City Council Agenda Packet 02-09-1998
.
.
.
AGEN A
REGULAR MEETING. MO ICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 9,1998 - 7 p.m.
Mayor:
Bill Fair
Council Members: Clint Herbst, Brian Stu pf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
1. Call to order.
2.
A.
Approval of minutes of the spe 'al meeting held January 26,1998.
B. Approval of minutes of the re lar meeting held January 26,1998.
3. Consideration of adding items to the
4. Citizens comments/petitions, request, and complaints. C rn 6"vvf{' 11 v)
1;lc{tl.1..;tcl IN/lol:" 7~STf""'1'-1li' 'Ei- (/ld.d70 rtv'oCJnr
5. Consent agenda. ~;5 (1-1 .fuc
Consideration of an extension f the conditional use permit for
Resurrection Lutheran Churc . Applicant, Mark Paschke,
Hagemeister and Mac Archite ts, Inc. M
I] 5 j2 c. "'0 t. ii.. "t.vJ J
Consideration of renewal of m wing contract. :7- 'il ?'Jl~.J (ev, 1-- ~',f
6/1,fl4J e 1+ 61
Consideration of amending th Monticello Comprehensive Plan by
eliminating the Fallon Avenue overpass. Applicant, St. Henry's
Church.
A.
d~~'
c' J 7
\) \ 7'-
v B. "1.(..1
,., /.l~ r
'.. .)~ 1'<,' [:I '
J'i C.
D. Consideration of adoption of . ellberg West development agreement.
6. Consideration of items removed fro the consent agenda for discussion.
7. Consideration of a resolution adopti g City position on industrial
development.
8. Consideration of a request for a con itional use permit for final PUD
approval on phase I of the Hospital ampus. Applicant, Monticello-Big Lake
Community Hospital.
.
.
.
. -----
Agenda
Monticello City Council
February 9, 1998
Page 2
9. Consideration of a resolution supporti g tax credit application for 36-unit
townhouse development.
10. Consideration of ordinance amendme t repealing tobacco sales ordinance
licensing.
11. Community and training center small group study update.
12. Consideration of annexation discussio update.
13. Consideration of bills for the first hal of February, 1998.
14. Adjournment.
Council Update
1.
Planning Commission actions taken 2 3/98.
.
.
.
MINU ES
SPECIAL MEETING - MO ICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 2 ,1998 - 5:30 p.m.
Members Present: Bill Fair, Brian Stumpf, ruce Thielen, Roger Carlson
Members Absent: Clint Herbst
A special meeting of the City Council was h ld for the purpose of discussing general
items as brought forward by Council memb rs. Items discussed were as follows:
1. Councilmember Bruce Thielen noted hat he and Councilmember Brian
Stumpf switched commissions as Co ncilliaisons. Councilmember Thielen
will be the liaison to the MCP, and C uncilmember Stumpf will be the liaison
to the HRA.
2. Project priority list. Council reviewe the "A" and "B" priorities and noted
which items had been completed, we e in progress, or were budgeted for
1998.
The meeting was for discussion purposes 0 ly. No action was taken by the Council.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
....__ ___ _ _ J_
.
.
.
MINU ES
REGULAR MEETING - MO ICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 6,1998 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Bill Fair, Clint Herbst, rian Stwnpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce
Thielen
Members Absent: None
2.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STU PF AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTE OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
JANUARY 12, 1998, AS WRITTEN. Mo . on carried unanimously.
3.
A. Councilmember Roger Carlson requested that winter maintenance of
Riverside Cemetery be added t the agenda.
B.
Assistant Administrator reque ted that consideration of establishing a
small group for studying desi and financing of the community center
and consideration of adopting resolution supporting a youth
initiative bill be added to the a enda.
4.
None.
5. Consent ae-enda.
A.
Recommendation:
Approve change order #10 to t e contract with Adolfson & Peterson in
the amount of $37,047 for Proj ct 93-14C, Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion.
B. 1 r r
license. Recommendation: rant renewal of the Men's Softball
Association beer license contin ent on receipt of the necessary
insurance docwnents and app opriate fees.
Page 1
.
.
.
C.
D.
E.
F.
6.
Conncil Minutes - 1/26/98
interchan2'e access analysis. Authorize the City
Engineer, WSB & Associates, t complete, submit, and obtain approval
for the revised Interchange Ac ess at 1-94 and County Road 118 Report
at an estimated cost of $2,000 0 $3,000 for updating it to the year
2020.
Recommendation: Confirm
the appointments of Pam Cam bell, Gail Cole, Ronald Hoglund, Rita
illrich, and Susie W ojchouski t the Design Advisory Team for
reviewing projects in the Cent al COIDIDnnity District zoning area,
with Fred Patch and Ollie Kor pchak as staff liaisons.
Recommendation: Adopt a
resolution authorizing the Sta e Gambling Control Board to issue a
pull-tab license to the Land of akes Choir Boys organization for J.P.'s
Annex. SEE RESOLUTION 9 -2.
scale from Pitney Bowes. Rec mmendation: Authorize entering
into a lease agreement with Pi ney Bowes for an E520 semi-automatic
mail machine, postage meter, d 5-lb. electronic scale at a cost of
$138 per month for 51 months.
G.
Recommendation:
Commission.
H.
Determine that EDA approval of
GMEF Loan No. 014 for T.J. artin, Inc., was approved without
violation of the GMEF Guideli es and support the EDA decision for
loan approval.
None.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE TH LEN AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO APPROVE THE CONSEN AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion
carried nnanimously.
.
7.
.
.
Council Minutes - 1/26/98
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller r ported that the proposed assessment
roll for delinquent utility bills include accounts which are delinquent more
than 60 days. The assessment roll al 0 included three accounts over $500 for
which notice would be served to shut ff the water service.
Mayor Fair opened the public hearin
There being no comments from the p blic, Mayor Fair closed the public
hearing.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STU PF AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO ADOPT THE ASSESSME T ROLL FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY
BILLS AS PRESENTED. Motion carrie unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 98-3.
8.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller r ported that an RFP was prepared for
development of a multi~family projec on Outlot A, Country Club Manor,
which the City obtained through tax orfeiture. Two proposals were received.
David Hornig of Hornig Companies p oposed 109 rental units, a 2.5-acre
park, and the 3.1~acre pond site would be retained on the east end of the
property. The purchase price offered was $300,000.
Freedom Development proposed a m'x of36 rental units utilizing low income
housing credits and tax increment fi ancing assistance from the HRA, 42
privately-owned townhouse units, a . 73~acre site for park land, scattered
retention ponds if the City waived st rm sewer fees, and a purchase price of
$151,675. However, David Bell ofF eedom Development offered to change
his price to match Hornig Companie offer of $300,000.
Residents in the area noted their co cerns regarding traffic and the effect of
low income housing on neighboring roperty values.
Council discussed the compatibility fthe two proposals with the
neighborhood and the amount of tax revenue each would bring to the city. In
addition, the proposed change in pri e made by Freedom Development was
also discussed.
Pag 3
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 1/26/98
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE TH ELEN AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO SELECT THE PROPOSAL Y HORNIG COMPANIES AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT FOR DEVELOPMENT.
Voting in favor: Bruce Thielen, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Bill Fair, Brian
Stumpf, Roger Carlson. Motion faile .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN S MPF AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO SELECT THE PROPOS SUBMITTED BY FREEDOM
DEVELOPMENT WITH THE PURCHA E PRICE OF $300,000 AS OFFERED AT
THE COUNCIL MEETING AND AUTH RIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Voting n favor: Bill Fair, Brian Stumpf, Roger
Carlson, Clint Herbst. Opposed: B ce Thielen. Motion carried.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO
TAKE A 5 MINUTE RECESS. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
10.
f
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller eported that effective August 1, 1997, a
new state tobacco law required all re ailers who sell tobacco or tobacco
products to be licensed. The City m y either adopt a license ordinance that
reflects the new state requirements r delegate the licensing and compliance
check responsibilities to the County.
Council discussed the new requirem nts of the state law and penalties for
minors caught using tobacco.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND
SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO ABLE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT REGULATING TOBAC 0 SALES PENDING FURTHER
INFORMATION FROM OTHER COMM NITIES. Motion carried unanimously.
publication of bills.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller eported that cities are required to
publish the official Council minutes r a condensed summary of the minutes
that includes motions, resolutions, 0 other official actions. As an alternative
to publication, the City may mail a c py of the minutes to any resident upon
request. In addition, there is no req 'rement for publication of the bills.
During the last two years, the City as consistently exceeded $17,000
annually in publication costs, and olfsteller suggested that the City
consider publishing a summary of t e minutes and discontinuing publication
of the bills, which could save the Cit up to $15,000 per year.
Pag 4
.
11.
.
.
Council Minutes - 1/26/98
Don Smith, owner of the Monticello 'mes, stated that it's sound public policy
to publish the minutes in full and ur ed the Council not to change its policy.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO T
COUNCIL MINUTE SUMMARIES AND
PRESENT SAMPLE SUMMARY MINU
POSSIBLE DISCUSSION IN THE FUT
ADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND
LE CONSIDERATION OF PUBLISHING
IRECT THE OFFICE MANAGER TO
S FOR COUNCIL REVIEW AND
E. Motion carried unanimously.
a~eement.
City Attorney Dennis Dalen noted th t there were 12 items to be considered
for inclusion in a joint annexation a eement, 10 of which were substantially
agreed to. However, he noted that st ategies regarding the agreement should
be discussed in a closed session.
12.
Mayor Fair requested that Council c nsider the remaining agenda items
before going into a closed meeting.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROGER C SON AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
THIELEN TO APPROVE THE BILLS F R THE LAST HALF OF JANUARY, 1998,
AS PRESENTED. Motion carried una imously.
13. Other matters.
A.
Council discussed with the Pu lic Works Director the current winter
maintenance of Riverside Ce etery. The Public Works Director noted
that they would perform mini urn winter maintenance this year and
recommend a specific policy fo next year.
B.
Assistant Administrator Jeff 'N eill proposed that the Council and
HRA establish a small group, consisting of two Council members, two
HRA members, and a Nation I Guard representative, to review the
recommendations of the task orce and community, and prepare a plan
that would identify project el ments and phasing and financing
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 1/26/98
methods. In addition, Council as asked to adopt a resolution
supporting the 1998 Youth Init ative Bill, which encourages the
legislature to support a $40 mi lion appropriation for youth facilities.
Councilmembers Brian Stump and Bruce Thielen volunteered to
represent the Council in the s all group to discuss the community
center.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRU E THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPOINT BRIAN TUMPF AND BRUCE THIELEN TO THE
SMALL GROUP FOR THE PURP SE OF ANALYZING COMMUNITY AND
TRAINING CENTER DESIGN D FINANCING OPTIONS AND TABLE
CONSIDERATION OF THE RES LUTION SUPPORTING THE YOUTH
INITIATIVE BILL AT THIS TIM PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION.
Motion carried unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN D SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO
CONTINUE THE REGULAR MEETING UNTI AFTER THE CLOSED SESSION
REGARDING THE JOINT ANNEXATION AG EMENT. Motion carried unanimously.
AFTER CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSIONS, A OTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN
AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO OPEN THE REGULAR MEETING.
Motion carried unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO
ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING. Motio carried unanimously.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Pa e6
.
.
.
5A.
Council Agenda - 2/9/98
. .
(F.P.)
Staff report on this item was presented by Fred Patch. Patch explained that
the Planning Commission is requeste to consider extension of the
conditional use permit issued on May 12, 1997 to allow for development of
the Resurrection Lutheran Church n rtheast of the intersection of County
Road 118 and School Boulevard.
On May 6, 1997, the Planning Com . ssion considered and recommended
approval of a conditional use permit equest to allow the Resurrection
Lutheran Church facility in the PS ( ubliclSemi-Public) Zoning District. On
May 12, 1997, the City Council affi ed the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and approved the condit onal use permit for Resurrection
Lutheran Church.
In anticipation of expiration of that c nditional use permit, Mark Paschke of
Hagemeister and Mack Architects, I c., on behalf of the church, is requesting
that the Planning Commission appro e a one-year extension of the
conditional use permit.
It is anticipated that construction wi I begin around April 15, 1998; however,
to ensure that land use consideratio s of the City do not interfere, this
extension will prevent expiration an the need to reconsider this item in its
entirety.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to grant a one-year ex ension from the original date of issuance
of the conditional use permit llowing a church facility in the PS
(Public/Semi-Public) Zoning istrict for Resurrection Lutheran
Church.
2. Motion to deny a one-year ex nsion of the conditional use permit.
Council Agenda - 2/9/98
.
Staff recommends approval of the ex ension of the conditional use permit.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of minutes of Planning Commi sion 5/6/97; Copy of minutes of City
Council 5/12/97
.
.
.
.
.
'I)-ct!
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
12.
13.
~ Applicant, Resurrection Church.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, repor ed that Resurrection Lutheran Church
has applied for a rezoning of their p rcel at County Highway 118 and
Fenning Avenue (east of the middle choo!) from A-O, Agriculture to PS,
Public and Semi-Public District. Th P-S District is intended for land uses
which are institutional in nature, a d which have patterns of use which are
different from the other large land ses. Church facilities are Conditional
Uses in the P-S District, and as suc , the Church has requested approval of a
CUP as well. All action taken by t e City on this application is conditioned
upon final annexation of the parcel 'nto the City limits.
Chairman Frie opened the public h aring.
There were no comments.
Chairman Frie closed the public he ring.
After a short discussion, DICK M TIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE,
SECONDED BY JON BOGART, T E REZONING OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY TO P-S, PUBLIC & SE I-PUBLIC DISTRICT BASED ON THE
FINDING THAT ESTABLISHME OF A PS DISTRICT AT THIS
LOCATION IS CONSISTENT WIT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Motion passed unanimously.
RICHARD CARLSON MADE AM TION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY
ROD DRAGSTEN, A CONDITION L USE PERMIT FOR A RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTION IN A P-S DISTRIC . Motion pasEed unanimously.
Pa e 11
5"Ar. - I
.
.
cl'l-OII
Council Minutes - 5/12/97
G.
Resurrection Church. Reco endation: Approve the conditional
use permit to allow a church f: cility in a PS district with the following
conditions:
1. The temporary t rminus of the paved parking area is
constructed to co trol drainage and traffic to the
satisfaction oft e City Engineer. A rolled asphalt curb in
this area would e an inexpensive suggestion to provide
an interim impr vement.
2. The Church agr es to expand the paved parking area
prior to buildin expansion in the event that
demonstrated p king demand exceeds the current
supply.
3.
The Church wor s with the City to appropriately route
the pathway aro d and/or through the property to
connect with pat way routes to the east and west.
4. The Church pro . des a plan illustrating landscaping
improvements,' eluding the control of storm water and
erosion after co struction.
Approval is based upon the nding that the proposed use has met, or
will meet with appropriate c anges, the conditions as defined in the
zoning ordinance, including dequate traffic access and management,
adequate setbacks to protect the neighborhood, adequate parking to
accommodate the proposed se, and compatibility with the
neighborhood and comprehe sive plan objectives. Approval is also
subject to completion of the exation proc~ss.
. ...'._...__,. ._...,.............__......__.........~_.._..~...~.._,........._~.... ..,. .......................... r.......____.............. '. .....'~........~.,...._.~-- . -..
. .... . ....... .... ',~ ,. ,".' a:. .
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE IELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE CONS NT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion
carried unanimously.
" ."
. ". .'" '.
.. " ..'. .', ..
. .
. .
'. ." . .'. :...,.-.,'."',.,:.:::-,.:..... ......-..--"$;'. ....;4., .-.,....'1
'. - - .' - . . . . . ~
. .' ...... .... -.-- '.. -..... .. '. .'. . -
':. " ":,,." '.' ..' ',.'.-. ......-- :'- .:;- -'. .'..' :.~'-:::, -.,:~~::- --.
........,........
. .~ . 'w._ ~< ~. ;,
.'.. .... .
. 'w . .: '". ~., : ..... .~., . . ",
.. '...... "
. . ". .
.
.
.
