Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-13-1979 . i / I AGENDA b REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, November Ii, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve Grimsmo Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White. Meeting to be taped. Citizens Comments. ~ 1. Consideration of Lots 9 & 10, Block 17, for a Future Library Site. . \J'\ 2 . ,.,I- t qJ~. ,'X'; '" 4. 1\5. LA. 6. \1\7 . "'" 8 . ,^,9 . Consideration of Reducing Assessment to Monticello Country Club on the 1978-1 Improvement Project. Consideration of Request by Yonak's Sanitation Asking for a 10% Increase on the Remaining Portion of their Garbage Disposal Contract. Consideration of Entering Into an Agreement with the YMCA for a Detached Worker Program for Monticello. Consideration of Increasing Sewer and Water Rates. Consideration of Putting Up Signs Indicating Parking Prohibited 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. from November 15th until April 15th. Consideration of Parking Lot Proposal for Sam Peraro's Planned Office Building - Block 34. Review of 3rd Quarter Financial Statements for the Municipal Liquor Store. Approval of Transfers. 10. 'i\ Unfinished Business - . Approval of Minutes - October 22, 1979 Regular Meeting. New Business - .:.),/l"\,.",,,-J ~Of \~ lPlp 1"J . . \ ," I I AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Consideration of Lots 9 & 10, Block 17 for a Future Library Site. Purpose of this item is to address the issue of whether the City intends to utilize Lots 9 & 10 of Block 17 for a library site. As you recall, according to the purchase agreement signed for the Oakwood Block for $100,000, Independent School District #882 will also convey Lots 9 & 10 in Block 17 to the City of Monticello provided a decision was reached on the utilization of these lots for library purposes by November 14, 1979. Our Planner, Howard Dahlgren Associates, will have a written report relative to the utilization of these Lots for a library purpose, that will accompany this agenda. As of the date of this writing, I have not received the report but I have received word from John Uban, with Howard Dahlgren Associates, that the site is very acceptable for a library providing additional land can be obtained from the School District to accommodate parking. For your information, at their last meeting, NOvember 5, 1979, the Indepen- dent School District #882 considered the purchase of the Robert Dowling property to the south, but deferred action until such time as they received the word from the City as to their intentions for Lots 9 & 10. Reason for this is that the School District would possibly use a portion of Lots 9 & 10 for their own administrative building and not purchase the Dowling property for additional land. However, the School Board did indicate they would be willing to discuss with the City selling additional land sufficient to make a library if the School District did go ahead and purchase the Robert Dowling property. Purchase price is approximately $3.50 per square foot, and the school has indicated they would be receptive to an offer from the City for any additional land needed at the same price on a per square foot basis. For example, if the City were to require an additional 6,000 square feet for parking, the additional land could be obtained for $21,000. As you recall, we additionally asked the Planner to have a report indicating the ultimate use of the Oakwood School Building, and a snag has been hit in the fact that the architect hired for this project by Howard Dahlgren Asso- ciates has had a death in the family, and possibly this portion of the report might not be able to be completed by Tuesday night's meeting. It should be pointed out that should it ultimately be decided that the Oakwood Building remain and be suitable for library purposes, any decision reached at Tuesday night's meeting with respect to Lots 9 & 10 of Block 17 would be non-binding and the land would then revert back to the School District for development purposes. It would seem to me that as a result then, the City should make a decision one way or the other relative to the use of Lots 9 & 10 in Block 17 for library purposes, and if it is ultimately decided to put a library into the Oakwood Building, the property in Block 17 would then revert back to the School District. ,~ f ~ ~ )1 ~ i '.~ ~.. ~',.~ ',~ ~(\) . POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of the utilization of Lots 9 & 10 in Block 17 for a library. (It should be noted that any action taken by the Council would also be contingent upon the conditions mentioned in the previous purchase agreement which indicate all legal aspects of the library situation must be resolved.) REFERENCES: Report from Howard Dahlgren Associates. - 1 - COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 . 2. Consideration of Reducing Assessment to Monticello Country Club on the 1978-1 Improvement Project. Purpose of this item is to consider a request by the Monticello Country Club that their assessment be reduced by $5,405.98 to reflect the original proposed assessment prior to the October 9, 1979 hearing on this matter. As you may recall, the Monticello Country Club had their assessment increased as a result of the decision by the Council not to average out the assessments on Country Club Manor, Kampa Estates and other property along West County Road 39 with those of the Monticello Country Club. Reason for this deci- sion was that a change order was necessary to serve an additional 700 feet along County Road 39 due to a request by the Country Club. It was felt by the Council that since this was in the form of a change order, it should not be added and averaged out with the entire project cost in this particular area. . Basis for the Country Club's request to have this reduced back to the original amount is due, they indicate, to the original indication by the Council at the time of considering the change order that this amount would be averaged out with the entire project. Additionally, they have indicated that they initially were sent notice with a proposed assess- ment of $51,023.01, and that they felt it was not necessary to come to the hearing to voice any objections. AS you may recall, at the hearing it was decided to increase their assessment to reduce other property owners assessments due to testimony and objections received from other property owners in the area. I have talked to Blaine Nobbs, Monticello Country Club representative, and have asked Blaine to get a letter from the Monticello Country Club stating their objections so that these objections are in writing. Mr. Nobbs indicated that the Country Club Board of Directors would be meeting Friday, November 9, 1979, and I would have a copy of this letter for the Council on Tuesday night. Mr. Nobbs did further stress that the Monticello Country Club actually never backed out as possibly insinuated on its initial petition request for sanitary sewer and water. It should be pointed out that the Monticello Country Club initially peti- tioned for sewer and water on July 24, 1975. At the time of the public hearing on this matter on May 10, 1976, Mr. Hib Hill, representing the Country Club, informed the Council that at the present time the Club was in the process of expanding the golf course and would not be interested in sewer and water services for residential purposes. He further indicated that until future expansion layout was completed, they would not be in a position to determine how much land would be available, if any, for residential development. Subsequent to that time, a petition was received in November of 1977 for sewer and water down County Road 39 from the