.
Members Absent: None
At 6:30 p.m. on May 13, 2002 Mayor Belsaas reconvened the Board of Review that had been recessed
from May 8, 2002. There were three parcels that were to be reviewed by the assessor and brought back
for Council consideration.
Greg Kramber from the Wright County Assessor's Office brought the valuation for the following parcels up
for Council consideration:
155-023-001110 (1311 West Broadway): The assessor reviewed the property and recommended that no
change be made.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO MAKE NO CHANGE IN THE VALUATION SET FOR 155-023-
001110. BRUCE THIELEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
155-080-007090(1450 Oak Ridge Circle): The assessor reviewed this property. He noted that the
increase in other properties in the area were in the same range with the exception of two parcels where
construction had been done. The assessor also presented pictures of comparable property sales to the
Council which supported the value placed on the parcel.
BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE VALUATION ON 155-080-007090 AS SET BY THE
ASSESSOR. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION.
The property owner stated that the home sales in the neighborhood averaged $178,000 and there were four
sales over $200,000. He noted that the comparable sales specified by the assessor were not in the area.
He felt the homes in his area were lower in value. Greg Kramber concurred that this was probably the
most expensive house in the area but also noted that even though there were properties valued at $150,000
there were interspersed in the area properties valued at $180,000 and higher.
UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN, THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
155-086-00230 and 002140 (6166 and 6144 Mill Run Road): The assessor had reviewed the twin
homes in this area and was recommending a 5% reduction for the ten units in this area.
Reconvened Board of Review - 5/13/02
ROGER CARLSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE 5% REDUCTION IN VALUATION FOR THE
TEN TOWNHOUSE UNITS. BRIAN STUMP SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Belsaas closed the reconvened Board of Review at 6:45 p.m.
Recording Secretary
2
013
Council Agenda - 5/28/02
5A. Consideration of amwoving new hires and derartures for the Community_ Center, Public
Works and Liquor Store. (RW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Council is asked to ratify the hiring of new employees that have occurred recently at the
community center, public works and the liquor store. As you recall, it is recommended that the
Council officially ratify the hiring of all new employees including part-time and seasonal workers.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Ratify the hiring of the part-time employees for the community center, public works and
liquor store as identified on the attached list.
C. SUPPORTING DATA:
Lists of new part-time employees.
NEW EMPLOYEES
Name
Title
Department
Hire Date
Class
Joe Mitchell
Summer Worker
Parks
4/22/02
temp
Russell Melton
Custodian
MCC
5/10/02
FT
Jerod Ruotsalainen
W & S Collections
Water Dept
5/13/02
FT
Brenda Hegge
Liq Clerk
Liq Store
4/24/02
PT
Anna Oraretz
Lifeguard
MCC
5/8/02
PT
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
Name Reason Department Last Day Class
employee council list.xls: 05/21/2002
Council Agenda - 5/28/02
3.2 Malt Liquor, Off -Sale (fee $75)
Renewals
1.
Monticello Liquor
2.
Maus Foods
3.
River Terrace
4.
Tom Thumb
5.
Holiday Stationstore
6.
SuperAmerica
7.
Avanti Petroleum (Mobil)
8.
Cub Foods
9.
O'Ryans Conoco
Set -Un License (fee $275)
1. Rod and Gun (Steak Fry only) - $25
2. St. Henry's (Fall Festival only) - $25
Club Licenses (fee—set by statute based on membership)
1. VFW - $500
2. American Legion - $500
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve these licenses effective 7/1/02, contingent upon applicants providing
appropriate certificates of insurance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
Council Agenda - 5/28/02
5B. Consideration of granting annual approval for municipal licenses. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In the past you have renewed the licenses listed below in a single motion. I believe that the
motion has been a contingent motion such that licenses are approved depending upon
successful completion of the application, approval at the state level, and submission of proper
insurance coverage.