22-2:
AMENDMENTS - INITIATION: The City Councilor Planning Commission
may, upon their own motion, ini iate a request to amend the text or the
district boundaries of this ordin nee. Any person owning real estate within
the city may initiate a request t amend the district boundaries or text of this
ordinance so as to affect the sai real estate.
22-3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
[A] PURPOSE: The purpose f a conditional use permit is to provide the
City of Monticello with a easonable degree of discretion in
determining the suitabili y of certain designated uses upon the general
welfare, public health, an safety. In making this determination,
whether or not the condi onal use is to be allowed, the City may
consider the nature of th adjoining land or buildings, whether or not
a similar use is already i existence and located on the same premises
or on other lands immedi tely close by, the effect upon traffic into and
from the premises or on ny adjoining roads, and all such other or
further factors as the Cit shall deem a requisite of consideration in
determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public
health, and safety.
[B] RECONSIDERATION: henever an application for a conditional use
permit has been conside ed and denied by the City Council, a similar
application for a conditi nal use permit affecting substantially the
same property shall not e considered again by the Planning
Commission or City Cou cil for at least six (6) months from the date of
its denial; and a subseq ent application affecting substantially the
same property shall like . se not be considered again by the Planning
Commission or City Co cil for an additional six (6) months from the
date of the second deni unless a decision to reconsider such matter is
made by the City Coun 1.
[C] LAPSE OF CONDITIO AL USE PERMIT BY NON~USE: Whenever
within one (1) year afte granting a conditional use permit the work as
permitted by the permi shall not have been completed, then such
permit shall become nu I and void unless a petition for extension of
time in which to comple e the work has been granted by the City
Council. Such extensio shall be requested in writing and filed with
the City Clerk at least irty (30) days before the expiration of the
original conditional use permit. There shall be no charge for the filing
of such petition. The r quest for extension shall state facts showing a
good faith attempt to c mplete the work permitted in the conditional
use permit. Such petit on shall be presented to the Planning
Cornmision for a reco endation and to the City Council for a
decision. Further, whenever a conditional use has not been in
operation for a period f six (6) months, the conditional use shall be
considered to be null a d void. 5' .....A-3
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
22/3
.
11,."""
Hagemeister and Mack · Architects, Inc.
501 W. St. Germain. Suite 200
St. Cloud. MN 56301-3605
Tel.: 320 . 251 .9155
Fax: 320 . 251 .4919
January 14, 1998
Mr. Fred Patch
Chief Building Official
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Resurrection Lutheran Church
Iyfonticello, MN
Architect's Project No. 9661
. Dear Mr. Patch,
.
ill
,-INJ
nW&rn1
I S 1900 l!!J
CITY OF MONTICELLO
This memo is in regards to our conversation this pa t Monday afternoon, 1/12/98. On behalf of
Resurrection Lutheran Church, we would like to fiI for art extension of the Conditional Use
Permit granted the Church last year.[fhe buildi~ roject was pushed back to this Spring while
the Church continued its fund-raising campaigny e project will be rebid over the period from
January 15 to February 12, 1998. Upon approval 0 the bid results, construction is anticipated to
begin around April 15, 1998. We ask that you [orw rd this memo to the Planning Commission
and if there are any additional forms that need to be submitted, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
-J1~ ~
Mark Paschke
Hagemeister and Mack Architects, Inc.
copy: Rick Wolfsteller, City Clerk
Building Committee, Resurrection Lutheran hurch
Members American Institute of Architects . Mlnn
SA"t{.
-
sota Society American Institute of Architects
.
.
.
5B.
CounciIAgenda-2/9/98
. (J.S.)
For the past three years, the City has contracted with Carefree Lawn Service
for mowing of the library, liquor store fire hall, and public nuisance
mowings. In 1997, Riverside Cemete was added to the mowing contract.
Over the past three years I have recei ed only one complaint on the work
performed by Carefree Lawn Service.
We have recently received a letter fro J ames King of Carefree Lawn Service
offering to extend our mowing contra t for the 1998 and 1999 season based
upon the same rates bid in 1997. A c py of the letter from Carefree Lawn
Service, the 1997 Contract, and prop sal are included for your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
The first alternative is to exte the mowing contract with Carefree
Lawn Service for 1998 and 199 at the 1997 rates.
2. The second alternative would e not to extend the contract but to go
out for bids again this spring.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City dministrator, Public Works Director,
and Street & Parks Superintendent t at the City Council consider extending
the contract with Carefree Lawn Se . ce for a period of two years at a fixed
rate as outlined in alternative #1. Ci y staffis satisfied with the promptness
and quality of the work performed by this contractor.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of 1997 contract and proposal fi rms; Letter from Carefree Lawn
Service.
."
.
.
.
@
CONTRACT FOR MOWING AN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
,~
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entere into as of the 30 day of April, 1997,
by and between the City of Monticello, Minne ota, a municipal corporation under the laws
of the state of Minnesota, hereinafter calle the "Owner," and Carefree Lawn Service,
P.O. Box 1038, Monticello, Minnesota 5 362, hereinafter called the "Contractor,"
WITNESSETH:
That in consideration of their mutual c venants and agreements as hereinafter set
forth, the owner for itself and the contra tor for itself, its successors and assigns,
covenants and agrees as follows, to wit:
1. The contractor agrees to furni h all the necessary materials, labor, use of
tools, equipment, and every other thing nec ssary to perform the work designated and
referred to in this contract, including all c ntractor's superintendence and to furnish
everything necessary for the completion of t e improvement which is the subject of this
agreement (except such things as the owner as specifically agreed to provide according
to the contract documents), and agrees to p rform and complete the work shown in the
plans and drawings entitled Specifications for Mowing and Landscape Maintenance,
prepared by the City of Monticello, Minnesota, and dated March 13, 1997, and to conform
in all respects with the provisions and requir ments of the specifications.
2. The contractor agrees that pe ormance shall be in accordance with the
terms, requirements, and conditions of this inst ument, and laws of the state of Minnesota,
and the following documents:
Invitation for Proposals for said s ecifications for mowing and landscape
maintenance for the owner.
CIOFFICEIJOHNIAGREEMTSIMOWLAND.CON. 4/~8/97
~6--1
PAGE 1
Proposal by the contractor presented to t e Council of the owner on April 14, 1997,
and accepted by the owner on April 14, 1997.
Each and all of the aforementioned co tract documents are hereby incorporated
into this agreement by specific reference, and the terms and provisions thereof are and
constitute a part of this agreement as though ttached hereto or fully set forth herein.
3. The owner agrees to pay the contractor for the performance of this
agreement, and the contractor agrees to accept n full compensation therefor the sums set
forth within the aforementioned proposal Qf the contractor for each unit and each type of
unit of work to be performed. It is understoo and agreed that the said proposal is for
mowing and landscape maintenance on a unit price basis in accordance with said
proposal. It is further understood that this con ract is not to be considered all inclusive.
The City reserves the right to supplement mowin ,trimming, or litter pickup operations with
its own forces at any time. Unless canceled ac ording to the specifications, this contract
will remain in effect until October 30, 1997.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and
seals as of the day and year first above written.
.
.
DATE '~QArv-9\.
.
(Corporate Seal)
CIOFFICEIJOHNIAGREEMTSIMOWLANO CON 4/28/97
By
(City Seal)
5~-2-
PAGE 2
,./
.
.
.
~
~
PROPOSA FORM
FOR
1997 MOWING AND LAND CAPE MAINTENANCE
CITY OF MONTICEL 0, MINNESOTA
TO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. The following proposal is made for mo ing and landscape maintenance.
2. The undersigned certifies that the p oject specifications have been carefully
examined and that the work sites ave been personally inspected. The
undersigned declares that the amou t and nature of the work to be done is
understood, and at no time will misunder tanding of the specifications be pleaded.
On the basis of the specifications, t e undersigned proposes to furnish all
necessary apparatus and labor to do all t e work and furnish all the materials in the
manner specified to maintain the sites ithin the time hereinafter specified, and to
accept as full compensation therefor th sums stated below.
3. Base Proposal
I. Site A: Monticello Librarv
1.
Mowing, weeding, and tri ming of weeds and grass to include litter
isposal for a per-time lump sum cost of
2. Litter and debris and disposal separate from mowing
operations for a per-time I mp sum cost of $
pQ
s6
3.
Hedge, bush, and vine tri ming, cost per hour: $
4. Fall complete cleanup of s te to include disposal of all materials for a
per-time lump sum cost 0 $ LtS "''::
II. Site B: Hi-Wav Liquors
1. Mowing, weeding, and tri ming of weeds and grass to include litter
and debris pickup and isposal for a per-time lump sum cost of
$ C
2,
Litter and debris pickup and disposal separate from mowing
<:A)
operations for a per-time I mp sum cost of $ I t")-
3.
Hedge, bush, and vine trimming, cost per hour: $ c;i
C:\OFFICE\JDHNISPECS\MOWLANDSPE: 3114/97
56 -..3
- 3.
.
.
.
4. Fall complete cleanup of sit to include disposal of all materials for a
per-time lump sum cost of Lf 0"'3 .
III.
Site C: Monticello Fire Hall
1. Mowing, weeding, and trim ing of weeds and grass to include litter
and debris pickup and di posal for a per-time lump sum cost of
$ OC-
2. Litter and debris pickup and disposal separate from mowing
operations for a per-time lu p sum cost of $ ,c.')oS!....
3.
Hedge, bush, and vine tri ming, cost per hour: $
y6
4. Fall complete cleanup of sit to include disposal of all materials for a
. I f "'2c::::.~
per-time ump sum cost 0 ~ .......
IV. Site 0: Riverside Cemetery
1. Mowing, weeding, and tri ming of weeds and grass to include litter
and debris pickup and di posal for a per-time lump sum cost of
$ c~
2. Litter and debris picku and disposal separate from mowing
~\owQ..K, operations f r a per-time I mp sum cost of $
\_,.H'~..--,-~h.'>' , . cO ou..f d IS'U'S s,,'\ ~ Sa e.,
Spring complete cleanup 0 site to inclue disposal of all mqterials for \\
a per-time lump sum cost f $ "'\rw", \.~ .. '\C"I*, ~.. ~u It f A 1\ rta-r .~ \ \ '\
c...l G.-A 1"'1 ,.....q:> '. On "'-' ~ ~ ~
Fall complete cleanup of si e to include disposal of all materials for? ,,,,",..J\(((-
per-time lump sum cost of $ ~';2.cx:.,<~" d\r:>?0~ft.\ or.. ..,.:,\-<... / ~uoo
d\'SpO"';.O--\ o~ ".
"5"'\ e. Le.~J\0;:
3.
4.
V.
Additional Services by the Hour
List on the enclosed sheet a des ription of equipment and cost per hour at
site, including fuel and operator and enclose the additional service sheet
with the bid.
4. The Owner reserves the right to awar to the lowest responsible contractor as
determined to be in the best interest of the City.
The undersigned further proposes to ex cute the contract agreement and to furnish
satisfactory certificates of insurance with n five (5) days after notice of the award of
contract has been received. The undersigned further proposes to begin work as
specified, to complete the work on or b fore dates specified.
5.
C\OFFICEIJOHNI$PECSIMOWlAND.SPE 3/14/97
6"6-4-
.4-
.
.
.
6. In submitting this proposal, it is underst Jod that the right is reserved by the Owner
to reject any or all proposals and to We ive informalities.
7.
This proposal may not be withdrawn a ter the opening of the proposals and shall
be subject to acceptance by the Owner f::>r a period of thirty (30) calendar days from
the opening thereof.
8. If a corporation, what is the state of incorporation:
,....--
9. If a partnership, state full names of aliI o-partners:
,..-- .
/"
OFFICIAL ADDRESS:
c..A~'eE K..EE LA-vJ~ "S~RV It... F-
po. 5cx \o~'2
.N\v......'\LCi:::.w....o::. I Ai'-t..j SS 11c2.'~
C:IOFFICEIJDHNISPECSIMQWLAND.SPE: 3/14/97
FIRM NAME:
C-A\~Gc l=KcG L~wr,J "SG:ev'lcG.
By ~~ A-mCL<;:;'
\-<; , 1\ \ =-
..)
Title cJ~\\.) G:.\Z-.
By
Title
Date Ll - ;z. - S '""t
6&-5
.5.
.
.
.
CITY OF M NTICELLO
MOWING AND LANDSCAP MAINTENANCE SERVICE
BASE PROPOSAL. A DITIONAL SERVICE
(To be attac ed to bid)
IV.
Additional Services by the Hour.
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
A. Tractor Mowers:
1. FC\~S
,.., ~On" d-D
L.
3. ~bn",,- D e.. 1-\a-o So
B. Self-Propelled Mowers:
4. T)'~n 9r6\\~~~
5. \ cxcJ Pco I, ~L.--
6.
C. Push Mowers:
7.
J\.I\.TU L11'
8.
D 21'(
9.
D. Brush HOQ Mowers:
10.
11.
E. Trimmers:
12.
5L\'\
L.{ "
-\
HOURLY RATE AT
SITE INCLUDING
OPERATOR & FUEL
'0 DOC
~oco
30..0
~ocP
~o<'"
30<:10
'"So ..~
L.'
I oOcO
3o~
-!
13.
C:\OFFICE\JOHNISPECSIMOWLAND.SPE: 3/14/97
~b~lo
.6.
.
.
.
Carefree Lawn Service
PO Box 1038
Monticello, MN 55362
TO: John Simola
Roger Mack
City Council Members
DATE: February 1, 1998
RE: 1998 City Mowing Contract
I would like to propose at this time a tw
the City of Monticello. Based on thi
expire at the end of the season in 1999 a
increases. For the 1998 and 1999 season
price agreed upon for the 1997 lawn seaso
year contract for lawn service for
recommendation the contract would
d would not be subject to any price
I would perform the services at the..
Over the last three years that I have h ld the city contract my crew and I
have made every effort to perform top ali ty work. I can assure you that
quality is very important to me and I will make every effort to ensure your
satisfaction as well as my own satisfact on in the work performed by my crew
and myself. Not only is the quality of ur work important to me, but I also
pride myself on the fact that I try to minimize price increases unless
absolutely necessary. Over the last thre years I have performed the services
at what I would consider a fair price, wi hout any added price increases.
I would greatly appreciate your considera ion in this matter. should you have
any questions, please contact me at 263-8 66.
Sincerely,
James W.
Owner
~6-?
~~
.
5C.
.
.
CouncilAgenda-2/9/98
Church. (J.O.)
Some time ago St. Henry's Church pre ented a request to eliminate the
Fallon Avenue overpass. The request as due to the impairment of the view
of the church from the freeway caused y the bridge abutment. As you may
know, the Fallon Avenue bridge has b en in the Comprehensive Plan for
many years and is an integral part of t e long term transportation plan for
the city. Church officials were aware fthe bridge plans prior to purchase of
the site. Additionally, prior to the req est, city staff had been working with
the church officials to establish a desi that would be acceptable.
The Planning Commission reviewed t e item at a Public Hearing with
representatives from the Church on N vember 5, 1997 and tabled the item
pending additional research on develo ment of a an acceptable bridge design.
It became clear early in the discussion that the Planning Commission would
not support elimination of the bridge, ut was very interested in developing a
design that would work well with the hurch Plans. St. Henry's church
requested that the item be continued hrough the next two regular Planning
Commission meeting to allow more ti e for the Church Architect and the
City Engineer to study bridge design ternatives.
As a result of the additional study, th re appears to be a bridge design and
alignment that may be satisfactory to the church and will meet the design
requirements set forth by the city en neer. This design angles the bridge
slightly and will likely result in the r location of the existing small city park
located at the corner of 7th street and Washington. According to Bret Weiss,
the cost of construction of the new de ign will not vary greatly from the
original plan.
Please note that a few days before th February meeting of the Planning
Commission, I received a call from Jo Olson of St Henry's church
requesting that the request be withd awn. Due to the fact that this request
did not come in writing, the Planning Commission acted on the matter by
denying the request based on the fin ing that the bridge is a necessary part
of the transportation plan for the cit and therefore must be retained in the
plan.
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
CounciIAgenda-2/9/98
Motion to accept the recomme dation of the Planning Commission to
deny the request based on the finding that the bridge is a necessary
part of the transportation pIa for the City and therefore must be
retained in the plan.
If after additional study and ti e, the church finds the bridge
unacceptable, a new request Ii r an amendment to the plan couId be
requested.