Monticello Country Club. At the time of the hearing then for this . - 2 - . COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 2. Continuation of Country Club Item. . . project in 1978, the Monticello Country Club had a petition on file reinstating their request for sanitary sewer and water service down County Road 39. However, the City never received an actual plat from the Monticello Country Club and this is the reason initially that the sewer service did not extend down the entire length of County Road 39 until a change order was requested by the Monticello Country Club. Reason for the City not extending the sewer service prior to this time was the fact that until a layout of the area to be platted was indicated, it would be hard for the City to determine whether the sewer should go down County Road 39 since it was a possibility that this service should actually go to the north of County Road 39 and run parallel with it, depending upon how the Country Club eventually would be platting their property. Mr. Nobbs further indicated that the Monticello Country Club was unhappy with the storm sewer drainage ditch that went through the land just west of the Country Club owned by the Club itself. However, it was understood that this was acceptable since Mr. Nobbs had told our engineering firm and our Public Works Director that, if we were satisfied with the ditch after some additional work was done, that the Country Club would be satisfied. Additionally, he indicated that the Country Club was unsatisfied with the location of the dirt that was excavated from the ditch area. The Country Club preferred to have this dirt along County Road 39 and according to our engineering firm, it was necessary to use it directly along the ditch to reslope the ditch. Both of these items will hopefully be worked out to the satisfaction of the Monticello Country Club prior to Tuesday night's meeting. . POSSIBLE ACTION: ."" . '\I \(0 ,," ~"" . I)~' .'l- \-tI . 0 '" \... '\() (; ')0 V e- ..I( ~ \? .; ( ~~ "t . Consideration of Adjustment of Monticello Country Club's assessment on the 1978-1 Improvement Project. (It should be noted that if an adjUstment were to be made, it would probably be much better to put this amount on ad valorem taxes, $5,405.98, rather than to try and reapportion this to the other property owners in the area since another public hearing would be necessary and this would be rather confusing.) ~.~ )f /,/ ( // ~ / il I L- V - 3 - COUNCIL AGENDA ~ 11/14/79 3. Consideration of Request by Yonak's Sanitation Asking for a 10% Increase 4It on the Remaining Portion of their Garbage Disposal Contract. Purpose of this item is to consider a request for a 10% increase by Yonak Sanitation on the remaining portion of their three-year garbage disposal contract which expires March 31, 1981. The current contract, which commence~ April 1, 1978, called for a monthly charge of $2,750 per month for the three year period plus a factor for additional residences added for $3.50 per residence and $1.50 per apartment unit. Currently, this amounts to $2,986.50 per month with these added apartments and homes since the initiation of the contract. The 10% increase, as a result, would increase the City's cost by approximately $300 per month. 4It When the contract was considered in April of 1978, it was noted that Yonak Sanitation had increased their rate from the previous contract by approximately 40%. Although the Council was concerned at that time with the large increase, it was noted that Yonak had been quite competitive previously and even with the 40% increase, Yonak Sanitation was still lower than bids received on garbage disposal service way back in 1975. As a result then, the City did grant the 40% increase. However, I do have some concern with granting the current increase since this is the entire purpose behind a 3-year contract and one of the reasons why the City did, at the time, go along with the 40% increase, which was quite substantial. Additionally, it should be pointed out that the 40% increase was effective immediately, or April 1, 1978, and wasn't in graduated steps during the three-year period. Enclosed, you will find a November 6, 1979 letter from Yonak Sanitation indicating their reasons for the increase due to various increases in operating costs. It is understandable that the fuel costs are probably more than expected, but the other operating costs that have increased are somewhat expected and is one of the reasons why the City did grant the overall 40% increase in the first place. If there is any room for negotiation, it would seem to me that it might be in the area of the increase in the fuel costs. However, this cost was also expected to rise at the time of the initial contract by the rate at least equivalent to inflation, or 10 to 12% per year. As a result, it would appear that one possible consideration could be the increase of fuel cost over the normal rate of inflation. According to estimates previously received from Yonak Sanitation, they use approximately 350 gallons of fuel per month in servicing the Monticello area. Diesel fuel prices have probably gone up 25~ a gallon more than expected, and factoring this out on a monthly basis would be approximately $87.50 per month increase. 4It \.. ~ \ J J;\ . ,,' (t. 1Jl ~Q - 4 - COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 . 3. Continuation of Yonak Sanitation Item . . It should be pointed out that the service by Yonak has been excellent and they are in no way attempting to get out of their current contract. Current contract does not allow either party to terminate the contract without six-month written notice. My own recommendation would be to reject the request by Yonak Sanitation. Whether the Council might be receptive to a counter-proposal of some nature which might include an adjustment for fuel costs could be considered. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of request by Yonak Sanitation to increase their contract costs on a monthly basis by 10%. REFERENCES: Enclosed November 6, 1979 letter from Yonak Sanitation. . - 5 - COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 . 4. Consideration of Entering Into an Agreement with the YMCA for a Detached Worker Program for Monticello. Purpose of this item is to consider the detached worker program through the YMCA to work with youths within Monticello and provide counseling services. Mr. Michael Melstad, with the YMCA Detached Worker Program, is requesting that the City of Monticello consider entering into an agreement with the YMCA for providing counseling services to youths in Monticello. A copy of a similar agreement that the YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis, which is the branch which currently serves Monticello, has with other commu- nities is enclosed for your reference. Funding of the City of Monticello is requested in the amount of $2,500 for a 12-month period of time. According to Mr. Melstad, who will be here at Tuesday night's meeting, the reason for the funding request is that the current budget within the YMCA is basically dues-supported. According to Mr. Melstad, dues are charged for such things as swimming lessons, etc., and it is necessary to defray some of the revenue from these areas to the Detached Worker Program in Monticello. Since most of the dues are collected within the Metropolitan area, it is hard for the YMCA to continue to justify supporting a Detached Worker in outlying areas such as Monticello without support from the local area itself. . It should be pointed out that in addition to the City of Monticello, Mr. Melstad has approached the Community Chest for funding and also Northern States Power Company. No commitments have been made