Intoxicating Liquor, On -Sale (fee $3,750)
1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox (Chin Yuen)
3. Duane Lindenfelser dba River City Lanes
4. Comfort Inn/Days Inn
5. J.P.'s Annex
6. Hawks Sports Bar
7. Monticello Country Club
Intoxicating Liquor, On -Sale, Sundav (fee $200—set by statute)
Reneivals
1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox
3. River City Lanes
4. VFW Club
5. American Legion Club
6. J.P.'s Annex
7. Hawks Sports Bar
8. Comfort Inn/Days Inn
9. Monticello Country Club
3.2 Malt Liquor, On -Sale (fee $275)
1. Rod and Gun (Steak Fry only) - $10
2. China Buffet
3. Monticello Men's Softball Ass'n. (April -Aug.) ($137.50)
4. Lions - Riverfest Celebration
5. Lions - Street Fest (Aug. 11, 2000)
Council Agenda - 5/28/02
5C. Consideration of annrm1na an amendment to the union labor contract. (RW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A few years ago the City established two new job descriptions for the Public Works Department that
created the position of Mechanic/Operator, which emphasized shop mechanic responsibilities along
with a Operator/Mechanic Foreman position. These hourly positions were in addition to the basic
Operator/Mechanic position that is noted in the union contract language.
The compensation for these positions were covered in different ways within the union contract, with
the mechanic position having a separate salary schedule, while the foreman position was covered by
language that compensated an individual an additional $1 /per hour when the City appointed someone
to this classification. The language in the union contract allowed the City to temporarily assign an
individual as a lead employee or assistant superintendent for a specified time, or it allowed the City to
appoint an individual to the lead person category on an annual basis. In both cases, the employee was
compensated an additional $1 /per hour above the base rate. For the past few years, the City has
taken the opportunity to assign one individual within the street department to a permanent foreman
category. The City has not chosen to appoint on a permanent basis any individual within the parks or
sewer and water departments at this time.
The job description for the foreman position was recently reviewed and modified by the Public Works
Director to correspond with current duties and responsibilities of the position. As a result of the
review by the Administrator, the point value was adjusted in relation to comparable worth which
would place it one grade higher had the position not been a union contract position.
The Public Works Director and City Administrator recently met with the Personnel Committee to
review the status of the foreman classification and discussed how this issue could be resolved through
an interim modification to the union contract. After much discussion by the Personnel Committee, it
was recommended that a new job description be labeled as an Operator/Mechanic Foreman II
position, that would reflect the revised job description and duties as outlined by the Public Works
Director and to retain the previous foreman job description to be labeled Operator/Mechanic
Foreman I. The original foreman position would remain compensated at $1 /per hour when an
individual is assigned to this position and that a separate salary schedule be created for the Foreman II
position, that would be utilized mainly by the street department at this time, that would reflect
approximately a $2/hour increase over the base rate compensation. It was the consensus of the
Personnel Committee that the additional job duties and responsibilities could be supported within the
street department at this time, and the job description would be reviewed in the future to determine
whether additional modifications would be necessary.
Council is requested to approve a memorandum of understanding that would be added to the union
contract on an interim basis that creates a separate salary schedule for the Foreman II classification
that is $2/ per hour than the Operator/Mechanic base rate. Upon renewal of the union contract, it is
assumed that this new salary schedule will be included in the basic contract language.
Council Agenda - 5/28/02
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the memorandum of understanding with Local 49 Union creating a separate salary
schedule for the Operator/Mechanic Foreman II position.
2. Do not authorize an amendment at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and Personnel Committee
that the creation of a separate salary schedule for a new Foreman II classification would be beneficial
to the City at this time. The duties and responsibilities of the Foreman II category would be utilized
by the street department only and other foreman assignments would be handled by the present
language in the union contract.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed memorandum of understanding
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF
ADDITIONAL SALARY SCHEDULE FOR
OPERATOR/MECHANIC FOREMAN 1� POSITION
As part of the labor agreement for the period 4-1-01 to 4-1-03, the City of Monticello and the I.U.O.E.
Local 49 agree to establish an additional salary schedule for a newly created job classification to be known
as Operator/Mechanic Foreman II.
It is also understood that the City of Monticello current job description called Lead Person
Operator/Mechanic will be revised as Operator/Mechanic Foreman I and will continue to be compensated
in accordance with Article 10.06 of the contract.
It is also understood that the City of Monticello shall have the sole authority to terminate, revise or modify
the job descriptions of either foreman category and shall have sole authority in selection and/or appointment
of a Foreman I or Foreman II person based on performance evaluation, capabilities of the individual and
needs of the City.
Salary Schedule
Operator/Mechanic Foreman H
5/28/02
Top Rate
$20.29
36-48 mos.
$19.35
24-36 mos.
$18.63
12-24 mos.
$17.91
6-12 mos.
$17.19
First 6 mos.
$16.46
Dated this day of
, 2002.