2.
Motion to approve the request based on the finding that the bridge is
not a necessary component of he city transportation plan.
3.
Motion to accept the withdraw I and take no action on the initial
request.
It could be argued that the req est was withdrawn verbally prior the
planning Commission meeting therefore the item should not have been
acted on by the Planning Com . ssion. Selection of this alternative
leaves the door open to a futur request by the church in the event the
preliminary bridge design doe not satisfy the needs of the church site.
.
The City Administrator and the Plan 'ng Commission recommend
alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Planning Commission previo s agenda item and minutes; Copy of
correspondence from City Engineer 0 1/20/98,
.
'J _
{~
.
.
.
lanning Commission Minutes - 11/5/97
Bob Gruber, Scenic Signs, stated ther were many signs that came down
during the storm and were allowed to be reconstructed except this one.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, noted that the other signs had received
variances previously whereas the Am riclnn sign had not.
Grittman replied that the design of is sign is being changed from the sign
that was destroyed so the application is processed as a new request.
Tom Knopik, regional manger for Pe kins, stated he is not opposed to the
variance as long as Perkins is grante a variance also because the new sign
for Americlnn will block the Perkins ign. He stated Perkins has lost about
24% of their business since the sign as been down because a large majority
of their business depends on freeway traffic.
Dick Frie closed public hearing
Dick Frie inquired where the city w s in the permit process with Perkins.
Fred Patch, Building Official, stated he has been working with Perkins and
their sign would not need a variance.
After discussion on how the allowed sign height was calculated (according to
the elevation of the 1-94 freeway r p on Highway 25) it was decided
Americlnn would not need a varian e.
ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTIO TO DENY, SECONDED BY DICK
MARTIE, THE APPLICATION FO A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY
MAXIMUM 32 FOOT HEIGHT RE UIREMENT APPLIED TO PYLON
SIGNS WHICH ABUT FREEWAYS BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT A
VARIANCE IS NOT NEEDED.
6.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, repo ted the Church of St. Henry has applied
to the City for a change in the com rehensive Plan and Transportation Plan.
The proposed change would elimin te the 1-94 overpass at Fallon Avenue,
either removing it from the City's pans or relocating it to another location.
The overpass is planned to cross 1- 4, intersecting with the proposed
Pa e 2
~,I
@
.
.
<,
.
lanning Commission Minutes - 11/5/97
extension of 7th Street adjacent to th Church's property. The Churchhas
apparent concern with the visual imp ct of the overpass, as well as the slopes
from the overpass intersection with 7 h Street on their property. The Fallon
Avenue overpass was designed to se e a number of transportation functions
within the community. Seventh Stre t is an important connection through
this area, allowing the development 0 industrial land east of the Church
property and a parallel route for tra c currently using Broadway (CSAR
75). The City's Transportation plan l"sts the Fallon Avenue overpass as its
top ranked project in the 2000-2110 t e period.
John Simola, Public Works Director, tated he was one of the first contacts
for St. Henry's. At that time many 0 tions were reviewed and found to be
impracticable. The current site was und to be the best option.
Bret Weiss, City Engineer, added the current plan has been in the works
since 1989. The City met with the S Henry's building committee in
February and the bridge was discuss d. The minutes from the meeting were
written and distributed by St. Hen s architect confirming this issue.
Chairman Frie opened the public he 'ng.
Steve Conroy, member of St. Henry's, gave a brief history of the growth in
the church that led to purchasing th land. Conroy stated the nature of the
area has changed and it should be 10 ked at again, There would be about 1/3
of the land owned by the church tha would be unusable.
Pat McGuire, architect for St. Henr s, showed examples of alternative
designs for the bridge crossing and c nnecting streets.
Weiss explained that the bridge was detrimental to the 7th Street crossing
design. Weiss added if the engineer for St. Henry's have found something
that was missed we would be willin to meet and discuss any new ideas
however, any changes would requir MNDOT approval.
O'N eill added one of the major func . ons of 7th Street is to route a portion of
the traffic off of Broadway, traffic fr m East 39 will be routed on 7th Street to
Highway 25 instead of the current roadway or County Road 75. This is an
important part of the MCP plan.
Father Maus, priest for St, Henry's, the church has about 1400 families, 1100
children in religious programs, and owing each year by 80 to 100 families.
~ C .... ,.,
ci)
.
.
lanning Commission Minutes - 11/5/97
St. Henry's is going to be a large port' on of the city for a long time. The
church does many good things in the ommunity.
7.
.
Chairman Frie closed the public he
Richard Carlson stated the City does eed to work with the church but the
bridge has been on the books for a 10 g time. I do not have any specific on
the elevations.
J on Bogart replied the Fallon Overp ss has been in the Transpiration Plan
for a long time. He wanted the item abled to allow staff and St. Henry's to
meet and discuss the options in more detail.
Dick Frie asked the applicant if the 1 nd was purchased on contingency and
if the church knew of the overpass.
Conroy answered that the land was ot purchased on contingency and the
church did know about the bridge b t did not anticipate the amount of
impact to the property.
JON BOGART MADE A MOTION T TABLE, SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON, THE CONSIDERATIO OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATIO PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR REMOVAL OR RELOC TION OF THE FALLON A VENUE/I-94
OVERPASS PROJECT FOR THE F LLOWING REASONS: FffiST-TO
ALLOW THE CHURCH AND CITY STAFF TIME TO WORK OUT THE
DIFFERENCES; SECONDED-REV EW THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 7TH
STREET CONNECTION IN REG DS TO BROADWAY; THffiD-REVIEW
THE EFFECTS OF THE 118 INTE CHANGE. Motion passed Wlanimously.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, repo ed the City Council has recently
approved the adoption of the MCP, onticello Community Partners, Plan as
an amendment to the City's Compr hensive Plan. This report provides a
conceptual outline of a proposed zo 'ng district which would be designed to
implement the MCP Plan. In addi . on, we have developed ordinance text
language for a new zoning district. Rather than attempt to adjust one of the
City's current zoning districts, we ould propose to create a new district
~6'~
ci--)
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97
6.
Applicant:
The Church of St. Henry has applied to the City for a change in the
Comprehensive Plan and Transporta ion Plan. The proposed change would
eliminate the 1-94 overpass at Fallon Avenue, either removing it from the
City's plans or relocating it to anothe location. The overpass is planned to
crosS 1-94, intersecting with the prop sed extension of 7th Street adjacent to
the Church's property. The Church as apparent concern with the visual
impact of the overpass, as well as th slopes from the overpass intersection
with 7th Street on their property.
The Fallon Avenue overpass was des'gned to serve a number of
transportation functions within the ommunity. It connects traffic along the
planned 7th Street route with the gr wth area south of the Interstate. This
area includes the Industrial Park, t e new school campus, and the significant
levels of residential growth along Sc 001 Boulevard on either side of Fallon.
Currently, the primary access for m ch of this area is via TH 25, requiring a
high degree of local and regional tra c mixing. The current alternative is
County Road 118, which puts traffic several blocks east of the activity
centers, particularly the downtown rea.
Seventh Street is an important con ection through this area, allowing the
development of industrial land east f the Church property and a parallel
route for traffic currently using Bro dway CCSAR 75). Seventh Street and
Fallon connect with Washington, w ich provides access to Broadway near the
current high school and hospital sit s, as well as the downtown commercial
area just a few blocks to the west. onvenient access to the downtown is a
major objective of the recently-adop ed downtown revitalization plan.
The City's Transportation Plan lists the Fallon Avenue overpass as its top
ranked project in the 2000-2010 ti e period. Its benefits include
improvements both to local circulat' on and to reduced congestion on the state
trunk highway system. The City's omprehensive Plan adopts the
Transportation Plan recommendati ns by reference and has developed a land
use plan with consideration of the t ansportation system's long-term
development. The significant amo t of residential development flanking
the Fallon/School Boulevard inters ction area will be dependent upon the
overpass to provide convenient acc ss to the hospital and the downtown area.
5
sc;+
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97
.
Alternative locations for the overpass are either not available or not suitable.
Moving the overpass to the east woul defeat the benefit of the Fallon
alignment by placing it too close to th existing 118 overpass (soon to be
interchange). A more easterly locatio would also reduce the access to
Washington via the 7th Street conne ion. It would cause connection
problems on the south side of the free ay as well. A more westerly relocation
would not be practical due to the lack of connection to any north/south street
south of the freeway. The poor conne tions for either relocation would
substantially inhibit the traffic bene t of the overpass.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the applicat on for amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Tran portation Plan by deleting references to
an overpass of 1-94 at Fallon enue, based upon the finding that the
project is not necessary to achi ve the objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and that the pedestrian and vehicular
circulation functions of the pr posed overpass can be more effectively
accomplished through alterna ive projects.
2.
Motion to deny the applicatio for amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Tr sportation Plan by deleting references to
an overpass of 1-94 at Fallon venue, based upon the finding that the
amendment would interfere th the ability of the City's
transportation system to han e and distribute both pedestrian and
vehicular traffic, and that the land use pattern south of the freeway
has developed in anticipatioin of the proposed Fallon Avenue overpass.
.
Staff recommends denial of the requ sted amendments. As noted in the body
of this report, the Fallon Avenue ov rpass has been a key component of the
City's transportation planning, both in terms of distributing local traffic,
providing pedestrian access, and m naging impacts on Trunk Highway 25.
Moreover, the high levels of develop ent south of the interstate have been
accommodated with the understand ng that additional connection to the
City's primary service areas (hospit 1, downtown, etc.) will be enhanced
through the Fallon Avenue project. Removing this project from the
transportation network would comp omise all of these objectives.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - Transportation Plan 1m rovement Projects - Table 6
Exhibit B - Area Map
Exhibit C - Relevant Comprehensiv Plan Text
Memo from City Engineer
7th Street Extension Alternates 1, ,and 3
~;(
.
.
j/
'j
::/
TABLE 6
MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION STUDY
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
TOTAL ESTIMATED
RANK FACILITY SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COST
1994 2000 l
I
1 CSAH 75 Hart Blvd. to CR 39/CR 118 Reconstruct to 4 lanes $ 1.000.000.00 (1)
2 CSAH 75 Hart Blvd. to Existing Front. Rd. New 2 lane Roadway $ 300.000.00 (2)
No. Front. Rd.
3 CR 118 ' 1-94 Interchange Add Westbound On-Ramp and $ 400.000.00 (3)
Eastbound Off-Ramp
4 TH 25 Oakwood Dr. to CSAH 75 Traffic Signal Improvements and $ 100.000.00 (4)
Timing
5 CR 118 CSAH 75 to School Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes $ 1.000.00.00 (1)
2001 -2010
Ij€
6 Fallon Ave Chelsea Blvd to 7th Street I -94 Overpass .. $1.000,000.00
7 TH 25 School Blvd to Oakwood Dr Widen to 4 lanes with Turn lanes Sl.500.000.00
8 CSAH 75 CSAH 39 to 1-94 Westbound Widen to 4 lanes S700,000.00
Off.Ramp
9 CSAH 75 1.94 Westbound Off.Ramp Traffic Signal S100,000.00
10 CSAH 75 Washington Street Traffic Signal Sl00.000.00
11 CSAH 39 Elm Strret Traffic Signal $100.000.00
12 TH 25 School Blvd , Traffic Signal S100,000,00
13 CSAH 39 7th Street Traffic Signal S100.000,Oc
14 CSAH 39 CSAH 75 Traffic Signal S100,000.OC
15 Cedar street Dundas Rd. to School Blvd. New 2 lane roadway S500.000.0C
(1). City would pay Storm Sewer and Curb and Gu t er Costs only.
(2) - City would pay Total Cost.
(3). City would pay 20% plus Engineering Costs ani) .
(4) - Mn/DOT may pay Total Cost. -- 5~~
. ..
OSM Project No. 5105.00 Page 44
EXHIE I TA - TRANSPORTATION STUD'~
, .
n_. -
.
I ..~~'/
A"
'/
. ----~
L, _ ~;
I
/
I'/,
I :-
I~ [,
'II "I
I
7< !
'E":- .
--/---
i
i
I
I
I
I ,_
---T
'--
-7
.~.~
EXHIBIT B
...
AREA MAP
j
.J
J
.J
-J
J
.
-]
1
1
-1
.
J
-1
Community Facilities
J
Monticello's Community Facilities include a wide
array of physical public services, such as streets,
sanitary sewer, water, storm water control, fire
response, administrative buildings, senior
services, and parks and recreations. This range
of services and associated facilities has been made
a regular part of the City's review and planning,
particularly through capital facilities planning and
budgeting on the part of the City Council an
Staff. Over the last few years, a significant
amount of effort has been directed toward
t~ansportation planning, sanitary sewer, water,
and storm water control planning, and a major
effort is currently imderway to plan for the
upgrade and expansion of the City's sanitary
sewer treatment facilities.
J
]
Apart from the areas which have been, or are
being currently studied, the area of primary
comment during the initial Tactics interviews
concerned parks and recreation planning. The
engineering studies regarding the other topics are
adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan by
reference, combined with the issues and
comments made in this document.
Existing Park System
1
The City of Monticello provides as number of
recreational facilities within the City limits in
addition to facilities located on School District
property. Also available to the City's residents is
the Montissippi County Park (within Monticello
corporate boundaries), operated by Wright
County. The State of Minnesota operates Lake
Maria State Park, just west of Monticello and
Sand Dunes State Forest to the north in Sherburne
County. Other regional parks and open space
areas near Monticello include Sherburne National
Wildlife Refuge, and two Hennepin County
1
Monticello Comprehensive Plall
DI!\'t!/opl/lellt Frmlli!work
EXHIBIT C -
Di!velopl/le/JI Framework Page 25
regional parks, Crow-Hassan Park Reserve and
Lake Rebecca Park Reserve. These facilities
provide a wide range of recreational opportunities
and environments.
The current Monticello parks system has
benefitted by the City's subdivision ordinance
requirements for park land dedication or fee
payments in lieu of dedication. Further
dedication will be necessary as the community
grows through continued dedication and
monitoring of recreation needs for new
subdivisions.
t. The City has a sufficient amount of neighborhood
parks in areas of recent development due the land
dedication requirements. However, there is a
general lack of neighborhood parks in the older
developed portion of the community. This issue
will become more important if these areas provide
some of the family housing in the community,
due to the need for close proximity of park areas
for young children. From a policy standpoint,
access to possible neighborhood park sites fonn
these areas of fewer parks will be an important
focus of the City's pathway development
planning.
Bridge Park
As noted in the Inventory and Policy Plan, Bridge
Park is a strong focal point within the City and
important to its neighborhood as well. The park
represents the City's entry at the Mississippi
-River, and is near the major intersection of
Highway 25 and Broadway Street, the center of
the downtown area. In addition, Bridge Park
offers an accessible connection to the river - an
amenity that very few cities can match. In its
.. !t...1
OMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT
.
.
.
A
WSB
350 Westwood L ke Office
8441 Wayzata oulevard
Minneapolis. N 55426
B.A. Minelsreadr, P.E.
Brer A. Weiss, P.E.
Peter R. Willenbring, P.E.
Donald W. Sterna, P.E.
Ronald B. Bray, P.E.
& Associates, Inc.
612-541- 800
FAX 541- 700
Memorandum
To:
leffO'Neill, Assistant City Admin straMr
City of Monticello /?
Bret Weiss, Monticello City Engin er ' 0~
Charles Rickart, Transportation ngine'!r
From:
Date:
October 30,1997
Re:
Fallon Avenue Overpass
WSB Project No.1 01 0.44
In an effort to respond to the request of St. Henry's Chmch to eliminate the proposed Fallon
Avenue overpass, we have prepared some visual aterials, as well as provided the traffic
analysis contained herein: The visual materials at are attached show the three alternatives that
were considered for the overpass at this location. John Simola looked at other locations east of
Fallon Avenue, however, not only was the traffic irculation less desirable, the impact to the
property on the north side ofI-94 was also greate . Therefore, in February, 1997 we presented
Alternative 2 to the church as to what had been 0 . ginall:r considered for the overpass and 7th
Street. This option cut into their site significant! and sc they asked us to study other options.