from either of these organizations at this time, but Mr. Melstad indicated that Community Chest would be acting on the matter in January of 1980 and NSP wanted to determine if the City would support such a program before they, as a firm, would consider the matter. Monticello as a community has never entered into such a program, and one of the concerns initially was whether this would be a legal expenditure. Enclosed, please find a letter from the Office of the State Auditor indicating there is sufficient authority within the Statute to enter into such an agreement. As indicated in the October 3, 1979 letter, a public purpose should be based on findings of fact before the signing of any agreement. . In light of this, I have asked Mr. Melstad to get letters of Support specifically from the Sheriff's office and other local entities such as the School District, indicating the need for this type program. My initial reaction was that this service that is provided by the Detached Worker Program may be a duplication of services already provided through the School's counseling service and the County Social/Welfare Office. According to Mr. Melstad,and the letters of support he has received would somewhat indicate the same, the Detached Worker Program goes beyond the normal type of services provided through the School and through the County, in that such things as canoe trips, hiking activities and other outings are planned through the Detached Worker Program for kids that can never be reached through the normal counseling services. Mr. Melstad - 6 - . . . " COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 4. Continuation of YMCA Detached Worker Item . . indicated also that among many of the youths, there is a suspicion of the normal agencies providing counseling services. Mr. Melstad indicated that if this is approved by the City of Monticello, he would provide quarterly reports $imilar to reports he now issues to the Northwest Branch of the YMCA, copies of the 1st and 2nd quarter of 1979 reports are enclosed for your reference. I certainly do have some reservations about this program being handled through a municipality since it is not a governmental unit that has a familiarity and a background to deal with such problems as would a County governmental unit. Although a legal expenditure, it would seem to appear more in the nature of a contribution to a non-profit organi- zation which has no direct accountability to the City of Monticello. Yet, at the same time, I see some distinct advantages in the development of such a program in that it has the potential to reduce, to a degree, the crime rate in Monticello, drug/alcoholic problems, etc. In the past, the City has made a commitment to its senior citizens through the Senior Citizen Center, and such a program, to a degree, would indicate that the City is also committed to its youth. If the agreement were entered into, it could be on a trial period since it would have to be renewed anyway within 12 months, and the City, in the meantime, if it desired more accountability could have Mr. Melstad at its quarterly department head meetings to have interim reports directly to the Council on the types of problems he is working with and how successful he is. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of entering into an agreement with the YMCA for a detached worker program. REFERENCES: Sample agreement, quarterly reports from the detached worker program for the 1st and 2nd quarters of 1979, letter from the office of the State Auditor regarding the legality of such an agreement, and letters of support from various agencies of the detached worker program. l ,') I J "'\j ,/ ~~ ~x - 7 - . . . COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 5. consideration of Increasing Sewer and Water Rates. Purpose of this item is to consider increasing sewer and water rates by thirty per cent (30%), in order th~t revenues will approximate expenditures. In our 1980 budget, alternatives were considered in order to increase the revenues in the sewer and water funds. One method discussed was increasing the sewer and water rates by 30%, and another method discussed was increas- ing the local levy by approximately $26,200, which is approximately the amount that a 30% increase would raise in these two funds. At the time, it was decided that the sewer and water rates should be increased as opposed to increasing the tax levy any further. For your information, below is the current water and sewer rate as compared to the proposed increase of 30%: WATER RATE SCHEDULE USAGE PRESENT RATE PROPOSED RATE 1st 1000 cubic feet or portion thereof $6.00 Minimum $6.00 Minimum Next 3000 cubic feet $2.70 per 1000/cf $3.50 per 1000/cf Next 71,000 cubic feet $1.40 per 1000/cf $1.80 per 1000/cf Over 75,000 cubic feet $.80 per 1000/cf $1.05 per 1000/cf SEWER RATE SCHEDULE 1st 1000 cubic feet or portion thereof $5.00 Minimum $5.00 Minimum OVer 1000 cubic feet $5.00 per 1000/cf $6.50 per 1000/cf NOTE: There are approximately 7.48 gallons in a cubic foot. Sewer rate is based on cubic feet of water used. Average family of four uses 30,000 gallons, or approximately 4,000 cubic feet, for a total current charge of $34.10 quarterly. It should be noted that the only area I have not suggested for increase was the minimum level. This is to encourage conservation for those residents who have hardly any usage at all and which the minimum charge somewhat tends to encourage increased consumption up and to the minimum level. Also enclosed for your reference, is the sheet that was sent out with the 1980 budget which indicates water and sewer rates for various businesses and residents. It would appear that overall, the average increase for residential users will be approximately in the area of $9.00. For busi- nesses, it is really very indicative to come up with an overall average and that is why the sample was provided for your reference. It should be pointed out with the adoption of these new sewer and water rates, that Monticello will be able to match operating expenses with revenue. The last time that the sewer and water rates were increased or reviewed was in 1971. - 8 - ..,.. COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 tit 5. (Consideration of Sewer & Water Rates - Continued) If this rate increase is accepted, these rates will go into effect for the first quarter billing of 1980. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of sewer and water rate increase schedule of 30%. sewer and water usage for Monticello. REFERENCES: Enclosed ,,); (,Q L.- . , ,~ ~( \ ~~ v( tit tit ",J- ,,( , ~) r - 9 - COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 . 6. Consideration of Putting Up Signs Indicating Parking Prohibited 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. from November 15th until April 15th. Purpose of this item is to consider signs notifying people of the City's ordinance prohibiting on-street parking from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. during the winter months. As you may recall, the City currently prohibits parking from November 15th until April 15th on City streets from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. to facilitate snow removal operations. This ordinance was recently amended in March of 1979 changing it from a year-round prohibition to the dates indicated. In correspondence recently received from the Wright County Attorney:'s Office, they are asking that the City of Monticello at least consider placing signs at the entrances to Monticello which notifies people of the parking limitation on City streets. The County Attorney's office feels that it is pretty hard to prosecute a violator of this on-street parking ordinance if there is not adequate notification. . For your information, the Council has previously considered this method of notification but has not gone along with signs at the entrances since it was felt that this would not be an inviting type of sign as you enter a community. The City has published this provision in the paper and has attempted, through the Wright County Sheriff's Department, to give people warnings prior to the actual ticketing of people who are violators of this ordinance. However, the County Sheriff's depart- ment has had some understandable problems with giving warning tickets since there is quite a rotation within the Sheriff's Department of personnel covering the City of Monticello. As a result of the above items, I believe that the placement of signs does merit some consideration by the Council. Although this may seem more like administrative detail, I have decided to put this on the Council agenda since it was previously discussed not to put this type of sign up. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of putting up signs indicating the City's ordinance regarding on-street parking between the hours of 2 A.M. and 6 A.M. ..... \f - )' I ,(' V ...... - 10 - COUNCIL AGENDA ~ 11/14/79 . 7. Consideration of Parkin Building - Block 34. Purpose of this item is subsequent to Council direction at our last meeting requesting that our Downtown & Business Development Committee review the parking needs for the 13,500 square foot office building planned by Mr. Sam Peraro in Block 34, which would occupy the site presently occupied by the former Phillips 66 Station and Season All Sports. In reviewing the parking needs of this proposed complex, the following data was used in the computation: Square Footage Fulltime employees Part time employees 13,500 square feet 45 5 On-site parking provided 8 spaces . Using the above data in calculating the space needs according to the aSSessment formula in the 6-block downtown area, it would indicate that the site would he assessed on the basis of 84~ spaces. However, in reviewing the parking needs of Block 34 and the entire downtown area along with the proposed Peraro office complex, our parking committee, along with our Planner, felt that the present municipal parking lot did not provide sufficient spaces to accommodate such a complex. This decision was reached due to the following: A. Currently there is already a parking problem caused by by the number of commuters using the municipal parking facilities in Block 34. These commuters average approxi- mately 50 cars per day. Although it is intended by the City of Monticello to resolve the commuter parking problem in this block, in effect the committee and our Planner felt that we would only be replacing one problem with another ~ that is, replacing commuter cars with cars utilizing the Peraro office complex. B. According to the Monticello City Ordinances, it would appear that taking the uses within Block 34 separately, there would be need for 126 municipal parking lot spaces, and only 100 are now provided in this block. As you can see, there already is a shortage of 26 spaces and Mr. Peraro's parking space needs, according to the present ordinance, would be a gross requirement of 63 spaces and granting credit for 8 provided on-site would leave a net space requirement of 55 additional spaces. (It should be noted that the assessment formula for determining the cost of the previous parking lot assessment is not equivalent to today's present ordinance.) ~ 11 - COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 . 7. Continuation of Peraro parking Lot Proposal. . . . . As a result of this situation, the Parking Committee, along with the planner, viewed the possible alternatives which are as follows: A. Approve the complex as proposed without providing any additional parking and assessing a proportionate share of the existing parking lot assessment to Mr. Peraro. B. Deny the present proposal as pres,ented by Mr. Peraro, since the parking is not sufficient. C. Require Mr. Peraro to reduce the size of the building to make it compatible with the parking provided in Block 34. D. Attempt to provide a solution to the problem by a possible purchase of additional land and assessing this cost back to Mr. Peraro. It was decided by the committee to select alternative #D since the other three alternatives did not appear to be reasonable or feasible at this time. . In reviewing additional property to be purchased, the Committee looked at the possibility along with the planner of purchasing the Rick Cole property which is situated to the south of City Hall on 3rd Street. This site is a little bit less than one-half acre and is on the market for $29,900. In reviewing this site, the Committee recommended that the City attempt to purchase this property since it was very close to Block 34 and would accommodate the parking needs of Mr. Peraro's office complex. It was felt that the site, although not within the same block as the Peraro office complex, was sufficiently close to provide for the parking needs that would be needed for Block 34. After this meeting, contact was made with the realtor who had the property for sale and it was indicated that the current owner of the property was to consider a proposed purchase agreement from another party on the following day. As a result, an option was obtained for $500 which would be non-binding on the City Council of Monticello if the City did not approve this purchase for $29,900. This option is good through January 1, 1980, and at any time prior to that, the City can indicate in writing it is not interested in the parcel and it can have the $500 option money returned. Our Public Works Director made an estimate on what it would take to improve the lots in question with hardsurfacing, grading, etc., to develop a parking lot. It would cost approximately an additional $14,000 to $15,000 to make this site suitable for a muni- cipal parking lot. This site would accommodate approximately 63 to 66 cars and would be sufficient to meet the 55-space parking space require- ment of Mr. Peraro's office complex. . - 12 - . . . COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 7. Continuation of Peraro Parking Lot Pfoposal . . . On a preliminary basis, I presented this proposal to Mr. Peraro explaining that anything done with the property would have to be subject to City Council approval, but that I wanted to get his initial input on the matter. I indicated to him that there would be the possibility that the City may purchase the property, improve it with a total cost of approximately $45,000 and possibly assess it to him over a period of 15 years, for example. Mr. Peraro had some concern for the cost of the improvement to him, but indicated he would get back to me within four to five days. At the time of writing this agenda supplement, I have yet to receive word from Mr. Peraro regarding this proposal. In light of the existing conditions, I feel that the proposal is a fair one since it does attempt to resolve the parking problem for the develop- ment of Mr. Peraro's office complex on an equitable basis. The price of the land is less than what the City paid for the site that the City Hall is currently situated on, and is also less per square foot than the site offered by the Monticello Development Corporation in Block 51. Additionally, the City would be assessing this property over a period of time and also would have the responsibility of snow removal and maintenance. I did indicate to Mr. Peraro that the proposal was based on the fact that he could use the current municipal parking in Block 34 and that anybody else could use the parking developed in the new City Hall block. However, I did indicate to him that the parking lot in the new City Hall block could be used by employees in order to allow customers of businesses in Block 34 to use the more convenient parking within the block itself. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of proposal to Mr. Peraro on purchase of the Rick Cole property and resulting assessment back to him for the parking lot improvement. If Council approves of this proposal, it could be presented to Mr. Peraro and a legally binding agreement could be prepared by our attorney to insure that the property would be assessed against Mr. Peraro if he agreed to the proposal, regard- less if he ever developed his proposed office complex. This would insure the City against purchasing of the property and the possibility of not having Mr. Peraro develop his office complex. (Council may also want to give some thought, if Mr. Peraro is not agreeable,to purchasing the Rick Cole property anyway for future development purposes around City Hall.) REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting Rick Cole property. - 13 - . . COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 8. Review of 3rd uarter Financial Statements for the Enclosed, you will find copies of the liquor store financial statements for the 9 months ending September 30, 1979. Mark Irmiter, Liquor Store Manager, will be at Tuesday night's meeting to answer any questions you may have on the report. As you will note, sales have increased approximately 13% over the first nine months of 1978, resulting in an additional $8,800 in gross profit, but operating expenses have also increased during 1979, resulting in approximately $600 in operating income gain. One of the reasons is that the insurance expense increased over 36% from last year, which the City has little control over. The 3rd Quarter gross profit percentages have increased over the first 6 months of 1979, due to adjustments made by Mark Irmiter during the past three months in an effort to offset the unexpected rise in expenses such as insurance coverage, etc. POSSIBLE ACTION: No action necessary by the Council other than review of the Financial Statements. REFERENCES: Liquor Store Financial Statements - First Nine-Months of 1979. - 14 - ~ . 9. Approval of Transfers. COUNCIL AGENDA - 11/14/79 Following are a list of transfers that should be made prior to December 31, 1979: ~ TO AMOUNT General Fund Revenue Sharing $ 360.18 Sewer & Water 1976 Special Assmt. Fund 1976 S & W Debt Redemption Fund $16,656.04 Capital Outlay Revolving Fund Street Fund $42,990.00 COMMENT $1,000 had been transferred in 1974 for fire truck renova- tion and only $639.82 spent in 1975 & 1976. Balance should be transferred back to clear the account. Transfer unused portion of bond proceeds to debt retirement fund For purchase & rental of Elgin Street Sweeper. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of Council Approval of the above transfers. - 15 - HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES '. INCORPO~A"'CD CONSULTING PLANNERS ONE GROVEL.AND TERRACE MINNEAPOliS, MINNESOTA SS403 612.377-3536 9 November 1979 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Council, City of Monticello RE: Oakwoed Schoel preperty, Blecks 17 and 13 We have cenducted interviews with City staff, Menticelle Library representatives, and Menticelle Schoel administraters in regard to. the abeve preperty. The results of eur investigatien and recemmendatiens to. date are summarized fellewing. BLOCK 17/S0UTH BLOCK . Independent Scheol District 882 ewns appreximately 75 percent ef Bleck 17 with Mr. Rebert Dewling ewning the remainder of the bleck net included in the railread right-ef-way. The pertiens ef Lets 3 to. 8 ewned by the Scheel District have a cenditien that the land is to. be used "fer scheeler playgreund purpeses enly". The School District desires to. build their new district effice en this pertion of the preperty and has been advised by their legal ceunsel that such a use of the preperty weuld be apprepriate. The pertiens of Lots 9 and 10 ewned by the Scheel District have no. deed restrictiens as to. their use. Mr. Dewling effered to. sell his property to. ISD 882 for $75,000. ISD 882 has agreed to. purchase the property if the City of Menticello wishes to. use a portion of Lots 9 and 10, Bleck 17 for the new library site. The Dewling preperty has some mature elms and burr eaks which would greatly enhance future development ef the bleck. Acquiring the preperty also. is desirable frem a land use perspective in that a single family residence is net an appropriate use fer this area due to its preximity to. commercial uses. From a planning perspective lecating both the ISO 882 district effice and the library on Block 17 has many advantages since the uses are cemplimentary to. each other. For example, the parking of the two facilities could be shared since they have different peak use times. The architecture ef the two. structures could also be coerdinated so as to provide a campus-like setting. . \ RE: Oakwood School Property Page Two . We would recommend that the City consider building the new library on Lots 9 and 10, Block 17 as shown in the attached concept. The concept plan is based on having both structures open onto a park-like environment with mature trees. This area is the present Dowling property. The parking would be shared with ingress and egress off of Fourth Street. The ISD 882 district office would be located on Lots 3 to 5 with parking north on Lots 6 to 8. The library is shown on Lots 9 and 10. ISD 882 has indicated that they would like the City to purchase those portions of lots 9 and 10 which are presently owned by Mr. Dowling, subsequent to the purchase by the School District. We estimate that the cost of purchasing those portions or Lots 9 and 10 would be in the neighborhood of $10,000. In our opinion, this would be the most appropriate location for the new library. Moreover, this would allow the existing district office and library to be used until the new facilities are ready. BLOCK 13/0AKWOOD BUILDING . We have examined the existing Oakwood School building in combination with Mr. John Miller of Miller, Hanson, Westerbeck, Bell Architects, Inc., to determine the feasibility of re-using all or portions of the existing structure. The conclusions of Mr. ~iller regarding the structure are attached in a memo to Howard Dahlgren dated 7 November 1979. We concur with Mr. Miller that the present Oakwood building is not one which would be feasible to renovate from an economic, architectural, or engineering standpoint. Essentially, the building would have to be completely gutted in order to renovate it for another use. The cost of the renovation would not be attractive to a private investor since a new more efficient building could be constructed for that kind of money. From a land use planning perspective, the Oakwood building does not lend itself to re-use for commercial or office space because of its inefficient use of the site. Because of the building's location in the center of the block, additional building construction is nearly precluded. On-site parking also presents a problem since any possible arrangement would be relatively inefficient in terms of site planninq and the relationship to the potential commercial or office space. The Oakwood building consumes five times the energy required for a new building of the same size. The construction of Oakwood also creates . RE: Oakwood School Property Page Three . renovation problems as outlined in Mr. Miller's memo. The most important factor, however, is that the building could not be renovated into an efficient structure for another use. It is our op1.n1.on that the most appropriate thing to do would be to demolish the Oakwood School bUilding after the library and ISD 882 office have been relocated in new structures on Block 17. This would allow the entire Block 13 to be rebuilt for an efficient office/ Commercial complex at such time as the market demands. The new development on Block 13 would be a logical and desirable connection between the Central Business District and the highway oriented cOmmercial to the south along Interstate 94. Block 13 would then be placed back on the tax roles as well as being an asset to the City's business district. SUMMARY We would recommend that the fallowing course of action be taken with regard to Blocks 13 and 17. . 