CITY OFMONTICELLO
L U.O.E. LOCAL 49
5&1
Council Agenda - 5/28/02
5D. Consideration of ap_proving Change Order No. 1 to CSAH 75 Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation, Proiect No. 2000-16C.. (WSB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Council is asked to approve change order #,1 relating to the CSAH 75 Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation Project. This change order increases the completion date by 5 days to June 21,
2001. This extension is related to the delay associated with the two week delay in awarding
the project.
B. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
1. Approve change order #1 for Project No. 2000-16C, Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation to
extend the completion date to June 21, 2002.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Engineer that change order #1 be approved. There is no
cost increase associated with this change order.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Change Order
WSB
& Associates, Inc.
May 17, 2002
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Avenue, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Change Order No. 1
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation and Appurtenant Improvements
CSAH 75 and Trunk Highway 25
City of Monticello, MN
City Project No. 2000-16C
WSB Project No. 1282-01
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
Please find enclosed Change Order No. 1 (in triplicate) for the referenced project reflecting
the agreed-upon changes to the contract as noted on the enclosed change order. The
original contract total of $65,291.00 will not be altered as a result of this change order.
If the attached meets with your approval, please sign and process.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Vrd—A a
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
City Engineer
Enclosures
c: Lametti & Sons, Inc.
4150 Olson
Memorial Highway nm
Suite 300
'neapolls
minnesota
55422
763-54.1-4800 SD
763.541.1700 FAX Minneapolis St. Cloud - Equal Opportunity Employer I-:\WI1WIN\1282-01\co l ltr cty.rtf
CHANGE ORDER NO. I
SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS
CSAH 75 AND TRUNK HIGHWAY 25
ITY OF MONTICELLO PROJECT NO. 2000-16C
WSB PROJECT NO. 1282-01
OWNER:
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Avenue, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
CONTRACTOR:
Lametti & Sons, Inc.
16028 Forest Boulevard North
PO Box 477
Hugo, MN 55038
May 12, 2002
YOU ARE DIRECTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:
Delete text of Section 01014 - Work Sequence and replace with the following:
Substantial completion for the project to include cleaning of existing sanitary sewers, placement of lining material, flow control, reinstallment of connections,
sewer testing, and internal inspections, shall be June 14, 2002.
Final completion for the project, including cleanup, repairs, and delivery of inspection tapes, shall be June 21, 2002.
It is understood that this change order includes all additional costs and time extension which are in any way, shape, or form associated with the work elements
described above.
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
RIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE: $65,291.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME: 6/17/2002
PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: NO. —TO _ $0.00 NET CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: NONE
CONTRACT PRICE PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: $65,291.00 CONTRACT TIME PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: 6/17/2002
NET INCREASE/DECREASE OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: $0.00 NET INCREASE OF CHANGE ORDER: 5 Days
CONTRACT PRICE WITH ALL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS: $65,291.60 CONTRACT TIME WITH APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS 6/21/2002
RECOMMENDED BY: APPROV BY:
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
APPROVED BY:
WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEER
CITY ENGINEER
DATE OF COUNCIL ACTION
LAMETTI & SONS, INC.
CONTRACTOR
MAYOR
S D
F:\WPWIN\1282-01\Excel\voucher\CO-I
Council Agenda - 5/28/02
5E. Consideration of adoption of ordinance prohibiting the use of fertilizers containinc;
phosphorus.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In March of 2001, the City Council approved a resolution supporting adoption of legislation
restricting the sale and use of fertilizers containing phosphorus. This past April the Governor
signed legislation that bans lawn fertilizer containing phosphorus. The legislation which is
effective January, 2004. specifies a phosphorus level of 0% for the 7 county metro area and
3% outside the metro area unless the community adopts an ordinance prior to August 1, 2002
which specifies phosphorus content at something lower than 3%. The legislation limits on
phosphorus content apply only to lawn fertilizers and not other agricultural uses. If the City
Council wants a lowerlimit on the phosphorus content (less than 3%), it would require
passage and publication of an ordinance specifying that lower percentage prior to August 1,
2002.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Adopt an ordinance specifying that the City of Monticello is restricting sale and use of
any lawn fertilizer with a phosphorus content greater than 0%.