Alternatives 1 and 3 were then explored, and Alt rnative 1 was proposed to the church. We
decided, from an engineering standpoint, that Alt rnative 3 could not be effective and negatively
impacted the church site. All of these alternative resulted in reduced visibility for the church,
but it was our understanding from our meeting 0 Mard: 4, 1997 with the church, that
Alternative 1 could be viable. Recently, the ch h stated that not only was Alternative 1 not
viable, no overpass would be viable from their st dpoiI:t. The following discussion will explain
from a traffic analysis standpoint why this overp s is necessary.
The City of Monticello developed a transportatio plan in. 1994 which addressed the
transportation needs of the City through the year 2015. The Fallon Avenue overpass was
identified as an integral part of the future transpo ation ::ystem in the City.
The study included numerous alternatives for sy tern improvements. In each transportation
system alternative (option) studied as part of the ansportation plan, the Fallon overpass
provided traffic relief to TH 25 and CR 118. Th purpme of this memorandum is to expand the
analysis conducted as part of the transportation Ian and to discuss the impacts of the proposed
overpass with respect to the overall transportatio system.
Infrastructure En 'neers Planners
EQUAl. OPPORTU lTY EMPLOYER
sc/l
F:\WP WfNl/ Of O.44\fOJ097.bw
~..
~
.
.
.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator
City of Monticello
October 30, 1997
Page 2
A traffic analysis was conducted as part of the City's Tnnsportation Plan for the entire
Monticello area. This analysis included developm nt of projected traffic volumes based on
proposed future land use in the City and surroundi g arelS. It also identified roadway
deficiencies which lead to the development of prop sed 'ransportation system improvements
outlined in the transportation plan.
The transportation plan projected a City populatio in th~ year 2015 of 13,300. This assumed an
additional 1030 single-family homes, 490 multi-f: ily (nits, and a 2000-student high school.
Three specific improvement options were analyze as part ofthe transportation plan. They were:
1. Development of the CR 118/1-94 Interch
2. CSAR 75, Hart Boulevard to C8AR 39, wi enin~ to four lanes
3. TH 25, south ofI-94, widening to four Ian
In all three of these improvement options, roadwa deficiencies were identified on CR 118 and
TH 25. Possible mitigation measures for dealing ith these deficiencies listed for all options
included the completion of the Fallon Avenue ove ass.
For the purposes of this study, a fourth improvem t option was developed and analyzed which
assumed that all improvement options 1,2, and 3, ere (:ompleted. This option analyzed the
transportation system with and without the Fallon vemle overpass. The results of that analysis
are as follows:
Without Fallon Avenue Overpass
1. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume nTH 25 at 1-94, in the year 2015, is projected
to range from 17,500 vehicles per day (vpd soutl ofI-94 to 28,500 vpd north ofI-94.
2. The ADT volume on CR 118 at 1-94, in th year W15, is projected to be 13,400 vpd.
With Fallon Avenue Overpass
1. The ADT volume on TH 25 at 1-94, in the ear 2')15, is projected to range from 16,000
vpd south ofI-94 to 27,000 vpd north ofI- 4.
The ADT volume on CR 118 at 1-94, in th year 1015, is projected to be 9,500 vpd. 5C' ~O
2.
F:IWPWlMIO/O.44\/OJ097.bw
.....
.
.
.
Jeff 0 'Neill, Assistant City Administrator
City of Monticello
October 30, 1997
Page 3
3. The ADT volume on the Fallon Avenue 0 erpas~ at 1-94, in the year 2015, is projected to
be 5,800 vpd.
Conclusions
Based on the traffic analysis conducted, the folIo ing ccnclusions can be made:
1.
TH 25 is a regional Trunk Highway servo g the area between TH 55 and TH 10. TH 25
is planned for reconstruction in 1998 usin Fedetal ISTEA Funding from 1-94 south to
Kjellberg's Park. The improvement will ot impact 1-94 north on TH 25. As traffic
increases on this segment, additional imp ovements will need to be considered for TH 25
north ofI-94.
The addition of the Fallon Avenue overp s wou d provide some relief to TH 25,
specifically, in that some of the local trips will b(: removed from the regional traffic on
TH 25. Mn/DOT, during the review ofth City':; Transportation Plan, did react that they
were in favor of the Fallon Avenue overp s as a relief to their trunk highway system.
2.
CR 118 is a county road that currently te inate~ at CSAH 39 north ofI-94. Currently
no direct access exists to 1-94 from the 0 erpass. However, an interchange with access
to 1-94 is being considered for this locatio . The traffic on CR 118 over the next 15 to
20 years will increase 200% - 300%. Thi will h~ the primary north-south route from the
development south ofI-94 to areas north fI-94. With this increase in traffic, potential
major renovations of the CR 118 bridge ill be r'~quired. By providing the Fallon
Avenue overpass, this volume will be si . ficant -y reduced by providing for the local trip
destined to or from downtown Monticell . Thislccess will also provide for commercial
and school traffic between north and sou Monticello.
3.
By providing the Fallon Avenue overpass an addltional connection between north and
south Monticello can be computed. With the ext'~nsion of 7th Street to CSAH 75 and the
future extension of Chelsea Road to TH 25, this connection will be a vital part of the
transportation system within the City Ii 'ng the two "frontage roads" ofI-94.
The MCP plan identified minimizing the ck traffic on CSAH 75. This overpass, in
conjunction with the proposed 7th Street c nnecti:m to CSAH 75, will provide for a direct
link to the City Industrial Park.
4.
~ c....., l
F: IWPWlNl /O/O.44\/OJ097.bw
....
.
.
.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator
City of Monticello
October 30,1997
Page 4
Recommendations
Based on the analysis of traffic data and the concI sions stated above, it is our recommendation
that the Fallon Avenue overpass be developed to p ovidf relief to TH 25 and CR 118, as well as
providing for local access between north and sou Monticello.
lv/nm
~e"'\~
F:\WPWTMJ OJ 0.44\1 OJ097.bw
~.
~
.
I
I
/
/
7th Street Extension - Alternate Number 1
"'"
%
~
~
~
<&
\-.
\
\ \ :
'\ .
. \
.--
,.po ~....."'----
/'
-~:\ r-\
'.. -', .//1 ,_~._/ \
/>G:~s:.,.\l:,~..' J i >//,~~---~-=
- ,"".._,,.,_..,,,.__., , \ I /' j \_
// : /y;f 'i >r----\;C-~/~<q/~'?\ /- \:, -
\ __._ .-' \-v' .,---. c;\' . '; I \' . ,.
, } /:<?<_-=-~:~-l--<~' '\ ': - '\ :\( \- <\ ' , '
:~~~~\-:~-.?\:~ c~ \\\'\.'- \1\\\'>/0'.> ,:1./1
... ~~ . \\' \ ~ ! !~ ,,,"/ /. / i
~~;~c,< j! iiP/~;
, . S~) ~~~--:~-=j) /, /.~iU%:~;i-:-:= / -~--
..
_~._.~_~___~~_____&_______~___~~__._r_ ~~_~~_______
j
\
I ~-----~~:~- :-=-'-.':'=~~~~~i:~~T~~~-=:,;:..~'",-
Ie =~~f~~f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
!
I
\ ~-~/-
//- \ ",
\ \
\ \
4,P'It. \
'.--., X EDGE OF SLOPE "
\ COULD SUBSIJruTE
, ,A RETAINING WALL
\ '/ I
'" ~".i.~
: "\ ~ ~
I / -
, ,
/'( \ ~
~:~.~~-.~~~~~.~~~
- ._ .u"".:."., ".~,,-'''-
~~~:J;:;.~~~.ii~~~~~~;Ef:-5-.N-'~-'~:'_'"
*
._.~:=---=== i ~ 1- [--_.~.
"\~il I ')
~I I
]j 'h
i' 'I
'~I , I
-'-,>, ---- -------- --, i Iii
-- --- - ~ w-
.- ---::_-::.--i-:-~:-":'~~~lsea
',","~'-
-~---------~--~.---::-=~:~~-_.
~//
ADVANTAGES
1 MORE USABLE AREA.
2 PROPOSED CHURCH PARKING LOT
AND DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS
REMAIN MOSTLY UNCHANGED.
3 LESS DISRUPTION OF PROPERTY.
4 LESS EXPENSIVE BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION COST.
5 LESS TREE REMOVAL REQUIRED.
DISADVANTAGES
LESS CHURCH VISIBILITY
FROM EAST BOUND I 94.
2 MORE FILL REQUIRED TO RAISE
7th STREET,
3 5% SLOPES ON 7th STREET ON
EACH SIDE OF FALLON AVE..
<;c~
ad
MONTICELLO
CITY OF MONTlCELW
2'10 E>stllmodway
P.O. Box 1141
Ioalieollo, Mo- 1136l
City of Montie 110, Minnesota
.... ...-...~
WSB '===
~ O12-64t-4llOll
........-.-,IIC F'N."'-ll"l;lJ
IWRAlltAlA:tuRE . ~ . jIIUHHf'"
.
5C~~
.
/
//
-.-- ._-,. --- "--,,,.,,,._-,--,,,~,,-_.....------'-._-'-"-----""'--'--_.
7th Street Extension - Alternate Number 2
\-\"
" I
, \ I.
\
" - ~\
.__--. '\-T-'~'-
).....
/
f
"
/-r..
I
'I
/ j-
~~~~ri~~~~~i~~;~~~.
~si~a~#afl-~---~-~-
_~~:~~i~=~~~~~~f~~~;~;~::;~-:;~~:'~~~ ____.-
"-"--;-:3--"-"-"' 'j!l \ \--_.
\!\ i
II i
1 \ 'j"
~\' 1,1
1'1I !
/11. . I
-~JWJ U-----
-.-",:'~:::-i:::"=-.::-.: Che aRoad
,/'/
ADVANTAGES
1 FLATTER STREET GRADES ON 7th STREET.
2 LESS Fill REQUIRED FOR OVERPASS,
3 SUGHTL Y LOWER SHORT TERM COST,
4 MINIMizes SEPARA-re UTILITY EASEMENT
FOR U1lLlTY EXTENTlONS,
DISADVANTAGES
DISPLACES A PORTION OF
PROPOSED CHURCH PARKING LOT
AND PROPOSED FUTURE EXPANTION.
LESS USABLE LAND.
2 ACQUIRE MORE STREET RNV ON
INPLACE 7th STREET.
3 MORE TREE REMOVAL REQUIRED.
4 MORE NUISANCE CURVES IN 7th STREET
REDUCES THE EASE OF TRAVEL BY
TRUCK TRAFFIC.
*
MONTICELLO
CITY OF MONTICELLO
ZlOEootOn>Odwly
P.O. Box 1147
'Dioello.~ ll362
City of Monti ello, Minnesota
.. .....:~"::':
w..<:B -...."""
~ ~~t-4llllll
.~k 'Jllf.1IiI1-IffiI
~ - DIOIHW't - ~
-.---- .-. .-. -~ --,- .-,.--
-.-. -.,-. ."--- ---. -- .-- .-....---. --", .--..
.
"c~ ,~
.
I
:/.
7th Street Extension
Alternate Number 3
_._l-.
. ,
.\
i.... )......
.J------,.
r'--'
/
j
\
I \ t- -
, '\\--' --\\
\
-\
\
/1
f
I
/
" I \ )
, \' (
\, c.,. ( I
- --'=--=---=--::'===-'''-~I-- - -- - -
~_~._7~_~__r__~~_.___._ -~--~---
J-__
~ ----==-=~=~-=:~=..::.,=.;=~=..,:..-
~-- ~~~=~-_=c
--_._.~----~~=.~---_.-
I
I
I
------.---.-. '..,----
-:Z~~~=_~2~~;C"~i.~2t~~~~~~s.~~~~~(~~'.?:~~;i;;~t~~~-~~~~~;
~ _ ___ _ r_~~-_=.:=_:=: _ _ _ _ _ __~. ~ _ _. ~~~-~=__~.=_..~.,~.=_=_=_=_-_=_==~~-'~__::;:_:,,~,::'~~. - - ~ w ~ - ~ - ~
O='"E-"=====- . _===_~--~~ ~~:tl_~_~.~:--t_~~.~_E.~=-.-~_!-.-.--_-.~--.~_~.-_._- ~_l..~.:~_~_~_~_~.~.:.\'.'_~.~..~_.~_~.:~~.~.~.-~_:~--.~.'..~_-...~.~.'.'~..~.=_.f.~.-'..~..:.~'.~_-._..'-t-~~_~.,_~.~
:,'.'.,-.~._..-_..~.-:._~.~...-~-.-~-~'-~.--~_'~_".'~.-_'~_~_:_:-'.~_'~.~,-.~.c--.;._~.if_~~._.~-~.~_".~_.~.:.~.o:~.~:.~.~.__:.-.-.~.=.-;_-' -. ._~ -.~-_.'.
~:~~~~~~~~~:'/.i~~,~.:::.~ _ _'=."..:- --= ,.' ~~_.'-""- ,'~- - - _ '__ _ _ _. . ,
,I
..,.',/
453.7'1l.
ADVANTAGES
1 BETTER V1SIBIUTY FROM
EAST BOUND I 94.
2 LESS FILL REQUIRED FOR OVERPASS.
3 POSSIBLE BUILDING SITE EAST OF
OVERPASS AND EAST OF 7111 STREET.
DISADVANTAGES
1 THE GRADE FROM FALLON AVE (SOUTH)
TO INPLACE 7111 STREET GREATER THAN
5%. WOULD HAVE TO RAISE INPLACE 7th
STREET TO WEST OF FALLON AVE (NORTH)
TO GET 5% GRADE.
2 HORIZONTAL CURVE OFF BRIDGE TO SOUTH.
3 DISPLACE A PORTION OF PROPOSED
CHURCH PARKING LOT AND PROPOSED
FUTURE EXPANTION.
4 LESS USABLE LAND.
S ACQUIRE MORE STREET RNV ON 7111 STREET.
S HIGHER BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION COST DUE TO
7 ADDITIONAL LENGTH.
8 MORE TREE REMOVAL.
9 NUISANCE CURVES IN 7th STREET - REDUCES
THE EASE OF TRAVEL BY TRUCK TRAFFIC.
fir
MONTICELW
000
CITY OF MONTlCELW
2SO EaIl Bmodway
P.O. Bodl47
>Ioolioollo. Miooooola ll362
City of Monti ello, Minnesota
. "t.."=..'==
WSB "-"."""
..iiiiiiiiiiiii 'l:1>l:1111-1it11l
....a-.h:. FA.V:"',.,.1l;1;1
~AI:. . ENOIIEQUI . P\..ANNUI.S
.
fC...\ (
.
.
.
..
WSB
350 Westwood ake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, N 55426
B.A. Mittelsteadt, P.E.
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Peter R. Willenbring, P.E.
Donald W. Sterna, P.E.
Ronald B. Bray, P.E.
612-541- 800
FAX 541 1700
& Associates, Inc.
January 20, 1998
Mr. Jon Olson
St. Henry's Church
501 4th Street West
Monticello MN 55362
Re: Fallon Avenue Overpass / 7th Street
WSB Project No. 1010.44
Dear Mr. Olson:
Attached please find a copy of a letter received fr m MnlDOT District 3 regarding the underpass
option for the Fallon Avenue extension. As we dis us sed previously, while MnlDOT has not stated
a great concern for the underpass consideration the br' dge construction costs and resulting storm sewer
extension all the way to the river make this option nfeasible from the City's perspective. During a
meeting in December you requested that we explore a Fallon Avenue overpass along the north-south
extension of Washington Street. This option has be n explored previously by City Staff. We came to
a similar conclusion to City Staff that, due to the we 1 field location adjacent to Chelsea Road, where
the intersection of Fallon Avenue would need to be placed, this option cannot be constructed.
We are, therefore, moving forward with a layout of n at-grade 7th Street with a slightly angled Fallon
Avenue overpass as was previously provided to yo . We need to research removal of the park that
would be impacted by this new alignment along with speak to the affected property owners. Following
resolution of this alignment the Feasibility Report fi r 7th Street can be finished.
Please provide us with as much information as you c n regarding your design drawings for the church
and plans for the proposed senior housing facility. hat information would be extremely helpful to us
as we finish the 7th Street Feasibility Report.