1. The City indicate their desire to locate the library on Lots 9 and 10, Block 17 to ISO 882 and enter into an agreement to purchase those portions of Lots 9 and 10 presently owned by Mr. Robert Dowling with ISD 882. 2. Plan to demolish the Oakwood building at such time as the ISD 882 offices and the library can be relocated. 3. The south block (Block 17) should be rezoned from R-2 to B-2, Limited Business District, and the Oakwood School/ Block 13 should be rezoned from R-2 to B-4, Regional Business District, to reflect the proposed uses for these parcels. 4. That Block 13 be offered for sale for an appropriate office/commercial use. The property should be planned as an entity which would be an attractive addition to the Monticello business community and provide on-site parking for the new development. Additional information will be forthcoming as to the relationship of Blocks 13 and 17 to the Central Business District and the highway commercial area near Interstate 94 as well as more detailed parking information for the downtown area. HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES, INC. c' . C. John Uban L.JD W 1 MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BELL ARCHITECTS INC MEMORANDUM BUTLER SQUARE SUITE 300 100 NORTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55403 612.338.7700 COMM. NO.: RE: Oakwood Elementary School Bui lding DATE: 7 November 1979 TO: Howard Dah I g ren BY: John R. Mi ller After visiting the Oakwood Elementary School and also reviewing the report on the building prepared by Mr. A. L. Wegleitner, A. I.A., I would I ike to make the following comments: I. The exterior of the original 1909 classroom section of the complex is a fairly typical example of elementary school design of that era. I do not believe its design to be historically unique since so many similar structures were built. The visual symmetry of the 1909 section was badly damaged by the 1928 addition. The original bui Iding and the addition do not together have an architecturally pleasing appearance. . 2. The interiors of both sections contain nothing unusual in terms of either spaces or material used. I noti'ced that soft wood millwork was used in the 1909 section. 3. Mr. Wegleitner's report contains a very complete analysis of work required to bring the structures up to a state of code compl iance. I bel ieve his estimates of the costs to do this necessary work are even somewhat low, for the following reasons: a) To comply with handicap accessibi I ity requirements of Chapter 55 in the Minnesota Bui Iding Code, wil I require much re-working of entrances to the building, and to provide accessibi I ity within the building will be very difficult due to the many level changes that exist. b) His cost did not include replacement of single glazed windows, which in both sections, would be required for compl iance with the Minnesota Energy Code. ..... ...... c) There has been a great deal of movement in the 1909 section, as evidenced by cracking exterior masonry and excessive deflections in the stair and floor structure. I would recommend an analysis by a structural engineer to verify the possibi I ity of renovating the structure. The parapets and chimney are in a very deteriorated condition (no mortar in COPIES TO: many areas). IF tJ~ ,l~'.~/,TI('''' ;'(."'Jrf~,~~r.1 :. III Ij : 'J r , 1'1 i . 'I ~\ I ..!. I r ~ r); I ': ( :.'~' t !l.. t", ','- It, f ,.\lj'ifl)I1.I',r './',,[ WI! 'I\i( "~"~I " I-I ('1,'11 . MEMORANDUM 7 November 1979 Page 2 . 4. The Cost required to renOvate for school use as presented in the Wegleltner report, are $47.00 per Sq. Ft. I would estimate a similar or higher cost to renovate for other uses such as offices, commercial, or hOusing. Since new construction can be accompl ished for less, I do not see renovation as being economically attractive to a private investor. $. Cost considerations aside; renovation to produce an efficiently designed office, commercial or hOusing use is not Possible, due to the inflexability of the existing structure's bearing walls, many level changes, etc. 6. Continued use of the structure in its present state is not legal code wise, nor is it very economical. For instance, the amount of fuel used is five times what would be required in a new bUilding of the same size. This amounts to 23,000 gallons of extra oil being used each year to maintain the present functions. 7. It is my opinion that the structure which has served for so many years, is not one which would be feasible to renovate from an architectural, structural, or economic standpoint. I would suggest that certain elements such as the stone work at the entries could be salvaged and possibly reused on other community projects. . ~. November 6, 1979 City of Monticello, Due to the increased cost of fuel and other operating expenses, Yonak Sanitation is asking that the council consider a 1Q% increase in our monthly price for garbage removal. Some reasons for this increase are; 10j% increase in diesel fuel. . 22% increase in workmens compo 1j% increase in tire prices. 1.% increase in repair costs. The items listed above reflect some of our biggest expenses in garbage removal. Thank You, Yonak Sanitation ! !/'jr<! Ie",,! (/~ ~~~ . 3 \\-I;JTJ---.~'~tll" ~'(;,. z.; i'.~tt'< ~~ '~}i ~~\: \ ~ (l~,~\ ;,.; I'. l'J:<E..,-"hlJ\t'r.~: l:t"('ti.1P' )..:" 2~J"7~. MILl.}:)! .rlA Ylf' e" Mil"" ~IH'II~ PURCI-rASE AGREEMENT . Monticello Minn.................. ,1979 RECEIVED OF ThE!.<:tt.Y...Q:f...MQ.ntJ.c~.llo........ . the sum of.... - . . ., . - - ~. .. .... .. . .. - -. . ... . .. . . . . . . , " , . . . . . .' . . .. . . - . . ' , . . ($ DOLLARS ................................as earnest money and in pan payment for the purchase of properf)' at f Ch...d-:.. Cft'l;h. 1.0 hE- Ol'pOSil*"d uron iit:f"Cpt..ant:"e, or Note ~ Stau- '\\thich.1 T'} 0 n t i ce 11 0.......... .......... ................. situated in the CC,Clr.I)' of..W.:right...................................................., State of Minnesora, and leEaliy described as jollows, to.Wll' *See attached. ...,,~~:-o,.~-::r ::c'" ":,f. b..;:".:, J-:_.hO. ,1.. ut~ _nG ", (;,. ;'ell ..!u..., ..~J!', .\,0, ,II ":(Jv.3; ,:, l...ch..l)k \ ,.\. ;:J~;d, '''' ,,,5, .. \'. ";11.=,0, "",on',' ~:.., :'e5. tlJlli":. . din!; vt'netian blinds), cunain rods, navt'rse rods, drapery rods, lightinf ii:xrures and bulbs, pJumbint: :::>;:'..];es. nO! waler tanks al":'.' lant (with'any burners, ranks, Stokers and orher equipment used in connecrion Ihen. with), waler softener and liquid gas tam: .... ols (if the propt'rf)' of seller), sump pump, lekvision antenna, incinel' :IlO:, built. in dishwasher, garbage disposal, ovens, coo' t" and central air conditioning t:'guiprnent, if any, ustd and }\J.. .H...~ \.Jl.I .~.J.~~ l'.I,.,H;~..h..., _d~ ~ntiu~~.~t-. i.1.-,c, lL.. f~Jlo~.inb--1"H...!9t;1'tef.-'pf"'\~'~ **See attached. all of whicn propnty the unde!sif!nt'd has this day snJd to the- buyer for tht ~\lm of: On e Hundred Thousand and nol 1 00-:-.-:-:.-:-.:-:.-:-,:":".-:-:.-:-.-:-:-.-:-:.-:-.:-:-.,:,,:.--:-.