2. Do not adopt an ordinance. Without an ordinance in place, the phosphorus content
of any lawn fertilizer could not exceed 3%.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Because of the environmental impacts of phosphorus levels in runoff and the effect it has on
water quality, it is the recommendation of the City Administrator that the Council consider
adoption of an ordinance restricting the sale and use of lawn fertilizer with a phosphorus content
greater than 0%.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
■ Copy of legislation
0 Draft Ordinance
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 378
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE CITY CODE BY
ADDING CHAPTER 9, PROHIBITING USE OF FERTILIZERS
CONTAINING PHOSPHORUS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title 7 of the City Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 9, Prohibiting Use of Fertilizers
Containing Phosphorus:
SECTION
9-1-1: Purpose
9-1-2: Definitions
9-1-3 : Regulation
9-1-4: Exceptions
9-1-5: Impervious Surfaces and Drainage Ways
9-1-6: Penalty
9-1-1: PURPOSE:
The City has considered data that indicates that water quality of lakes, rivers and streams within the
community may be maintained or improved if the City is able to regulate the amount of lawn fertilizer
and other chemicals entering these bodies of water as a result of storm water runoff or other causes.
The purpose of this Chapter is to set forth regulations that will aid the City in managing and
protecting its water resources.
9-1-2: DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this section, certain terms and words are defined as follows:
A. Administrator. The individual responsible for overseeing the requirements of the City
Code. For purposes of the section of the code, the administrator shall be the Director of
Public Works or his/her designee.
B. Fertilizer. Fertilizer means a substance containing one or more recognized plant nutrients
that is used for its plant nutrient content and designed for use or claimed to have value in
promoting plant growth. Fertilizer does not include animal and vegetable manures that are
not manipulated, marl, lime, limestone, and other products exempted by Rule by the
Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture.
se
C. Pesticide. A substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or
mitigate a pest, and a substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant
regulator, defoliant or desiccant.
9-1-3: REGULATIONS:
(A) Time of Application: Neither commercial applicators nor noncommercial applicators may
apply lawn fertilizer when the ground is frozen or when conditions exist which will promote
or create runoff.
(B) Sample Analysis Cost. The cost of analyzing fertilizer samples taken from commercial
applicators shall be paid by the commercial applicators if the sample analysis indicates that
phosphorus content exceeds the levels authorized herein.
(C) Fertilizer Content. No person shall apply any lawn fertilizer, liquid or granular, within the
City of Monticello which contains any amount of phosphorus or other compound containing
phosphorus, such as phosphate, except:
1. The naturally occurring phosphorous in unadulterated natural or organic fertilizing
products such as yard waste compost.
1).
Or as otherwise provided in Subdivision 9-1-4.
9-1-4: EXCEPTIONS: The prohibition against use of fertilizer containing any quantity of phosphorus set
forth under Subdivision 9-1-3 shall not apply to:
(A) Newly established turf and lawn areas during first growing season; or
(B) Turf and lawn areas which have been confirmed by soil testing to be below phosphorus
levels established by the University of Minnesota Extension Services. The lawn fertilizer
application shall not contain an amount of phosphorus in excess of that which is
recommended in the soil test evaluation.
(C) Phosphorus applied as lawn fertilizer pursuant to the aforementioned exemptions shall be
watered into the soil so that it is immobilized and protected from loss by runoff.
9-1-5: IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND DRAINAGE WAYS. No person shall apply fertilizer to
impervious surfaces, areas within drainage ditches, or waterways.
9-1-6: PENALTY. Any person violating this Chapter of the Code shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Section 2: Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication.
2
SE
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this day of 2002.
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
5E
MINNESOTA SESSION LAWS
CHAPTER 345-S.F. NO. 1555
An act relating to agriculture; providing a preemption of local regulation of phosphorus fertilizers;
regulating the use on turf of certain fertilizers containing phosphorus; providing for enforcement;
prohibiting fertilizer applications to an impervious surface; requiring a report; amending Minnesota
Statutes 2000, Sections 18C.005, by adding a subdivision; 18C.211, subdivision2; proposing coding
for new law in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 18C.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2000, Section 18C.005, is amended by adding a subdivision to
read:
Subd. 18a. [LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT] "Local unit of government" has
the meaning given in Section 1813.0 1, subdivision 14a.
Section 2. [18C.1190] [PREEMPTION OF LOCAL LAW]
(a) Except as specifically provided in this chapter, a local unit of government may
not adopt any ordinance, regulate or in any way restrict the distribution, sale,
handling, use, or application of phosphorus fertilizers and phosphorus fertilizer
products that are applied or will be applied to land used for growing crops or
any other agricultural use.