Please give me a call if you have any questions or omments regarding this letter at 541-4800.
Sincerely,
~iCJ:C
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
City Engineer
c:
John Simola, City of Monticello
Jeff 0 'Neill, City of Monticello
Sc,-I b
Iv
Infrastructure En 'neers Planners
EQUAL OPPORTU ITY EMPLOYER
F: IWPW1M/010. UIf)/ Z098ft>
.
se.., 1
..
.
.
.
.
.
t~
Minnesota Department of Transportation
District 3
3725 12th 81. N.
PO. Box 370
81. Cloud, MN 56302
December 10, 1997
?tcC.::N\;.V
Ute ? ,QQl
Mr. Bret A Weiss, ~.E.
WSB and Associates
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
~-r'!~
.... r> r.\~., t",-,
l'\ ; c",U\) ,
,r,r.t.'l, n. t'''~'-<.
\r.;~ ...~~\ '~..l ...
Re: 1-94, C.S. 8680
Fallon Avenue Overpass, WSB Project No 1010.44
Dear Mr. Weiss:
Tel: 612/255-4181
Fax: 612/255-3257
Toll Free: 1/800/657-3961
District three of the Minnesota Department of Tram~ ortation (MnlDOT) has reviewed your
November 12th letter in which you requested MnID T input on the feasibility of a Washington
Street underpass ofI-94. District three has several c ncems regarding the construction of an
underpass at Washington Street.
The first concern is the long term cost for MnlDOT f maintaining additional bridges. Although it is
MnlDOT's understanding that the proposed underp s would be constructed and funded by the city,
the long term costs associated with the bridge main nance would be the responsibility ofMn/DOT
since the bridge would become part of the interstate system.
The second concern is the disruption to traffic on 1- 4 if an underpass were to be constructed.
Construction of an underpass would require much ore disruption to the traffic on 1-94 than would
an overpass. Due to the high traffic volumes on 1-9 , especially during the summer recreational
season, it is unlikely that the number ofI-94 lanes p sing through the construction zone could be
reduced for an extended period of time. Therefore, safe design for construction zone traffic would
have to be developed. The anticipated construction zone impacts associated with building an
overpass are anticipated to be minimal, since no rec nstruction ofl-94 would be anticipated.
The third concern would be with regard to drainage Construction of an underpass could have
significant impact on the grades in the area and thus affect the storm water drainage.
Please consider these concerns as you decide wheth r or not to proceed into a feasibility study for a
Washington Street underpass. If you have any ques ions please call.
Sincerely,
/(~
Terrence 1. H mbert
Planning Eng" neer
cc:
1.T. Povich
D.A Solsrud
RM. Idzorek
An equal opportunity employer
~e" I
.
.
.
5D.
Conncil Agenda - 2/9/98
(J.G.)
City Conncil is asked to consider ado ting the attached development
agreement governing connection ofK ellberg West to city services. This
agreement is based on previous actio by City Conncil on a conceptual plan
outlining the terms of the connection In recent months, city staff and
Kjellberg have been working toward evelopment of a specific agreement
that reflects the concepts previously pproved by Council. Kjellberg has
indicated agreement through his si ature on a draft of the agreement.
Please note that the previous Connci action locked in the fees below based
on an agreement being executed by ecember, 1997. It is the view of the
City Attorney that the agreement wa received by I\jellberg prior to this date
and therefore the City would be reas nable to follow the 1997 fee schedule
accordingly. If, however, there are a y delays in obtaining execution of the
development agreement, then Kjellb rg should be subject to the 1998 fee
program.
Highlights of the agreement include:
. Kjellberg provides $225,000 ca h deposit to fund connection fees.
. Kjellberg accepts a $75,000 as essment to fund area trunk fees.
. Kjellberg provides a $30,000+ eposit to guarantee payment of interest
payments on the cost to exten utilities to the site.
. Kjellberg accepts city construe ion of the metering station and utilities
serving the site.
. Kjellberg pays interest expens for a period of 8 years on the city cost
to extend utilities to the site.
. The city installs utilities to th site following a future road alignment.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to accept development greement.
a. Motion should be contin ent on development of an addendum or
second agreement gove ing maintenance of the private
.
CounciIAgenda-2/9/98
metering station. This a eement to mirror the agreement
governing maintenance f the private metering station at the
Kjellberg East Park.
b. Motion also contingent 0 modifications as directed by Council.
John Simola has noted a few modifications that could be made
that do not appear to al r the intent of the agreement but could
serve to clarify the agre ment. During the preparation of this
memo, I am discussing t e items with the City Attorney.
Under this alternative, the dev lopment agreement will be signed at
such time that Kjellberg provi es the city with $225,000. A meeting
with Kjellberg is planned for T esday, February 10, 1998 for the
purpose of executing the agree ent. Under the development
agreement, the developer has 0 days to petition for utilities and
annexation. It is expected tha the petition will be forthcoming.
.
In conjunction with future ana ysis of the sanitary sewer alignment,
city staff may be proposing tha the city property be platted for
development. At a minimum, sketch plan will need to be developed
that shows how the city proper y could be subdivided. This analysis
will be done in conjunction wit ongoing discussion relating to
development of industrial prop rty and will take into account potential
for utilization of the site as a I cation for bulk tanks, Ferrellgas, or
truck depot (Danner, Ritze, Li fert etc).
2.
Motion to deny approval of the development agreement as suggested.
Council should select this alte native if it feels that the agreement
does not reflect Council directi n.
The City Administrator recommends ternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Development Agreement; Co y of meeting minutes from previous
Council action; Copy ofletter from Ri k Wolfsteller to Kent Kjellberg.
.
..
.
.
.
DEVELOPMENT GREEMENT
KJELLBERG WEST MO ILE HOME PARK
this day of
CITY OF MONTICELLO, a
laws of the state of
INC., a Minnesota
Agreement made and entere into
, 1998, by and bet een the
municipal corporation organized nder the
Minnesota (the "City"), and K ELLBERG'S,
corporation (the "Developer").
R E C I TAL S:
WHEREAS, the Developer reque ts the City to extend or allow
extension of sanitary sewer ser ices (the "Project") into the
mobile home park presently consi ting of units known as
Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park (the "Mobile Home Park") and
legally described on Exhibit A at ached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Mobile Home ark is outside the corporate
boundaries of the City and the De eloper wishes to have the Mobile
Home Park annexed into the City; nd
to extend City sanitary sewer
under the terms and conditions
WHEREAS, the City is willin
service into the Mobile Home Par
set forth in this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed:
1. A. The City shall cons ruct a sanitary sewer main from
its present location to a point on the northeast corner of the
Mobile Home Park as indicated on he attached Exhibit B and shall
construct the interconnection bet een the main referred to in this
paragraph and the main referred t in paragraph 1.D.
B. The main shall
selected by the City running thro
land owned by the City (the "Cit
Exhibit C attached hereto.
constructed on an alignment
gh a GO acre parcel of unimproved
Land") and legally described on
C. The City shall construct and install a sewer metering
station on the Mobile Home Park pr perty which, upon completion and
acceptance by the City, become a art of the real property on which
the Mobile Home Park is located nd shall become the property of
the owners of the Mobile Home Par as their interests shall appear.
Prior to opening the connection rom the metering station to the
City sewer, the Developer shall p y the City an amount equal to the
costs incurred by the City in co structing the metering station.
If the Developer fails to pay t ese costs within 30 days after
demand by the City, then the City may withdraw those costs from the
security posted in accordance wi h paragraph G.D.
SD')
').-S'-1'W
.
.
D. The Developer shal install and construct and pay
for all sewer mains and laterals w thin the Mobile Home Park as are
necessary to provide the Mobile Home Park with adequate sewer
service in sufficient time to p ovide for the interconnection
between the main referred to herei and the main to be built by the
City on or before January 1, 19 9. In addition, the Developer
shall, upon the request of the Cit , build the main large enough to
accommodate further expansion out ide the Mobile Home Park. The
City shall pay the Developer an a ount equal to the increase cost
caused by the City's request.
2. A. Subject to the te ms of this Agreement, the City
shall construct the main outside he Mobile Home Park as a public
improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
B. The City may sell onds to finance construction of
the main and the Seller shall p y, as a special assessment, an
amount equal to the interest rate on the bonds plus 1 1/2% per
annum. If the City sells bonds t at cover more than one project,
the Seller shall be required to p y interest on only that portion
of the bond attributable to this roject.
C. The City contempl tes that the City Land will be
subdivided into smaller parcels t at the City will convey to third
parties. Upon subdivision of the ity Land, the City will reassess
for the main, assessing all the principal to the City Land, but the
Developer shall continue to pa interest as provided in this
paragraph 2. Upon conveyance of arcels to third parties, a pro-
rata share of interest and prin ipal shall be assessed against
those parcels, and the obligati n of Developer to pay interest
shall be reduced accordingly. Up n transfer by the City of 50% of
the area of the City Land, the Developer's obligation to pay
interest pursuant to this paragr ph 2.C. shall terminate. In no
event shall the Developer's ob igation to pay interest extend
longer than 8 years.
3. A. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents,
employees, officers and contrac ors an easement and license to
enter upon the Mobile Home Park land to perform all work and/or
inspections the City deems nec ssary or expedient during the
development of the improvement.
B. The Developer shall grant to the City such permanent
utility easements as the City may require to complete and maintain
the improvements. In addition, t e Developer shall pay the cost of
all easements the City acquires utside the Mobile Home Park and
which are reasonably necessary to construction of the improvements.
Such costs shall include, but not be limited to, price of
easements, administrative costs, attorneys' fees, court costs and
engineering fees. In the alter ative, the Developer may acquire
the easements and transfer them 0 the City. Such costs shall be
. assessed against the property in accordance with this Agreement.
~[)-)-
.
.
.
C. Developer shall gran the City such utility easements
on the westerly 1/4 of Mobile Horn Park property as the City may
reasonably require for future ext nsion of the sanitary sewer and
other utilities to the west of t e Mobile Home Park. The City
shall be responsible for the rest ration cost associated with any
utility construction or repair w'thin the easements done by the
City.
4. A. The Developer shal pay an area assessment fee of
$75,000 (based on a 60 acre parcel) and sewer connection fees in
the amount of $225,000. The sewer connection fees shall be paid
into escrow upon execution of this Agreement. On execution of a
contract for construction of the s wer mains, the City may withdraw
funds from the escrow to pay the cost of constructing mains and
interconnection. Any money remaining in escrow at conclusion of
construction shall be the propert of the City.
B. The area assessmen fee shall be assessed to the
Mobile Home Park property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429 over a ten year period with interest at a rate 1.5% per
annum above the rate the City pay on bonds for the Project.
5. The Developer represen s and agrees that (except for
associating with other individu Is or entities) prior to the
completion of the improvements- as set forth in this Agreement, in
the absence of specific written agreement by the City to the
contrary, no transfer of the pro erty shall be deemed to relieve
Developer from any of its oblig tions. In the event the City
approves a substitute developer a d the property is transferred to
the substitute, the City agree to relieve the Developer of
liability from performance as described in this Agreement. The
substitute shall assume all res onsibilities and rights of the
Developer under this Agreement.
6. A. The Developer shal , within 60 days after execution
of this agreement, submit to the ity Council a petition, signed by
all persons owning an interest i the Mobile Home Park property,
and as provided for by Minne ota Statutes 429.031 Subd. 3,
requesting that the sanitary ewer improvements be made and
assessed as set forth in this greement. Simultaneously with
petitioning for improvements, Developer shall petition for
annexation of the Mobile Home Pa k into the City unless the City
requests otherwise. The petiti n for annexation shall not be a
condition precedent to construct on of the Project.
B. Upon the City Council adopting a resolution
determining the sufficiency of th petition, the improvements shall
be designed and constructed i all respects, as other City
improvements made pursuant to th provisions of Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429 or other applicable statutes. The City reserves the
right to reject any and all bid for the construction of public
improvements. If the City reje ts all such bids, then its sole
~()... 3
.
responsibility shall be to immedi tely advertise for bids for the
public improvements.
C. The City shall caus the sewer main to be extended to
the Mobile Home Park property not later that January 1, 1999. The
City and Developer shall cause the Project to be complete and fully
operational not later than Januar 1, 1999.
.
D. Prior to the Ci t advertising for contracts for
construction, the Developer shal deposit with the City a sum of
money, escrow account, bond or irrevocable letter of credit, 1n
form acceptable to the City in t e amount of $30,000.00 plus two
years interest as calculated un er paragraph 2 hereof. If all
installments of special assessm nts shall be paid in a timely
manner and other conditions set orth in this Agreement are met,
the security deposit shall be rele sed to Developer; otherwise, the
City may use such funds to cure a y default or satisfy, partially
or wholly, any judgment it might btain on account of any default
by the Developer. In the even Developer violates any of the
covenants and agreements herein contained or fails to pay any
installments of special assessme ts when due, the City, at its
option, in addition to and not in lieu of its rights and remedies
otherwise granted hereunder or b law, may as to the lot, or lots
or outlots on which there is a default declare all the unpaid
special assessments levied purs ant to this Agreement due and
payable in full upon 30 days writ en notice of default directed to
the Developer at its last known ad ress, and if the Developer fails
to cure such default within th 30 day period, the City may
commence legal action against the Developer to collect the entire
unpaid balance, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The
Developer shall be liable for suc special assessments, whether or
not the Developer owns any intere t in the lots, as to which there
have been defaults.
E. If any escrow accou t, bond or irrevocable letter of
credit deposited with the City i accordance with this Agreement
shall have an expiration date p ior to 30 days after the last
installment for special assessme ts is due, the Developer shall
renew such security or deposit su stitute security of equal value,
meeting the approval of the City ttorney, at least 30 days prior
to the expiration of such securit Failure to post such alternate
security or renew such security s all constitute a default and the
City may declare the entire amou t thereof due and payable to the
City, in cash. Such cash shall thereafter be held by the City as
a security deposit in the same m nner as the security theretofore
held by the City. Any amount he City draws and any security
posted under this Agreement, the D veloper shall replace the amount
of such draw upon 30 days writte notice from the City.
F. For purposes of t is Agreement and for purposes of
special assessments only, Develo er agrees that the improvements
. contemplated by this Agreement ill increase the value of the
-4-
SD-~
.
.
.
Mobile Home Park by at least th value of the obligations the
Developer is incurring under this Agreement.
7. The Developer will prov'de and maintain or cause to be
maintained at all times during the process of constructing
improvements and until six mo ths after the City accepts
improvements constructed by Devel per and, from time to time, at
the request of the City furnish w th proof of paYment of premiums
on:
A. Comprehensive general liability insurance (including
operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors,
completed operations and contractu I liability insurance), together
with an owner's contractor's policy with limits against bodily
injury, including death and prope ty damage (to include but not to
be limited to damages caused by erosion or flooding) which may
arise out of the Developer's work or the work of any of its
subcontractors. Limits for bodi y injury or death shall not be
less than $500,000.00 for one pe son and $1,000,000.00 for each
occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than
$200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City, City Engineer and
Developer's Engineer shall be an dditional named insured on said
policy. Developer shall file a co y of the insurance coverage with
the City upon request.
B.
Worker's compensa ion insurance, with statutory
coverage.
8. A. The terms and provis ons hereof shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the he'rs, representatives, successors
and assigns of the parties heret and shall be binding upon all
future owners of all or any part of the subdivision and shall be
deemed covenants running with t eland. Reference herein to
Developer, if there be more than one, shall mean each and all of
them. This Agreement, at the opt on of the City, shall be placed
of record so as to give notice her of to subsequent purchasers and
encumbrancers of the subject property and all recording fees, if
any, shall be paid by the Develop r.
B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence,
clause, paragraph or phrase of t is Agreement is for any reason
held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Agreem nt.
C. The inaction or acti n of the City or Developer shall
not constitute a waiver or amen ment to the provisions of this
Agreement. To be binding, ame dments or waivers shall be in
writing, signed by the parties ought to be charged with such
waiver, and approved by written r solution of the City Council if
the City is the waiving party. T e failure to promptly take legal
action to enforce this Agreement hall not be a waiver or release.
-5
50-S
.
.
.