-:-:-::-::-:-.7':-:-:-..,., ($1 00.,000- O[l DOLLARS, which the- Duye: llpret's te pay Jf: the following manner: E,,!nesc !llcmey ht'!t'If' raid S ? and; ~x~~thebalance on , the datt' of closin,C. . ***See attached. . Su: \t-('[ tl: !it"i!li:nlarat by th~ bUYt'f trI(o. ~(-ji(..t l',cn"t'S 10 t~)'l'(lHt- aile c1t*li\'cr ill N.X~~XXJi)~XX~X'X'XXlxx,x'X'on\'eyjnJ: markt'l..hk litle III s~id I'Jem,~e, ~lIbien only !() Ihe iO},OWInl' l'(t'f'1l0n;. '2' b,ilc,ClC- "n<1 'onlnl; l3w~, ordman,,:,. Slate and r,.drral re."ula1ion~. i b I 1''''''''1;0''' rtlatinh to use or Improvem"nt 01 premises ",.jthOUl dltC'tive forfeit ute provision. ,,) ~"'el\..tlOn of any minerals or min"ral rights to rhe State- of Minllesota. (0) l:tiii" and oraina.~e- ""ements which do 1101 int"tfere with present improvc:ments. , ,.. 'R ,,'nt.\ oj It'nant, .~ foIl""",: (unln' sprcined. nN sunirn III tenancies) '[,{i':rxxx .xX,:XJCX:>.; XC'( M'KK'XK"'xj",-X'.l\'.1.,."'X'X'X xx X,:;O-;: X K~ 'X:y X'X:-.:~~~X* ~'){'~ X'X Yo....: X XJo:X'KX >: X'X*lt:Y.'Xx~~'k :{;-.: X?-: ;>~~XXXw'"XXOC.;<;:\li:X1X){'XXX'K'X'XX'X":'X,^ ;\(XXX'XX XXX }';'i!X~XX XXX X >: X X XXX XX X X :i.:;.:xXX:....~:Xxi.,.;j.: (lull, pJnlal ur rHJf~,rH':;l~'{.~~;l.:.- ~.:.31~: ~'ljH_tl) ':.ilh{'r tilt, !-.t.llt"1 nor fnt' ,{iit'r~ a~l"nl makr.- an'. Jr.f1J~....t-nt3til)Jl 01 Warl.i.:lnn \l..hJh\)t."'tJ~,u)n,.~.:j;:n:.: lh~.. ;anlount oi n:a] r;qaTfr l;]'H."~ V'}-d: h ~hJ.1. i". ~1'...t'~...t"1 ,a.L:.ll{1~~ dlt., ptupr:tty' ~ub~~qLJ(.nt to tilt C,:.\lt (If f""Uh ha'>t.. - ,"".'jit, tl'\'l.nant, tl)31 buiidlnl.:.~. ii 3f1), art- entirt'J\' 'l'I!Jllt~ 1:1~ thHJ!1~,;;lt\ llrH"r. 0:. till p:(lp-.:m ;In\. ;'~~."(TI" t{J rl'mU\{' 311 rx-r~onal prcJpcrn ni.. '~i, .':l.~; iH.It.'jfl ~lnd ~1) dth~i, t1um tilt. pl~mj\t'(. f'rlul 1( t"{.\-"t-"~I.III .::It( :rJ~111]\-'"\X-:-.1~1\.7~~~:-: :""~"i::.'.:-.i"!r:"-1"~.~~~i::';t\4"~i'~.it. ,---:-:-.c-:...,-:-:~,-\*.",~r;';""",{c"-+i,~' ;,: ;~'''''''''''~c.,''''''''..:.-;'r':~'?--(~''--''7....-ITTt-t;,-t7.1~1'',T-;----t/\\.iliT "",., I" .\'l, TJ'i\'IJLT. ....~~_..:..:;....:..;"~..;,..:......c--1~...j.~ ;'",.",;w.' ;""hc; a.~lct., ,.ociri..n': I',,,,,,s,,,,n no' ,,,,,., ,La' closing date.. , ,",C),It"" trl.il aJ: ,(mCI"lJn, n:' ,," .'_ ~~.:..:l,.:n~ Jl~~\l.' t"t{.t"t1 (OmplH:d '\\'un t.'J'IIl':o,~ \.)o,I\.1 \'> I"'... .....'~'-I.l~.-:~ __T1~--:!i---:-:-~~~~....J..-"""[7=-~--""''''t. ir dH.: t\Ln~ lhi~ r'fopt"rry i~ dt"~troyt'd or ~l1b!o.tanlia1\y diin13_pcc by ide- (H any other (aU~(" be:fOft" (ht" {lo~in.L" dalt". 1hi~ a.l.:rt:'l"mc:nt sha;' .:"it "d! ,no void. at d". pur(h""t.,'s opllOn. ano ..!l l1H>n:n paid 1,,'lt'u/Hle' ,ball b., rdu"ded It' hirrc. Tnt. i.1lJ\'t."~ .and !-(:iief al~{1 mU1ualiy a.cree- tb:n ptV rat:a ~1l::i,u~uIH.'n1\.. of fc.::nf~, iOlc'r("st. inSUI:d.rlU. ;Hll..-: (If~~ \\.iI.\L"! :l;.C. in !hl.. (a~!' o~ "" ," ;,(.,t), mIT"OI ol'l':at,n~ nJ'e",,,,. shall bl' ITi"Ot ,~XiX pr 0\" ide din at tache d rna t er i a 1 s . Th(' s(jk~ ~i\:lJl. wjtnin ~-1 rc,...J"".'~lJ.bjt umt.- al1t:: :,.;)t"'ro\":il1 of thi~ a.:...'n.,~'n,rnl, iu;ni~h ,2n at'~If.H'1 (); 1!tlt' or ~ KCL'lqert.J rh:'~l~~r. '.'.4i! (Ci"'1I:';t.(~ 10 dllfe: 10 IncllhH: rrurx-~ ~1...:HdH_-~ (O\l':ln:.: hJnLn.:rICIL~, :;:::nC ~:.al(" and j-r-der:a:' lLI,::.:n:~'nt~ 3nJ jltlb .~~~~.~':::i':'""-~ ,,~._ --.-;;-~.,.....l.1- ~.;~--;:,~~~~~".~'~~~'t':":"""'=":'""'""':"""~ ,".:, ~".J. 1:,:.__~;":"~~~"""'t'~~,:"~~r~:'"~T-:.--\~":'""'~'7~~~'--:;,",;::-::~j":",,,""" ._--~..~~~..:.=~~-::~.:..~.:-.===~-==~:-~:=:::-=-==:=::.::..~-==~::::.~=:=:~~.,..~.~~~.:. :.' ."'~.:~-=~ ~~---:-"";""'":-;..~~~~"":""':".--'7~"'"'t. .._.~I...,~,.. ,. ., - 1 .,' J~..._ " Quit-CJai:n ~",,'XY:X ' .'~" mer fj...:c .--..r.--::....:....... .. ,. ..~.... _ ."':.. c_..~ ',,1~~f'!'~~-- l~~-~~~~~ ~~~ .!:.I~.~'!lH'nt ',il.Ji. ~~ tlptl(lfl (d dtl- hUH': and til*nhc."r l"\:IfH.ip~l ~h:J.l1 be li.3hit' 101 d~H~l:..!~l.-'" ht'r~-\.Jncil'r tl' !flt' li;iH:: :':;fj_ i:.~ 1 _11 L. .....,.. "..1 It .h., ,i,il- 1., "~li.~ rHtll'tt'"rt\' he inund r.1;J",~,,;;lIdt;'" ur IW !\{I nL~r.~. \'. ::hln ~,Ij~: t::nt. *Block Thirty-two (32), in the Townsite of Monticello, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds, in and for Wright County, Minnesota. . **School District No. 8B2 shall have the right to remove such furniture, personal property and trade fixtures contained presently in the building located upon said block thirty-two (32) as it shall deem necessary, proper or expedient and said school district shall provide a list of such items that the school district shall remove on or before thirty days prior to the closing of this transaction. ***The Closing Date shall be August 31, 1980, or at the time the items set forth in paragraphs No. 1 and 2 below have been resolved, whichever occurs later, namely: 1. School District #882 follows the appropriate statutory pro- cedure to terminate its obligation to provide a public library, or said school district obtains an opinion from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota that because of the facts and circumstances of this particular property transaction that it is unnecessary to follow the provided statutory procedure, or, that an act of t_he legislature of the State of Minnesota be passed providing that said school district may termlnate its obligation to provide a public library. 2. 'rhat the charitable trust created by W. Worth Braise, if allY therehe, be appropriately resolved either by a district court action which results in a judgment terminating said trust or an opinion by the Office of the Attorney General, the State of Minnesota, to the effect that the same is not necessary. . Upon the closing of this transaction, the City of Monticello shall thereafter take over, maintain, and continue to provi(3e a pub1 ic library in the City of Monticello, for the residents thereof and t.he surrounding community, and t.herea fter School Distr ict #882 shall have no obligation whatsoever to provide library services to the public. School District #882 shall assign all lease agreements that presently are in existence to the City of Monticello upon closing this transaction, and said school district hereby covenants that it. wi 11 not execute any other or furt.her leasing arrangemen ts l)et~een the date hereof and the closing of this transaction without the prior written consent of the City of Monticello. Copi es of all ex} sting leasing arrangements are att_ached hen:;>to and made a part hereof. Upon closing of this transaction, the City of Monticello ~~re0s to lease a portion of the building on said propel-ty lhtlt H; no",," \Jsed by the administrative off-i.s.f-~...!Lsml the date of clos:ing to and including the 3tst day of Se-f:t-tember, 1980, upon the request to do so by School District #882 in writing prior to the date of closing, for the sum .of S per month. During s ueh 1 easehol d, if any, the Ci ty shiiTfupro":;-ide to the school district, heat, lights, and reasonable janitorial services with- out aoc3itional charge. . The School District agrees that the City shall be allowed to enter the rn,:.rnses before the closing date in order to make improvemrC:'nts 01- do ::.epa-:u:,-work-, pr-ovided-, tha-tthe same snaIl not uIll-caSC,na!.,]y _ J!: ..L \._ ~ ~ ~_ ,_ ~ _ "'I f"....: _..L. __:. ~..L.. ~ _~ _.. ._. I _ _ ~ ~ ..L. _ ~ ~.., J~ . . . The special assessments presently levied against said premises that are due and payable in 1980 shall be allocated and apportioned between the parties at the date of closing and thereafter, said School District shall not be obligated for any further and additional assessments. The City of Mon~icello agrees to pay the School District $147.00 per month from the date hereof until the closing date of this transaction for the library space in said premises presently existing. That on or before the date of closing hereof, the City shall undertake all necessary action to establish, locate, and dedicate and otherwise cause Fourth Street to be opened as a public street between Highway 25 and Walnut Avenue. School District No. 882 grants City the option to acquire, for no additional consideration, Lot 10, except the Southerly 32 feet there- of, and Lot 9, except the Southerly 10 feet thereof, both in Block 17, Townsite of Monticello, provided all of the following provisions, are complied with: 1. The premises shall be used for public library purposes and the City shall provide the Superintendent of said school district written notice of ~~s intention to exercise this option on or before midnight November 10, 1979. 