(b) Except as specifically provided in this chapter, a local unit of government may
not adopt any ordinance that prohibits or regulates the registration, labeling,
distribution, sale, handling, use, application, or disposal of turf fertilizer
containing phosphorus.
(c) This section does not prohibit a local ordinance that restricts the sale of turf
phosphorus fertilizer that was in effect on August 1, 2002.
(d) This section does not preempt local authority or responsibility for zoning, fire
codes, or hazardous waste disposal.
(e) Paragraphs (a) and (d) are effective the day following final enactment.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) are effective January 1, 2004.
5�
Section 3. Minnesota Statutes 2000, Section 18C.21 1, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2 [GUARANTEES OF THE NUTRIENTS]
(a) A person may guarantee plant nutrients other than nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potassium only if allowed or required by commissioner's rule.
(b) The guarantee for the plant nutrients must be expressed in the elemental form.
(c) The sources of other elements, oxides, salt, and chelates, may be required to be
stated on the application for registration and may be included as a parenthetical
statement on the label. Other beneficial substances or compounds,
determinable by laboratory methods, also may be guaranteed by permission of
the commissioner and with the advice of the director of the agricultural
experiment station.
(d) If plant nutrients or other substances or compounds are guaranteed, the plant
nutrients are subject to inspection and analyses in accord with methods and
rules prescribed by the commissioner.
(e) The commissioner may, by rule, require the potential basicity or acidity
expressed in terms of calcium carbonate equivalent in multiples of 100 pounds
per ton.
(f) The plant nutrients in a specialty fertilizer must not be below or exceed the
guaranteed analysis by more than the investigational allowances established by
rule.
Section 4. [18C.60] [PHOSPHORUS TURF FERTILIZER USE RESTRICTIONS]
Subd. 1. [DEFINITIONS]
(a) The definitions in this subdivision apply to this section.
(b) "Metropolitan county" means any of the following counties: Anoka, Carver,
Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, or Washington.
(c) "Turf' means noncrop land planted in closely mowed, managed grasses
including, but not limited to, residential and commercial residential property,
private golf courses, and property owned by federal, state, or local units of
government, including parks, recreation areas, and public golf courses. Turf
does not mean pasture, hayland, hay, turf grown on turf farms, or any other
2
5G
form of agricultural production.
Subd 2. [PHOSPHORUS USE RESTRICTIONS]
(a) A person may not apply a fertilizer containing the plant nutrient phosphorus to
turf in a metropolitan county, except under conditions listed in paragraph (d).
(b) A person may not apply granular fertilizer containing greater than three percent
phosphate (P205) by weight, or liquid fertilizer at a rate greater than 0.3
pound phosphate (P205) per 1,000 square feet, to turf in a county other than
a metropolitan county, except under conditions listed in paragraph (d).
(c) A local unit of government in a county other than a metropolitan county may
adopt paragraph (a) in place of paragraph (b). The local unit of government
must notify the commissioner of the adoption of paragraph (a) within 30 days of
its adoption. The commissioner shall maintain a list of local units of government
in counties other than a metropolitan county that have adopted paragraph (a).
(d) Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply when:
1. A tissue, soil, or other test by a laboratory or method approved by the
commissioner and performed within the last three years indicates that
the levels of available phosphorus in the soil is insufficient to support
healthy turf growth;
2. The property owner or an agent of the property owner is first
establishing turf via seed or sod procedures, and only during the first
growing season; or
3. The fertilizer containing the plant food phosphorus is used on a golf
course under the direction of a person licensed, certified, or approved
by an organization with an ongoing training program approved by the
commissioner.
(e) Applications of phosphorus fertilizer authorized under paragraph (d), clause (1)
or (2), must not exceed rates recommended by the University of Minnesota and
approved by the commissioner.
Subd. 4 [RESEARCH EVALUATION; REPORT ]
The commissioner, in cooperation with the University of Minnesota and the University
J
SC
of Minnesota extension service, and, after consultation with representatives of the
fertilizer industry, lakes groups, and other interested or affected parties, shall evaluate
research needs and encourage targeted research opportunities to investigate the effects
of phosphorus fertilization of turf on urban stormwater quality. The commissioner must
evaluate the effectiveness of the restrictions on phosphorus fertilizers under this section
and report to the legislature by January 15, 2007.