D. Required notices to t e Developer shall be in writing
and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, or mailed to
the Developer by United States ail, postage prepaid to the
following address: 1000 Kjellberg s Park, Monticello, MN 55362,
or such other address as may be de ignated in writing from time to
time. Notices to City shall b in writing and either hand
delivered to the City Administrato or mailed to the City by United
States mail, postage prepaid to th address: City of Monticello,
250 East Broadway, P.O. Box 1147, onticello, Minnesota 55362.
9. Upon execution of this Ag eement, Developer shall furnish
proof acceptable to the City's ttorney that it has good and
marketable title to the Mobile Ho e Park Project.
10. Once the Project is com leted and operational, the City
will not charge Developer for any routine maintenance it performs
on the Project. During any period when the flow monitoring device
is inoperable, the City will est' mate flow based on monitoring
records for prior periods of time.
11. The City does not warr nt to the Developer that this
Agreement or the improvements 0 be built pursuant to this
Agreement are in compliance or ill be in compliance with the
Consent Decree entered into betwe n the State of Minnesota by its
Attorney General, Hubert H. Humphr y III, and Kjellberg's, Inc., in
Wright County District Court Fi e No. Cl-92-2439 entered into
between the parties on or about A ril 29, 1997.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City
Developer's Agreement the day and
nd Developer have signed this
first above written.
OF MONTICELLO
By:
DE
Its:
KJ LLBERG'S, INC.
By:
And By
Its:
Its:
~D--.c:.
.
.
.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ---
of , 1998, by and ,
and of the City of
Minnesota MunicipaJ corporation, on behalf of the
day
the
Monticello, a
corporation.
Not ry Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1998, b the
of Kjellberg s, Inc., a Minnesota corporation
on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
muni\mont\79759797.01
SO-7
.
"II.
.
., ]
~,
IC.
~~,
1';10-
',\
~~;~
Based on the Council discussion, the proposa 101' tialllf.,,-U- j bL: W 1..-1.
connection for the west park was as follows:
,.Ii .
\:\\
[1...e bp tke-.:tII\:'lj
West Park Proposal ~'ble~vl-: ~/I hitl
1. Kjellberg agrees to pay the ~ost t;' e.xtend the n~cessary ~ani~Lc;wf\,on"\\~
sewer lines; however, the CIty WIll ms all the hne followIng CIty 'it ,ill,
design standards and assess the expe se against the west park./ I.' 'ii !"
1 1. LO'^""P It! "S"
'rhe assessment amount will be based on a diagona a 19nment: '
across adjacent City-owned property. <q JOIn; 1/ k -?eS ~I
C....... e&.. (' t Q J j:IJ I
Kjellberg will pay to obtain land or ea ements needed to /" .' /' ;. II
accommodate the sewer line. C Lh"'"f I c!! ")1
2.
At such time that the City sells or de elops its site adjacent to f\.t
the mobile home park, a portion of th revenue equal to the 0 l
. 1" h 't '11 b 'd d Aovl.(.olo Q..
value of the sanItary sewer 1ne serv1 g t e Sl e WI e prov1 e , f
to Kjellberg as a repayment for his co t associated with
extending the line.
3.
Kjellberg will pay an area assessme fee of$75,000 and hook-
up fees in the amount of $180,000. T ese fees reflect the 1995 U I R. tv-o I
rates because it is an existing develo ment and the City has C I' (:>
"'"", I (;J-1 '-,
been negotiating hook-up with Kjell erg for a number of --'
months. Kjellberg agrees to pay $20 ,000 in cash, with the ~;);:) 6 k L('.~ l.,
remaining amount of $55,000 to be ssessed against the 11 7~. k Assess
property.
4.
5.
Kjellberg will provide sanitary sewe and utility easements L ' . .'
through his property and to points est of his site. "J .vfl,t. 'S
The prevailing policy for collecting arbage at the west park will
apply, and the overall policy is subj ct to change. Lo ,"""'p I;.... 'S
Kjellberg must pay the prevailing r te for hook-up of a future ,
wes~ park expansio~ area at the ti e of connection to city Lc""""r.1; fl 5 I ~
samtary sewer servIce. /197 Ace ~!f<c:/
Kjellberg will pay the standard qua terly sewer service fee. . Cc,,,vtf \;Q s, -(';""':\
I ~ 0.. '1" "- ,.c,.)} cJN
The west mobile home park will be llowed to connect to the city
sanitary sewer system after the wa tewater treatment plant Coo c...-"^f I; t? S
expansion project is completed.
6.
7.
8.
9.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MAD I BY BRAD FYLE AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO PROVE THE ABOVE ',,-
PROPOSAL FOR CONNECTING THE KJEL BERG WEST MOBILE HOME) rJe I,~
PARK TO THE CITY SANITARY SEWER SY TEM. MOTION INCLUDES /f" (0 i T
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ASSISTANT MINISTRATOR TO MEET \)-;"'\ <:;+
WITH KJELLBERG TO NEGOTIATE A MET OD OF FINANCING THE iJ; ", v'" Ie
$31,000 GAP BETWEEN THE 1996 (PREVAl ING) AND 1995 HOOK.UP
RATES IN REGARD TO THE EXPANSION EA. Motion carried
unanimously.
:.::,1
1'i\1
',J
1:111
~.!I,:l
SO- 6 :':1
l:ilt
R
M ~vnr Fvle noted th~t the public ~~!!r_s d partment did a good job
-
\';1
, II
,I:
ii
we s..t
I elf/-_
~
.
. '
- -
~\>
, . . .
., '
. . ..
.
.
Office of the City Administrator
250 East Broadway
Monticello. MN 55362-9245
..
Jun.e 16, 1997
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Mr. Kent Kjellberg
1000 Kjellberg's Park
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Sanitary Sewer Hookup - West Mobile Home Park
Dear Mr. Kjellberg:
This letter is written as a summary of the staff recommend tion that will be forwarded to the City Council
~pproval concerning the terms and conditions associate with the connection of the West Kjellberg
',.er Park to the city of Monticello sanitary sewer syste . The major points of this summary have been
previously reviewed and/or approved by the City Council r garding the potential hookup of the West Park.
Specific areas that may need confirmation from the Counci will include the financing alternatives noted
below:
Existinll West Park
1. Kjellbergs, Inc. would be required to pay the cost 0 extending the necessary sanitary sewer line
from its current location, near Highway 25, to the est connection point; however, the City would
install the line following city design standards and access the expense against the West Park over
ten years at an 8% interest rate. The assessment a ount would be based on a diagonal alignment
across the adjacent city-owned parcel (Remmele pa eel).
2. Kjellbergs, Inc. would be responsible for obtaining ny land or easements needed to accommodate
this sewer line extension.
3. The City would agree that if it sold or developed t e site adjacent to the mobile home park, a
portion of the revenue equal to the value of the sa 'tary sewer line serving the site that was sold
would be provided to Kjellberg as a repayment by educing the outstanding principal costs
associated with extending the line.
.
Kjellbergs, Inc. would be responsible for an area a sessment fee of $75,000, based on a GO-acre
parcel, and the hookup fees in the amount of $225 000. The hookup fee is based on 200 mobile home
units multiplied by the rate of $1,125 each and is ubject to adjustment based on final counts at the
time of connection. The hookup fee would be requ' ed as a cash payment up front, while the area
assessment for the sanitary sewer trunk fee woul be assessable over ten years at 8% interest.
4.
5T)'-"
.
.
~
- .,...
l"
.l"
.,:~.,
"
t
~,
~'
.....,"
J~
. /.j ;
::;:' L'
--< '.
Mr. Kent Kjellberg
June 16, 1997
Page 2
5. Kjellbergs, Inc. would be responsible for provi ing all sanitary sewer and utility easements
necessary for future extension of the sewer a d other utilities to points west of the existing site.
6. City policy for collecting garbage at the West ark would apply, and the overall policy is subject to
change.
7. Kjellbergs, Inc. would be responsible for the s andard quarterly sewer service fee.
8. The City would be responsible for picking up ny oversizing cost necessary for extension of the
sanitary sewer line to the Kjellberg cQnnectio point.
As I'm sure you are aware, the City is in the midst 0 completing construction of a new wastewater
treatment plant to handle the needs of the communi y, including your property, for the next 20 years. In
light of the enormous cost the city is experiencing fo this new plant construction, the City Council has
determined that an increase in the sanitary sewer h okup fee will need to occur over the coming years to
provide sufficient revenue for debt service. The curr nt fee of $1,500 per unit will increase to $2,000
effective January 1, 1998, $2,500 effective January ,1999, and $3,000 on January 1, 2000. The previous
council action regarding the West Mobile Home Par connection fee was to require an up-front payment of
whatever the current rate was in effect at the time f connection. In March of 1997, the City Council
further refined its sanitary sewer unit definition an is now treating a mobile home connection charge the
same as a single family residential home. In other ords, the unit charge for any additional mobile home
parks or expansion areas within existing mobile ho e parks will be treated as a $1,500 fee, which would be
subject to the increases under the time frames note above. As you can see, it would be imperative that
any agreement and resulting connection take place s soon as possible in order to minimize the fee
increase your property would be subject to.
A " bt ~ I} a e '" f
,,~@ \lea l' \;I., <; A~'ILQ I"^
In regard to any potential expansion of the West M bile Home Park, the parcel would be subject to the
following fees and assessments, depending on the t pe of development that would occur.
West Mobile Home Expansion Proposal
1. The expansion area acreage charge for the s nitary sewer trunk fee would be calculated at $1,250
per acre. Using an estimated 60 acres, the ~ e would amount to $75,000.
2. An expansion area would also be subject to storm sewer area assessment at a rate of
approximately $4,900 per acre. This assess ent is based on the net area that would be developed
and estimating it to be 42 acres would resul in a charge of $205,800. Credits would be provided for
land provided for storm water purposes.
The sanitary sewer and storm sewer area c arges would be allowed to be paid as an assessment at
8% interest over ten years.
3.
Sanitary sewer hookup fees would be calcul ted on the current rate, depending on the time of each
mobile home connection, which is currently 1,500 per unit. Each unit would be payable at the time
that an occupancy permit is requested for t e mobile home.
SD'IO
;!
/
/Mr. Kent Kjellberg
'-'une 16, 1997
/.,age 3
4. Any site plan or expansion proposal would requi e normal Planning Commission and City Council
review and approval. Previously supplied concep proposals for a mobile home park expansion
appear to have the ability to meet all current cit codes and regulations regarding this type of
development, but the proper zoning amendment would need to be approved prior to an expansion
being approved.
While the proposals contained in this letter are only re ommendations from the staff. the full City Council
will have the final authority regarding connection con tions and annexation requirements. It is the
opinion of the City that the existing West Mobile Hom Park can be feasibly connected to the city sanitary
sewer system and that the resulting hookup connectio fees totaling $225.000 plus the trunk charges of
$75.000 are reasonable and fair for the service and fac' 'ties being provided.
If you would like this proposal brought forward to the ity Council for consideration, please let me know.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, p ease feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Rick W olfsteller
City Administrator
RW/glk
cc: Bill Fair. Mayor of Monticello
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator
Rick Cool. Attorney Generals Office
Todd Eckberg, MPCA
File V
-
~
.
51)'" )\
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/9/98
7.
development. (O.K., IDC)
Newly-elected IDC Chair Dick Van Al en is preparing a letter defining the
events leading up to the enclosed reso ution for approval. The resolution was
prepared by members of the IDC and pproved by its membership in
January, 1998. Mr. Van Allen and pe haps other IDC members will be in
attendance to respond to Council ques ions.
B.
Erf fZC/ c:f^-U
A motion to approve the resolu ion adopting city position on industrial
development.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
2.
A motion to deny approval of t e resolution adopting city position on
industrial development.
3.
A motion to table any action.
C. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution; Copy of Mr. Van len's letter; List ofIDC members..
. . February 9th 1998 at City Council Meeting
Presentation by the IDC to City Coun it for the adoption of a resolution; that City
staff adopt an Industry Friendly attitude and d creative ways to help hldustry locate
and expand in Monticello....
.
A. Reference, Background and considerati ns,
The pwpose of the IDC committee co tinues to be one of indirect support for
responsible industrial development and grow for the city of Monticello and its
residents.
In support of that responsibility the C Committee set out to discover additional
facts concerning the stock industrially zoned land available for marketing.
The June 1997 inventory indicated, approxi ately 150 acres ofindustTially zoned
property - see nlap - indicating;
1 w Approximately 25 acres held by
2. Approximately 108 acres of land as listed as zoned Be (business campus)
creating the perception for some p tential builders of not being useable for
industrial development. Ad.dition lya green space requirement existed which
exceeded city adopted buITering r quirements between differing zoning, added
to the perception of lacking mark tability until this zoning was recently
changed.
3- This left the city in the position 0 not being able to actively seek tenants
needing single site locations of 20 . 40 acres of land.
Further, interviews with contractors d new tenants disclosed a reaction of "If I
knew then what I know now, I never would' ve built in Monticello" People
interviewed. related instances of several visits being required before they were able to
obtain a building pennit. These people felt s eral changes were new requirements that
added cost and delayed the project,
The need to develop industrial tax ba.c; during residential building and the need to
replace a potentially declining tax income fo NSP has also been presented and
discussed.
We remember the benefits of industri development as:
. Industrial taxes are four time grea: er than residential.
. Industry requires less services th does residential
. Industrial payrolls support the loc community. (Industries and its workers
require local housing, retail servic s, such as construction, groceries, clothing,
telephones, car repair, appliances d on and on.) This has led to the
conclusion that one dollar invest in industria! development returns seven to
the community.
. Industries tend to support schools taxes and to hire the skilled product of
its classes as workers.
.
'1-1
~~
-_.~
.
.
.
After the joint September 29lhmeeting b tween IDC, City council, Planning
Commission and the HRA it was noted during a succeeding IDC meeting that, although
the meeting prompted many positive commen from all sides, the City Planning
Commission at their meeting following the jo' t meeting. did not even discuss major
recommendations made by the IDC. Those re mmendations included; actions taken by
other cities, financial assistance progranls avail hIe to Monticello and planning actions
necessary to be taken to entice industry to Mo icello.
During a later meeting the IDC discuss d and recognized that actions taken during
the last 6 months have improved the understan . ,g of zoning and permit process for
those who work regularly with the eity. Bas on observations of the meeting and
overall progress, the IDC discussed and unani ously determined that a resolution
mandating City Staff adopt an industry friencU attitude and find creative ways to help
industry locate and expand in Monticello was ecessary to effect change, thereby letting
the greater development community know that it is the intent of the City of Monticello to
correct its' "industrial unfriendly" reputation.
The IDC strongly recommend the adop 'on of the resolution as submitted..
I
}-r
.
NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING CITY OUNCIL AND STAFF POSITION
ON INDUSTRIAL EVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, city government recognizes t at maintainlng and expanding a strong
industrial tax base is critical to the overall conomy of Monticello;
WHEREAS, the city of Monticello has be reliant on tax revenue generated by NSP, and
recognizes the declining contribution they e likely to make to our city budget, and
recognizing the need to try and replace sai loss;
WHEREAS, city government is perceived by many to have an undesirable reputation as
being resistant to industrial growth and de elopment in past years;
WHEREAS, the city staff and council rec gnize the importance of minimizing any and all
negative public perception concerning ind strial development;
.
WHEREAS, city council and staff wants t be widely recognized as an industrial friendly
community;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THA , city council and staff are committed to finding
creative, flexible, and helpful ways to enc urage any and all future industrial growth in the
community, and will do everything possibl to present a positive image toward those
persons attempting to buy, build, develop, or expand in the city of Monticello.
Adopted by the City Council this _ d Y of
Administrator
.
, 1998.
Mayor
7~
Kevin Doty
106 Pine Street
PO Box 729
Monticello, MN 55362
.
Retired Superi tendent,
School Dist. #8 2
508 Pine St.
Monticello, MN 55362
Kenneth Maus
IDC Chair
Sheldon Johnson
116 Hillcrest Road
Monticello, MN 55362
Donald Smith
Editor/Publish r,
Monticello Tim s
PO Box 548
Monticello, MN 55362
Owner, Genere x Fine
Wood Products Inc.
407 Pine Street
PO Box 239
Monticello, MN 55362
Tom Lindquist
IDC Vice Chair
Vice President,
1st National B
Bill Tapper
212 Chelsea Rd.
Monticello, MN 55362
.