2. That construction of a library on said site be commenced on or before November 1~, 1981. 3. That the conveyance of Block 32, as hereinabove provided, be completed. If any of the above provisions are not satisfied, the property in said Block 17 shall not be transferred, or if already transferred, then be transferred back to said school district forthwith. All conveyances hereunder shall be by quit-claim deed. . WRIGHT COUNTY Department of Public Works . Buff.fo Route 1. Box 97-8 Buffalo. Minnesota 55313 T.R. 25 North of T.R. 55 Telephone (612) 682-3900 October 12, 1979 Mr. Gary Weber, City Administrator Monticello City Offices Monticello, Mn. 55362 Dear Mr. Weber: As you requested, I am enclosing a copy of the motion made by the Wright County Board of Commissioners to offer Montissippi County Park to the City of Monticello as a City Park. . The reasons Wright County is making this offer are: (I) It has always been the policy of the Wright County Par'k Dept., in their acquisition of lands for park purposes, that when lands near a city were ~cquired, they would be held until the city expanded to the parklands; then these lands would be turned over to the city, because the park would at that point not he a County Park, but a City Park. Such is the case with Montissippi County Park. The City of Monticello has annexed the lands around the park; most of the expansion of the city in terms of new homes and schools is in the area of the park; the main use of the facility is the City ball fields; it is mainly used by city residents. (2) Some time in the past, before I uecame County Parks Administrator, there was some interest expressed by the City of Monticello in the property; but the details could not be worked out, and the idea was dropped. It is now felt those details can be worked out if the City still is interested in the property. . (3) Wright County has a $40,000 grant to develop the park further. This grant requires a match of $40,000 from the County, making the total project an $80,000 project. Since the grant was acquired by Wright County; times, people and priorities have changed to the point where Wright County will not be using the grant to develop the park as originally intended. Because the park is primarily a park used by the residents of Monticello, Wright County did not wish to send the grant back until the City of Monticello had a chance to decide if they feel the park is important enough for their people to own, operate and develop. I have been told by the Minnesota State Planning Agency that if the City wishes to take over jurisdiction of the Parklands, they can have the $40,000 gra0t for development also. As things stand now, this is the only way any new development will take place in Montissippi Park in the near future. d . . . Gary Weber October 12, 1979 page 2 The grant dues not have to be accepted by the City of Monticello; however, they ca~ accept the County's offer of the Parklands and not the grant; or they can accept both. There has been some question about how much maintenance of the Park costs. I do not have any firm figures, but, in general, the current maintenance effort consists of: Trash Pickup $400 per year Moving - 2men 1 day every 2nd wk. $880 per year Road Blading as necessary $100 per year Total $1380 per year The maintenance costs are not that great. Wright County does feel the Parklands have become less a County Park and more a City Park; and before any further action is taken by Wright County in the operation and develop- ment of the Park, the City of Monticello should be given this opportuniLy to accept or reject the efforts Wright County has made to plan for the future recreational needs of the residents of Monticello. If you have any questions, please call me. to know when we will appear on the agenda on 22 I will need October 79. Commissioner Zachman will be with me also to represent Wrigi,t County in this matter. Thank you. Your:R :ruly, 0 Y!Ctz.#~/?~ M!ehael P. Schmidt Wright County Parks Administrator MPS/mr ee: Lowell Zachman Wright County Board of Commissioners c:::J WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD September 25, 1979 MINUTES - page 2 . 2. Re: Mr. Schmidt's request to the Board to forward a letter to the Hennepin County Park Reserve District acknowledging their intentions to negotiate acquisition of the HCPRD lands in Wright County, the Board authorized Mr. Schmidt to write the letter to HCPRD setting up n meeting for further discussion, some time in the future. 3. On a motion by Engstrom, se~onded by Nelson, all voted to make a formal offer to transfer ownership of Montissippi Park to the City of Monticello for the price of $1.00; and authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign the offer. 4. On a motion by Nelson, 'seconded by Engstrom, all voted to refer the matter of the Schroeder Parks Sanitation Building to our County Parks Committee. Vote as follows: Nelson, Engstrom, McAlpine - Aye. Hirsch - Nay. Zachman - absent. 5. On a motion by Hirsch, seconded by Nelson, all voted to ad- vertise the Ney County Park Land Rental as well as other Co u n t y R e n tal. Bid s to bel e 1. at 10: 00 A. M. 0 n 0 c to b e r 30, 1979. On a motion by Nelson, seconded by Engstrom, all voted to authorize the use of the l~ - 2 acres of hillside at Ney Park by the County Horticultural Society as a county arboretum. . 6. On a motion by Nelson, seconded by Engstrom, all voted to approve the Budget from the Fairhaven Mill Historical Wayside and Dam Joint Powers Board for 1980 as submitted by the Parks Administrator. He: the issue of the road from the City of Ha.nover to a County Park, Mr. Schmidt presented to the Board a copy of the minutes of the Wright County Board meeting of November 9, 1965, wherein is stated that the Board adopted a Resolution to designate said road as a "County Aid Parkway" and that the same be constructed, improved & maintained as a "County Aid Parkway" of said county. At 10:30 A.M. Bids were opened for the Environmental Dept. Automobile. The Bids were as follows: BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID ------------- Lundeen Dros. $5,342.94 $5,75?16 $5,702.00 $5,331.00 (1980 Fairmont) (1980 tIIalibu) (1980 Fairmont) (1980 Fairmont) Roberts Chev.-Olds. Bill Matthews Ford Eddie's Ford Monticello Ford * *Need decision by 9/25 on '79's $5,539.50 ('79 Fairmont) $5,573.08 $5,479.25 ('79 Fairmont) ('80 Fairmont) ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ~ ,... On a motion by Engstrom, seconded by Nelson, all voted to lay the bids over until next week to give the Executive Secretary time to tabulate the At 10:45 A.M. Vern Wahlstrom, Charles Mitchell & Steve Szarke came before the Board to request that the County pay Mr. Bill Radzwill $3000 for services rendered in completing the EDA grant for Functional Industries, Cokato, Mn. Thore was a motion by Engstrom to pay $3000 to Bill Radzwill for services rendered on the Functional Industries c:Q