Section 5. [ 18C.61 ] [FERTILIZER APPLICATION TO AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE;
PROHIBITION.]
(a) A person may not apply a fertilizer to an impervious surface. Fertilizer released on an
impervious surface must be immediately contained and either legally applied to turf or
any other legal site, or returned to the original or other appropriate container.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "impervious surface" means a highway, street,
sidewalk, parking lot, driveway, or other material that prevents infiltration of water into
the soil.
Section 6. [ 18C.62] [ENFORCEMENT]
Sections 18C.60 and 18C.61 are enforced by local units of government under their existing
authority. Violation of a provision in either of these sections is a petty misdemeanor.
Section 7. [EFFECTIVE DATE]
Section 4 is effective January 1, 2004.
4
Council Agenda - 5/28/02
5F. Consideration of calling for a public hearing to consider vacation of a portion of Cedar
Street. (RW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the extension of Dundas Road to TH 25 as part of the TH 25 project that was completed a
couple of years ago, the portion of Cedar Street that lies south of Dundas Road is no longer being
used. One of the adjacent property owners, Glen Posusta (Amax Storage) has requested that the
City consider vacating the right of way. If Cedar Street is vacated, the west half of Cedar Street
would be combined with the remnant parcel the City owns between Cedar Street and TH 25 that
could be sold. The land area that would be available for sale by the City would be approximately
21,700 sq. ft. and the east half of Cedar Street would contain about 9, 93 5 sq. ft. that would be
transferred to the adjoining property owner at no cost.
Although the disposition of the property owned by the City can be determined later, the Council is
asked to set a public hearing to consider vacation of the Cedar Street right of way that is no longer
necessary for right of way purposes. State statutes require at least a two week notice be published
and therefore it is recommended that the vacation hearing be held at the second meeting in June,
June 24"'.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Set a public hearing date to consider vacation of that portion of Cedar Street lying south of
Dundas Road for June 24, 2002.
2. Do not consider vacation at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
With Dundas Road now intersecting with TH 25, the need for keeping Cedar Street south of
Dundas Road for right of way purposes is no longer necessary. As a result, it is recommended that
the process be started whereby the Council can consider vacating the right of way which will then
allow the City to negotiate a sale of the balance of the property owned by the City to the adjoining
property owner or other interested parties.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map depicting area of Cedar Street to be vacated.
City Council Agenda - 05/28/02
5G. Consideration of nvrovini the final plat of the Groveland Center. (JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
City Council is asked to consider approval of the final plat of the Groveland Center. As
you recall at the previous meeting of the City Council, Council granted approval of a
license allowing a building encroachment into the sanitary sewer easement. Council is
now asked to grant formal approval of the final plat which consists of a two lot
subdivision. Once parcel will be the home of the Groveland Center and the other will be
vacant in the short term but likely the home of a future restaurant.
The land area contained within this plat was originally developed under the original
Groveland development project, therefore there is no development agreement associated
with this plat. Development fees will be covered in conjunction with the building permit.
Staff has accepted this request for final plat approval under the premise that the
previously approved development stage PUD and associated public hearing process is
equal to the preliminary plat application process. Therefore, a formal preliminary plat is
not necessary in conjunction with approval of the final plat.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approval the final plat for the Groveland Center. Final plat approval
based on development stage PUD process which allows preliminary plat process
to be waived.
2. Motion to deny approval of the final plat of the Groveland Center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval.
SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of Final Plat
rove and Cen+er
T I
^,
N75024'49.,w
353.80
I �1�
I
66 I
I
I
I
I
�
1
�
r 1
I
I
CV 1\I
L—J
IO
W \\
— Z \
/ ,—♦
\
„ -
o6LLJ
,/.
f \♦� -- i$-- DRAINAGE k UTILITY EASEMENT
t I
\ L 1 J
Q _
/
BLOCK
CV'_.
-
1 1•
;;; -
F`
La-
tp
14-
\ _ S85 49'37"W -------J
I o
'
-- - - 305.85
/ r ' � d
Z r\J
5
I
vl 1\
1 I i
v
iN
I
DRAINAGE
& UTILITY
LOT 1
. EASCMENT
I
♦�
t, l I
I'
s s-
DRAINAGE
& unuTY
Qi
--WRIGHT COUNTY MONUMENT/
SW CORNER \�
EASEMENT—c'
_
--SOUTH
/--SOUTH LINE OF
OF \
SEC. 111, T.