.Jick VanAllen
1349 Hart Blvd.
PO Box 660
Monticello, MN 55362
Tom Ollig
IDC Secretary
TDS Telecom
316 Pine Street
PO Box 298
Monticello, MN 55362
Grace Pederson
Chamber Pres' dent;
Owner, Carlso Wagonlit
Travel
124 West Broadway
PO Box 177
Monticello, MN 55362
Bob Mosford
Mosford, Bart el & Co.
PLC CPA
305 Cedar Street
Suite 201
Monticello, MN 55362
.
?-'I
IDC.L1S: 10/14197
Page 1
.
.
.
FEB-06-1998 11:15
NAC
612 595 9837 P.02/I2l'(
City Council Agenda' 2/09/98
~
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed the Ho pital District's First Phase PUD at its last
meeting on February 3. The discussion of the reject consisted of general review, with a
certain amount of neighborhOOd interest in prot ing against future access to River Street,
a Phase Two issue, primarily. However, a po ion of that discussion involves continuing
interest in retaining a right-out egress from the est comer of the project to CSAH 75. The
County continues to resist this idea, although it i supported by planning staff, the Hospital
District, and several project neighbors.
The Hospital asked that the driveway width w st of the proposed helipad site be reduced
to 24 feet. Staff has suggested keeping the 30 foot width which is shown on the main
driveway from the helipad east to the bounds with Hart Boulevard. This is due both to
City sludge truck access (assuming the righ -out egress driveway Is allowed), and the
future volume of traffic from the parking ra p. The Hospital suggested that the ramp
elevations will change, necessitating reconstru ion of the drive in this location. However,
the current drive will be located on. the exist ng Hart Boulevard roadway. Therefore, it
should be no hardship to retain the 30 foot dim nsion. The Planning Commission allowed
the 24 foot drive, subject to revision based pon the County's decision on the right-out
egress and the construction of the parking r P in Phase 2.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the onditiOnal Use Permit for a Final Stage PUD
for the Hospital campus, contingent n the conditions listed in exhibit 0 of the
Planning Commission Agenda pack t for February 3. This motion should be
supported by a finding that the proj meets the Monticello Comprehensive Plan
goals, and provides for a design whi better meets the City's zoning objectives
than strict enforcement of those regul tions would allow.
2. Motion to deny the Conditional Use ermit for a Final Stage PUD, based upon a
finding that the project is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objectives as
identified by the Planning Commissio .
3. Motion to table action on the Final S ge PUD. pending additional information.
.
.
.
FEB-06-1998 11:16
NRC
612 595 9837 P.03/07
City Council Agenda' 2/09/98
c.
STAFF BECOMMENDATION
Staff is comfortable recommending approval of the Final Stage PUD. Although some
issues are still to be addressed, these are pri arily details which are commonly worked
out and monitored by staff as the project proce ds toward construction. The only change
of significance to the site plan would be the n gotiation with the County for the right-out
egress drive to Broadway. This change wo Id not affect the remainder of the project
design, however.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Planning Commission Report
191.07 - 98.01
J-
.
.
.
FEB-06-1998 11:16
NAC
~c
A 0
Community Hospital District. (NAC
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
612 595 9837 P.04/07
Planning Commiuion Agenda.. 2/03/98
At its January 12 meeting, the City Council a proved the vacation of Hart Boulevard past
the Hospital campus site, subject to certain ditions, including approval of the Final PUD.
The Hospital District is now requesting Fins PUD approval for its first phase. The first
phase includes an expansion of the Hospit I building on its e~st side toward the Clinic
building, together with parking lot expansion on the former Hart Boulevard right-of-way,
and the construction of the new entrance 10 tion for the projed. Also proposed as part
of Phase I would be the relocation of the heli ad.
The purpose of Final PUD review is to ens re that issues identified earlier have been
addressed, and conditions recommended d ring the initial concept reviews have been
complied with. We have summarized the iss AS and recommendations as follows:
Phase I issues:
Utilities in Hart Boulevard. The Publ c Works Department have noted that City
utilities may require maintenance or ~ nstrudion, which would likely occur during
the Hospital's parking lot construction. This issue should be coordinated between
the Hospital and Public Works.
I.
ii. HeliDad. The helipad has been reloest d from its original proposed location to the
west. The new location will allow helico ter flight operations to occur without traffic
interference with the Hospital's main entrance. Although it is still close to the
County Highway, this is in improved 10 tion for the helipad, and it appears to have
County Highway Department support. oreover, though hopefully not necessary,
the Sheriff has indicated his availabir to mange traffic during flight operations.
Finally, the County will have to conve a small triangle ot property to the Hospital
to accommodate the new location.
Aa:ess to CSAH 75 (Broadway). The ounty has been reluctant to allow continued
right-oul egress from the main hospital driveway to Highway 75 at the west end of
the project. There are currently two ccess points to the County Highway in this
location, and the County is asking that t ese be closed in exchange for approval of
the revised hospital aeeessdrive. Th City's position is that keeping one egress
driveway in this location would taem te circulation on the Hospital site, and
encourage traffic to use Broadway r ther than River Street in the future. The
Hospital's site plan assumes that driv y will be closed. While the proposed plan
iiL
,..,1
FEB-06-1998 11:16
NAC
612 595 9837 P,05/07
~
Planning Commission Agenda. 2/03/98
should work, the City should continue to lobby the County to retain the right-out
egress to Broadway_ In either case, the Hospital site plan should reflect the
continuation of a 30 foot drive through e project. The proposed site plan reduces
the driveway width to 24 feet west of the main entrance, Due to the volume of traffic
and. the potential for right-out egress to Broadway, the 30 foot width should be
retained for the full length,
As an additional matter, the Phase I con tn.ICtion should be expanded to include the
driveway construction throughout the H rt Boulevard area, including along the front
of the dental clinic property. The site Ian shows this area to be programmed as
Phase II, part of the parking ramp nstruction. However, this area will be
necessary to retain access for the ree property owners west of the Hospital
affected by the vacation of Hart Boule ard. Assuming that the County will require
closure of the current access points as condition of the new driveway location, the
accesses to. the prIvate property will h ve to be constructed concurrently with the
rest of Phase I.
iv,
, . i r . s, This requirement consists of access
provision to the other property owners ected by the vacation of Hart Boulevard,
and coordination of the relocated a s and Intersection with CSAH 75 between
the Hospital, the County, end the S District The Hospital District has indicated
that all parties are in agreement with t e plan. The City should include a condition
requiring written approval from the ad parties_ Approval should be in the form
of letters from the School District and C unty on the access location, and easement
agreements signed by the property ers sharing the Hospital access drive,
...--..,
ConceDt Plan issues for future phases:
The site plan has been modified to show mpliance with setback violations raised in
previous plans, The primary issue outstand ng will be design of the parking ramp and
circulation issues resulting from the ramp desi n. The previous approvals suggested that
the ramp be designed in such a way as to prec ude lower level access. This design would
greatly discourage traffic from using River S eet as a campus access point. Combined
with the rtght-out egress to Broadway, the desi n would facilitate better internal circulation
without compromising traffic levels in the resi ential area to the west of the project, The
site plan has not altered the design of th ramp, other than to make it fit setback
requirements, Although this will be a Phase II Final PUD issue, the Hospital should be
aware that ramp design must be modified pri r to any further approvals.
B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
----
1. Motion to recommend approval of the C nditional Use Permit for a Final Stage PUD
1'~
.
.
.
FEB-06-1998 11:17
NAC
612 595 9837 P.06/07
Planning Commission Agenda... 2/03/98
for the Hospital campus, contingent 0 the conditions listed in Exhibit X. This
motion should be supported by a findi 9 that the project meets the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan goals, and provides or a design which better meets the City's
zoning objectives than strict enforceme t of those regulations would allow.
2. Motion to deny the Conditional Use Pe It for a Final Stage PUD, based upon a
finding that the project is not consistent w' h the Comprehensive Plan objectives as
identified by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table action on the Final Stag PUD, pending additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is comfortable recommending approval the Final Stage PUD. Although some
issues are still to be addressed, these are pri arily details which are commonly worked
outand monitored by staff as the project proce s toward construction. The only change
of significance to the site plan would be the n gotiation with the County for the right-out
egress drive to Broadway. This changewoul not affect the remainder of the project
design, however.
D. SlJPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan - Phase I Final PUD
Exhibit B - Phasing Plan
Exhibit C - Building Elevations
Exhibit 0 - Conditions of Approval
191.07 - 98.01
i...3
~.
/'
/,/
.////
~~'::;i'n:;::::,":'"
-;,"';""""c 0
, <limmlll~"o 0
'.....~"-..
" '
v'
o
t:
I",
f!!
&,
o
o
.
o
...J
..-
C'?
(.)
/
/
C:~
:I]
<(
U
1fI .
~ a i~
:x: ..
.... -.
<( ~
'"
"
Ii I
J" ! i
If i I
IiI I II
it! n
... , o.
PI : If
~ ,;, I ~I
~ ad h
, ..
i
I I
~ i i
w
~tlD
t... ..,
---~
, ~- -~--",=
.0 >-
1--1
-Iwz<>:
~, ~~='t:
't.~ f= -1 ~ e,
25 (~ 0 0
~roc..:>:r:
~g ~~
S~ H::
~~ '.
&.1 ~
>-
I-l-
-0
z_
0::> a:
...1~t-
"':;00
...1--_
'I wOO
-. 00...1
~ ~~~
04:: a...
2...100
C)~
en
" /
"7'
./
I
:'l'
/' .......,
'/ -"-....
"-
,',
/ ..
, !
/
<2'
<F
!j<i:-
'0
I
-' /
/,1
"\
/' / ,/
: ;/ /1
1/ "
'I
./ I.' /'-......
j' " ........
I, .......
."
...
!?'i;'
~,.T~
'''"
l':;>
.
/
/
/
I i:,-
-.
,1' : g
I I'h;
.. I'
Z
<1:
--.J
a...
w
I-
(J)
;
L
: ~ ;
~;, !
~;ii:
~ l! .. 1. ~ I
~ ~ Ii ;..
;:OCHL\
{i~!~.
~nh,l
, /'
'~\)// /
~~"",-- /
' ~\,; /
<oG .
/ <:f- //
0"'/"
/ci~
-~
.;:-
"r:..,#
/
/
/
/
... -- ~ ~ ~
V:!li~~i~
'" ; -
~ ...- - . .., ~ ~
':E'~:!~ii
- -. ~ .-,:, ., ': ~ "= C) 8
- ! ~-, i' _~'___. _. _ ~
l' P -'--, _ , " i
'-- - t~_._. -. :: i i . , ._
.. -I · I - ii' : Q 2_ __ ._ _
g, ~-'--:;: ~
"'-. --;- , , ::i i ~ .
'g, : : ! : : i ~ ~; ~ ) !
;::, f __l_,~~;;;::; ;~~i!
'" .-.'''''"i':-gI'i~~,
iri " ~ ' i i i i ~ II ~ '" a i _. _ __
"'~~i'I'!!__ ___._
~! ~!... ._~:..._~~--
~~4
f':lJij "-
.;j!g'$
~".
""
.
- ;; ~
,,~ :':J
~:;,'~~;:'i~;;~ I!
· 0 :..~ . /0 . · <; . :l ill I
.'." "
(B
I: ?,,{
~ \~
~[---
--- '
o >-
,.~ :j W I- ....J
. . w ~..... Z <t:
,(:- . u-"'-::::>
~.~ - <t: ~ I-
.....~ I-....J -= D--
. :2 (f)
<Doa
,:i:aJo:::r:
'- G ~~
,. ~ ~!
", ~~ i~~
..... .:;,...~
~~:;
._"I~'.'-r ..\....-...rr-"
il'I' --p I
~ ii 6~~j
~: I__~l-J~~ I
1-"-~-'- ~-,
..~ a ;l! .'. ~ "-I ~
'. !" ~, --~
.,! j:i 'I f.
~i: '''1 1'1 i ,.
--....\'-l.
:. I
I
I
1
',jl
I
I ij~
r:
I I
I" II
~)
I,
II:
~I.
i !
,. I
I
I ~ _____
: \!
"
{)
:'r.'
"
~.~ ~i ~':
lid !!l"" !.
I" ,---~
:Jl ~.. ~ n ~
I I I
I
,
'1
Ii
I'
i
i
I. .
, I
IJ
, I ,
Ll
II i III! Ii!! I i 'I 'I! II1I
I, II I, II, i" I
! ! I i ill
I I'i;, I;
! i 1: I
~~,
:B
,
?
Ir-t
:Iil ':.t
If ','
~
~~ii~_~
I'J:W
1'-- -.!.....\
'101
11-- I I
"0"
II' : :
h:J Q
~,
I
...~
~
I
I
I
I
~
~
.R". 1 M~'.
~
I
I I
I I "'
1,'" a
"I ~~
~
,~ ,i~
Jr~tB"ix2:
.'I _ .;r.. 1\ wi(
W
t-
O)
I
Cl
::>
c...
....J
<t:
....J .1-
<ql-
Z=!~
-a..m
LL =:J
(/)
'"
~~~i
w~~i.':;
!.::~W'"
:C:U'.J.lZJM~
~~!ii
~~a~~
...........1<2
~~~S
o:l .,
,', I
~~ ~~ ~l ~,~
~.. .,.;:1 ~~ ,z.:J
r-:~~" ~.-...i~
i I I
I I
, I
I
i
I
I '
I
!
I
2
~,
0-1,
q)"
l,b
-~----====- -
~
.
.
FEB-06-1998 11:17
NAC
612 5959837 P.07/07
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/03/98
Hospital Campus Final PUD · Phase I Conditions
Coordinate Hart Boulevard driveway nstruction with Public Works Department.
Document conveyance of property fro County to accommodate helipad.
Revise site plan, if necessary, base upon negotiation with County Highway
Department on right-out egress to Bra dway.
Revise site plan to illustrate 30 foot dr veway for full length of project (from Hart
Boulevard on the east to the end of th parking ramp on thQ west).
Revise the Phasing Plan to include d iveway construction in front of the future
parking ramp as Phase I construction.
Provide documentation of access an parking easement agreements with all
adjoining property owners north of CS 75 affected by Hart Boulevard vacation.
Provide written documentation of Coun approval of new access driveway location
for CSAH 75.
Provide written documentation of 5 001 District agreement with new access
driveway location as coordinated with e Hospital and the County.
Preliminary site plan will be required 0 demonstrate access and egress to the
parking ramp at the top level only.
Compliance with all City Council condit ons for the vacation of Hart Boulevard.
Exhibit 0 - Hospi al Phase I Final PUD Conditions
8~'1
TOTRL P.07
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 2/9/98
9.
36-unit townhouse develQpment. (O.K.)
Per the recommendation of the HRA, the City mailed requests for proposal to
twelve developers for development 0 multi-family housing on Outlot A,
Country Club Manor. David Bell, Fr edom Development and Consultants,
and David Hornig, Hornig Companies, returned requests for proposal by the
deadline date of December 12, 1997.
The following is a summary of the tw returned requests for proposal:
Mr. Bell: 36 units oflow and moder te income rental units (2 and 3
bedroom) and 42 market-rate townh use units for sale to private owners.
Purchase offer of $151,675. Suggest d tax increment financing to repay City
for per acre storm sewer charge, ins llation of sidewalk along 7th Street W,
and per acre price of 1.73-acre city p rk.
Mr. Hornig: 109 market-rate rental partment units (1 and 2 bedroom).
Purchase offer of $300,000. No tax i crement financing.
At the January 26, 1998, City Counc I meeting, Mr. Bell increased his
purchase offer from $151,675 to the ompetitive offer of $300,000. The
Council accepted Mr. Bell's offer of $ 00,000 and felt perhaps the lower-
density proposal was more compatib e with the neighborhood.
Mr. Bell's proposal included utilizin a tax credit funding program through
the Minnesota Housing Finance Age cy (MHFA). This program is for the
development of the 36 units oflow d moderate income rental units only.
The deadline date for the tax credit pplication is February 12, 1998. Tax
credit applications are ranked by a c mpetitive point system and the
applications receiving the greater n mber of points are awarded the funds.