;
SEC. 11, T. 121,
i21, R. 25 `�S
S88642'37"W
_
ASI
232.66
1
\--NORTH
OUTLOT N
a2A
LIN
SEC.
0 1 t'3W-
,�2 A 1
14, i
I
66
/ ,y♦
\ J
I
I
66
City COUnCII Agenda - 05/28/02
5H. Consideration of establishin4 a development review deposit/escrow account for
development prof ects and plannin! case prof ects. (JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
City Council is asked to consider establishing a policy/process for collecting development
related expenses which would require developers to provide a deposit prior to city
staff/consultant review. Currently, the city policy is somewhat forgiving when it comes
to recovering costs associated with staff and consultant review of planning cases and
development projects. Here is what the current policy consists of:
For review of new subdivisions, we have found that staff review expenses,
including inspections, runs at about 8-10% of total construction cost. The city
charges 8% for staff review of new subdivisions which is incorporated into every
development agreement.
When it comes to development projects that do not require construction of city
utilities such as development of an office, industrial or apartment buildings on an
existing developed parcel, we have taken the position that the building permit fee
is sufficient to cover both building review expense and expenses associated with
engineering and planning review.
In recent years staff has found that not all development projects proceed efficiently
toward construction. In some cases the City Engineer may be required to review a project
numerous times due to multiple plan revisions. Some projects are never built. These
projects are a drain on city resources. The idea of establishing a project review deposit
fee is in response to this situation. Here is how it might work:
At first contact with the city, developers would be informed that they must meet
with city staff at a "pre -planning" conference at which time relevant land and
building development standards, ordinances and policies would be reviewed with
the developer. This meeting would be free of charge to the developer and
intended to provide information that would enable the developer to get off to a
good start on development planning for the site. Staff has found over the years
that conducting a thorough pre -planning meeting is the key to a smooth
development process.
After the pre -planning meeting the developer completes plans, then submits the
plans to the city. At this point, in conjunction with receiving plans, the city would
require a site review deposit. Staff proposes that the site review deposit be
established at $5,000 which is equal to a similar deposit required by the City of
City Council Agenda - 05/28/02
Otsego. Building plans/site plans and/or planning case applications would not be
accepted until this deposit is provided. This deposit would not apply to simple
planning cases related to single family residential projects initiated by home
owners.
Plans would then be distributed to consultants for review. Consultants fees
associated with each project would be tracked against the deposit by the Finance
Dept. Coding invoices and tracking expenses would be the responsibility of an
employee designated by the City Administrator. When costs against the deposit
exceeds $5,000 a new deposit would be required prior to further staff review.
City staff expenses related to project development would continue to be covered
via building permit fee and via planning case application fees.
At project completion the unused portion of the deposit would be returned to the
developer at the developer's request.
The positive aspects of this policy are as foHows:
• Requires pre -planning meeting which helps to start projects out on the right foot.
• This policy will shift some of the city related development expenses from general
taxes to the development community. This can be viewed as a positive.
• Establishes city position that developer related expenses will be recovered. May
reduce tendency of some developers to use city consultants for "free advice".
• Establishes a simple discipline for city collection of development expenses in
addition to the fees collected at building permit.
• City expenses are discussed at the front end of the project which eliminates
"surprise"city expenses at the end of a project.
The possible negative aspects of this policy are as follows:
• Shifting development expenses to the development community could be viewed
as "anti -development".
• An across the board $5,000 fee may not be appropriate in all cases. In some
instances this amount is too low, in other cases it might be high. Unfortunately, it
is not easy to establish the proper deposit at the front end of projects therefore the
flat rate is proposed.
• Monitoring expenses against deposit will require additional staff time, but will
result in revenue exceeding the cost of the added administrative staff time.
• Council may wish to modify this policy or give staff discrection when applying
the deposit requirement for more complicated projects in the "redevelopment
2
City COL11161 Agenda - 05/28/02
area" of the City. Redevelopment projects tend to be much more complicated and
result in greater benefit to the city as a whole. Perhaps staff time spent on
redevelopment projects could fall into a different category for recovery.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion adopting or modifying and adopting a policy requiring a $5,000 deposit
prior to staff review of development projects as noted above.
2. Motion to table the matter.
3. Motion denying adoption of said policy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
According to Steve Grittman and Bret Weiss, many other cities have stricter policies for
recovering development expenses. The City of Otsego is currently following a similar
policy. It is the view of the City Administrator that it is time for the city to take a more
aggressive and systematic approach in recovering development expenses. Adoption of
this policy with modifications as desired by the City Council would be a step in this
direction.
SUPPORTING DATA
None
Council Agenda - 5/28/02
7. Supplemental public hearinLy - Consideration of improvements to CSAH 75.
Proiect No. 2000-16C. (RW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A public hearing was held by the Council on April 22nd for the CSAH Improvement Project.
Three property owners on the west end of the project received their public hearing notice a
few days short of the ten day advanced notice and it is recommended that the Council hold a
second public hearing on the improvement project for these three property owners.
A second hearing notice was sent to the three property owners and the Council should open
the hearing to receive any input from those individuals prior to proceeding with the project.
The City Engineer, Bret Weiss will be at the Council meeting and be available to answer any
questions concerning the projects impact on these individuals.
An assessment workshop will have been held by the Council earlier in the evening and some
potential assessment options may be available for review. Although the actual assessments
would not be calculated until the end of the project, if an assessment policy has been
established, this can be shared with property owners Monday night.
During our review of the assessment policies and how it may apply to CSAH 75, staff
recognized that homeowners within the Prairie West townhouse development along West
Broadway were not included in previous public hearing notices. Because this development
has their only access to County Road 75 through private roads, it is the staff's feeling that the
Prairie West development may also be subject to assessments for the CSAH 75 improvement
and should be included in another supplemental public hearing just for them. It is suggested
that the third public hearing on this project be scheduled for the first meeting in June,
June l Oth for the Prairie West development property owners.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Council should receive any comments from the three property owners and close
the public hearing and set June 10, 2002 as the date for an additional supplemental
public hearing on CSAH 75 Improvement for the Prairie West property owners.
In the future, the Council will be provided with utility plans for the CSAH 75 project
and final plans from Wright County before being asked to authorize advertisements for
bids.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1 is recommended for adoption.
c
PAYMENTS FOR PUBLICATION
APPROVED 5/28/2002 FOR PAYMENTS THROUGH 05/17/2002
Vendor Name
Description
Amount
ACTION SERVICES BY VEIT
JUNK AMNESTY
100.65
ANDERSON -CRANE RUBBER CP
20.13
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES, INC.
346.36
ARCTIC GLACIER ICE
284.28
BERNICK COMPANIES/THE
1.032.52
BOSE/TOM
89.99
CENTRAL APPLIANCE RECYCLERS
JUNK AMNESTY
2,763.00
COSTUME SHOPPE/THE
3 COSTUMES WALK & ROLL
120
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING CO
6,155.65
DAVE LEMKE
JUNK AMNESTY
452
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
1,375.50
EAGLE FOUNDRY OF UTAH, INC
100
G & K SERVICES
148.51
GRAINGER, INC/W.W.
48.78
GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY
1,056.88
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE INC.
6,461.30
HEGGIES PIZZA
384
HENRY & ASSOCIATES
1,173.00
J H LARSON COMPANY
82.43
JAM'N JO ESPRESSO STOP
CAKES FOR RESALE
99
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR
1,978.89
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN
JUNK AMNESTY
126.46
LARSON'S ACE HARDWARE
TEMP DISTRIBUTION
3,277.60
MELTON/RUSSELL
LIBRARY CLEANING
227.5
MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL
CONTRACT
1,289.54
MONTICELLO TIMES
12,543.48
MUNICIPAL CLERKS&FINANCE OFFIC
D GROSSINGER
35
OLSEN FIRE INSPECTION INC
413.85
OTIS SPUNKMEYER
58.3
PATCH/FRED
DEFIBULATOR CABINET
241.76
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS CO
13,861.29
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
161.44
PIONEER DRAMA SERVICE
15
PIPELINE SUPPLY, INC.
10.61
RIE COATINGS
45
SHUMAN/CATHY
MGFOA/FIRKINS/SHUMAN
59.93
TDS INTERNET SERVICES
APR -MAY
398
TDS TELECOM(WI)
6,593.39
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
10,687.15
US FOODSERVICE
274.45
VEIT DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
JUNK AMNESTY
233.75
VIKING COCA COLA
226.53
WATSON CONAPANY IN('/THF
1111 nA -n
L IG. IL
WINE COMPANY/THE
2,130.00
XCEL ENERGY-MPLS
30.3
Final Totals...
77,425.32