An applicant can receive up to 10 po nts if the project receives 20% local
participation which is generally thro gh TIF assistance. Therefore, on
February 4, 1998, the HRA received request for tax increment assistance in
the amount of$331,561 net present alue (NPV) at 9% over 13.9 years or
$597,700 (20% of the project cost). he HRA approved tax increment
assistance in the amount of the $33 ,561 NPV or $597,700. Please note that
Mr. Bell's suggested TIF assistance i the request for proposal was
approximately $111,406 NPV compa ed to the approved TIF assistance of
$331,561 NPV, an increase of$220, 55 NPV. This change in the TIF
.
Council Agenda - 2/9/98
assistance from the original proposal ubmitted is what concerns the
Administrator the most. Although it ppeared that Mr. Bell had simply
agreed to increase his offer by $150,0 0 to match Mr. Hornig's bid, in reality,
he is now requesting an additional $2 0,000 in TIF assistance from the City
to cover this. If the Council was not ware of this, it's certainly
understandable, since staff did not k ow the extent of the TIF request either.
With this project having low income ousing tax credits and with the level of
TIF assistance requested, the rents fo this project are projected to be very
affordable, encouraging lower income individuals and families to live here.
You may recall from the last meeting that neighboring residents were
concerned over any proposal to devel p a low income housing project in their
neighborhood and, in reality, this pro ect is more likely to do this. Mr.
Homing's market rate rental project ould have required higher rental rates
to cash flow and thus was more likel to attract tenants with a higher income
level to live there.
.
Now that the amount ofTIF assistan e being requested is known, the council
needs to decide whether Mr. Bell's pr posal is still the best one for the
neighborhood and city. It is the Adm nistrator's opinion that if the City and
HRA had anticipated utilizing this I ge of an amount of TIF assistance on
this parcel, more discussion should h ve gone into the selection process and
more consideration should have been given to using TIF to reimburse the
City for its costs in the land which is ar in excess of $550,000. With TIF
being proposed onhalf of the project fi r 15 years or more, not as much tax
benefit is being created under this pr posal as could have been accomplished
with a market rate rental project.
The enclosed resolution supporting a tax credit application for the 36-unit
multi-family housing project allows r. Bell to proceed with his application.
Also, the resolution supports a pay-a -you-go TIF assistance amount of
$597,700. The preparation for establ shment of a TIF District, a housing
district, would begin after, and only i , Mr. Bell receives funding from MHF A.
In addition, terms and conditions of e land sale have not yet been
negotiated with Mr. Bell by city staff
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
A motion to adopt a resolution supporting a tax credit application for a
36-unit multi-family housing roject for applicant, Freedom
Development and Consultants level ofTIF assistance at $331,561
NPV or $597,700.
.
(i-
.
Council Agenda - 2/9/98
2.
A motion to adopt a resolution upporting a tax credit application for a
36-unit multi-family housing p oject for applicant, Freedom
Development and Consultants, level ofTIF assistance as determined
by the City Council.
3.
A motion to deny adoption of a resolution supporting a tax credit
application for a 36-unit multi family housing project for applicant,
Freedom Development and Co sultants.
4.
A motion to table any action.
c.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator does support the use ofTIF; however, he does have
concerns relating to the amount of TI assistance as approved by the HRA.
It is believed that both the Council d the HRA may not have understood
the requested increase ofTIF assista ce; therefore, the Administrator is open
to discussion and recommends consid ration of Alternative No.2.
.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution for adoption; opy of map of proposed TIF District.
.
J-
A general meeting of the City Council of Monticello Minnesota, was called to order by Mayor
at p.m., on , 1998. The following
Council Members were present:
Council members
CITY OF MONTICEL 0, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION N .
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A AX CREDIT APPLICATION
FOR A 36-UNIT MULTI-FAM Y HOUSING PROJECT
A resolution supporting a Tax Credit Application fo a 36-unit multi-family housing project to be
known as Park Side Court Town Homes.
WHEREAS, Park Side Court Town Homes of Free om Development and Consultants, LLC has
proposed to build a 36-unit multi-family housing de elopment in the City of Monticello; and
WHEREAS, this housing proposal was presented t the Monticello City Council and received
support of that group; and
.,~
WHEREAS, this housing proposal was presented t the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, the local group charged with coordinaf g housing programs for the City of
Monticello, and received the support of that group; and
WHEREAS, the housing proposal meets the needs fthe City of Monticello; and
WHEREAS, the success of the application is predi ated on local support of the proposal through
the commitment of tax increment financing for the roject.
~.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Monticello City Council supports the
application for the tax credits for a 36-unit multi-n . y housing project to be known as Park Side
Court Town homes and supports the establishment ofa "pay-as-you-go" Tax Increment Financing
District that would capture $ for this low to moderate income housing
project. All projectioIiSas to tax increment captur d is based on State Statutes in effect as of this
date. ' .' )' b \ J \
/// IU\' 1,
.1 6~ //] ~~>
r \ .~ . i .~l;i-r Jl
'.- . r-..I! 6\\ ~Y')
'tJ '0\ 1.
r ~ '
~\.)~ r ~ \.
\ (o.A/" \0 a__ ,
;\ \ \ .' -,
/
~~ - ~
...
'.
wm
-
..
r.
..
:.
.. .
:.. ~
\~
.. J
-
1-,
-'-'
...
'"'>
,..
.M
JJ
:~
-~,~ . -~
V IlS3wm. 'oTIJJ[lfHlH :
3US lH3WdJ13^311 <l31SVH
S)IoO-t-l III lauJ fl31^ )i~lJd ......,.." ';Il.-ni .~ V
at S311J1SJ 1'13I^ JHld :Jill S,J.:rlJ./H:JIlY YH11
(3J
n
~ E
H
~ : ij
~ ~e~ j ~
P- ~~! ~ ~
!~. el ~
~ ~;~ :'I'~ ~~
B 'ti" ~p 0 H
~. 5~i i ~i!!i!~
~~ ~15 ~ ~I h ~i~
~.. . ~~ I ~~
..~ ~~ .~.h ~HIt
~
2
'" .....'" I'"
>- ........1-' I=;
;%ZZ ,~
~:::a:;::ll
:~8i:
~~~~ :~
!i~~ \~
~~~~ :~
Ii
... t5
(\J....f;t ~
!E!il:t
::~
~
is
'"
S"'
i~
~~
S!:l
~~
>'"
"'a
I-
~
!J~~~
!~3;
t",,,,
"''''l:!1:!
IS~..t4:
1 BtJ::;::;
\' I-l~~~
..):>>
I : ~~~~
J ~~i~
<..>'
u ,WI.t..II...n.J
~IHH
, ,
t t
~ ~ ~
~ ~ I ~
8Bi i
!S5 i 5
::: ~8 ~
!Jl~ -I 3 ~
@ lJ:;~ h 0 I
B 5 i ~ i~ Ig
~i i~: ; ~i il~
~g L.~ ~I ;~a
.
10.
.
.
licensinlr ordinance. (R.W.)
CounciIAgenda-2/9/98
At our last meeting, the Council table action on a proposed ordinance
amendment to our tobacco ordinance I censing regulations to enable to staff
to gather more information on the effe ts of the City continuing to license
tobacco sales and the feasibility of tu ing over the licensing requirement to
the County. In the meantime, I have c ntacted the Wright County Auditor,
DarIa Groshens, concerning the Coun y's involvement in the requirement to
license tobacco sales in the County an have also received a memo from our
city attorney, Dennis Dahlen, outlini the requirements of the new law and
a recommendation. As you will note, t e recommendation of our city attorney
is that it may be more economical for he City to simply let the County
handle the tobacco sales licensing req . rements and to delete our ordinance.
As outlined by the attorney, a numbe of changes are required by recent
State law concerning tobacco sales lie nsing. What could turn out to be very
time consuming administratively, is t at certain penalty requirements are
mandatory and after the third violati n, a suspension of the license is
required. In order to comply with a s spension, the licensing authority must
give the individual an opportunity for a hearing. In addition, it will also be a
requirement of the City, if we continu to license cigarette sales, to develop a
penalty for minors violating the ordin nee that is an alternative to simply a
monetary penalty. This will require c nsulting with educators, parents,
children, and representatives of the c urt system to develop alternative
penalties for minors who purchase, p ssess, or consume tobacco. As Mr.
Dahlen noted, this will also require a ministrative staff time to take an
active role in developing such progra s and in the enforcement procedures.
Since the State law requires counties to conduct licensing if municipalities
don't, and since our annual revenue t the present time is less that $500 for
tobacco licenses, it is recommended t at the City take advantage of the
opportunity to pass on the administr tive responsibility to the County for the
licensing and the new compliance ch ck requirements. Compliance checks
will be another cost that the City wil incur if we continue licensing, by
requiring the Sheriff's Department t use underage individuals to conduct
attempts to purchase cigarettes and obacco products at all licensed locations.
Again, if the County is allowed to ta e over the licensing responsibility, it
will be a County requirement to cond ct the compliance testing rather than
the City.
I
.
Council Agenda - 2/9/98
B.
AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Council could determine that it ould be better to allow the County to
conduct all cigarette sales licen ing and compliance checks in the city
of Monticello and as a result, a opt an ordinance amendment deleting
Chapter 14 regulating sale of to acco licensing.
2.
Council could still determine th t the City should be the licensing
authority and as a result adopt an ordinance amendment
incorporating the new State la requirements.
Under this option, penalties for minors has not yet been established
and the staff would have to be irected to contact the school system
and court system for input on a appropriate penalty for minors
violating this ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Because of the limited revenue cigare te licensing produces and because of
the additional administrative time it 'll take to administer tobacco licensing
under the new regulations, it is reco mended that the licensing and
compliance check requirements be t ed over to Wright County and that
our current ordinance be deleted. Thi recommendation is also supported by
our city attorney.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of city attorney letter; Copy of p oposed amendments if City continues
licensing; Copy of amendment deletin ordinance.
.
.J-
.
.
.
ORDINANCE AME MENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELL ,MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS
THAT CHAPTER 14, TITLE 3, OF THE ITY ORDINANCES RELATED TO
LICENSING OF TOBACCO SALES IS H REBY DELETED.
Adopted this 9th day of February, 1998.
City Administrator
Mayor
10 ...1
FEB. -04' 98(WED) 13:21
.
.
.
OLSON US SET & WEINGARDEN P. L, L. P
p, 002
TEL:612 925 5879
OLSON, USSET & W INGARDEN P.L.L.P.
PAUL A. WI.INGARDJl:N*
1M VID I. USSET
THOMU D. OLSON"'"
DJ:NNTS E. DALEN
'MSJl.\ Ct:K'l'II'IICD IlEAL PROPEIlTV IPI:C'ALIIIT
.'Mla". C:ltR'I"JIl'lICD CIVIL mtA.L SPEClAI.IS'r
aUll FILE NO. 7975(120)
, 1.998
LEGAL ASJiI!iT ANTS
SlIIIlUE ALLION
DJ:BRA. BAKKE
KIJ\t FORTIN
KELLY OI.soN
DONNIE TIlONNES
ROCKFORJ) OnrlCE
TELEPHONE (6U)477.S010
Attn: Rick Wolfsteller
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55372
Re: Tobacco Licensing
Dear Rick;
You asked tha.t I summarize the provisions of the Tobacco
Licensing Act that was paesed by th Minnesota Legislature in 1997.
The pertinent part with respect to the city will be found in
Minnesota Statutes Section 461.12 trough 461.17. The following is
a summary of those sectiona.
1. Under the new law, citie may license tobacco sales, but
counties are required to license t baceo sales. If the city does
not license them, then the oount licensing ordinance applies
within the oity and the county is harged with enforcement of the
ordinance. If the city does adopt a licensing ordinance, tobacco
sellers within the city will not e required to obtain a county
license.
2. If a person sells toha co to a perlilon under 18 or
otherwise violates Chapter 4ei1 0 the Minnesota Statutes, the
licensee on the first offense shal be Charged an administrative
penalty of $75.00. On the second v alation within 24 months there
is a mandato~ administrative pena ty of $200.00. On the third
violation within 24 months after t e initial violation there is a
mandatory administrative penalty of $250.00 which must be imposed
and authority to sell tobacco at the location must he suspended for
a minimum of 7 days. No suspension r penalty can take place until
the licensee has received notice an is given an opportunity for a
hearing before a person authorized by the licensing authority to
conduct the hearing, If the oity icenaes, it will be neoessary
for the sheriff to notify the city w enever there is a violation so
that administrative procedures can. be mobilized. The ordina.nce
will also have to designate someone or some entity (such as a city
council) to conduct hearings and ma e written decisions.
3. If the city licenses it
educators, parents, children and
system to develop alternative penal
possessor consume tobacco. If the
administrative staff will have to ta
such programs in conjunction wich 0
is required to consul twi th
epreeentatives of the court
ies for minors who purchase,
city licenses, someone on the
e an active role in developing
her entities.
It>' r
FEB. -04' 98(WED) 13:21
I
OLSON US SET & WE I NGARDEN ' . L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P.003
. February 4, 1998
Page 2
4. There must be unannounced compliance checks at each
licensed location at least once a year. Even if the city is the
licensing authority, the Wright Co nty sheriff would still have to
do the compliance checks on the city's behalf since it is the
policing authority. It would b necessary for SOmeone on the
administrative staff to monitor c mp1iance checks to ensure they
are being done at least annually, and keep a record of what the
results are.
5. The city may impose a li ense fee for tobacco licensing,
but the extent of that fee is 1imi ed to covering the expenses of
administering issuance and enforce ent of licensing provisions.
Gi ven the above, it has be n my e~erience that smaller
communities are choosinSJ to foreg the adm~nistrative burdens of
tobacco licensing, leav~ng that pr'vilege to counties.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further
questions.
DED:sa
..........
.
.
10,3
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELL , MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS
THAT THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SALE OF
TOBACCO BE AMENDED AS FOLLOW :
.
SECTION:
.
3-14-1:
3-14-2:
3-14-3:
3-14-4:
3-14-5:
3-14-6:
3-14-7:
3-14-8:
3-14-9:
3-14-10:
3-14-11:
3-14-12:
3-14-13:
3-14-14:
3-14-15:
3-14-16:
3-14-17:
3-14-1:
.
.."' I
ORDINANCE AME
Definition
License Required
Application and Issuance of Li ense
License Fees and Term
Displaying of License
Transfers
Revocation or Suspension
Moveable Place of Business
Renewals
Basis for Denial of License
Prohibited Sales
Vending Machine Sales
Self-Service Sales
Responsibility
Compliance Checks and Inspec ion
Administrative Penalties
Severability and Savings Clause
DEFINITIONS.
TOBACCO OR TOBACCO PR DUCTS. "Tobacco" or "Tobacco
Products" shall mean any subs ce or item containing tobacco leaf,
including but not limited to, cig ettes; cigars; pipe tobacco; snuff; fine
cut or other chewing tobacco; c eroots; stogies; perique; granulated,
plug cut, crimp cut, ready-rubb d, and other smoking tobacco; snuff
flowers; cavendish; shorts; plug and twist tobaccos; dipping tobaccos;
refuse scraps, clippings, cutting , and sweepings of tobacco; and other
kinds and forms of tobacco leaf repared in such manner as to be
suitable for chewing, sniffing, 0 smoking.
TOBACCO-RELATED DEVICE. "Tobacco-Related Devices" shall
mean any tobacco product as w 11 as a pipe, rolling papers, or other
IO"'~
TOBACCO.AMD: 1/6/98
Page 1
.
.
.
device intentionally designed r intended to be used in a manner
which enables the chewing, s 'ffing, or smoking of tobacco or tobacco
products.
SELF-SERVICE MERCHAN ISING. "Self-Service Merchandising"
shall mean open displays of to acco, tobacco products, or tobacco-
related devices in any manner where any person shall have access to
the tobacco, tobacco products, r tobacco-related devices, without the
assistance or intervention of t e licensee or the licensee's employee.
The assistance or intervention shall entail the actual physical
exchange of the tobacco, tobac 0 product, or tobacco-related device
between the customer and the licensee or employee. Self-service
merchandising shall not inclu e vending machines.
VENDING MACHINE. "Vend ng Machine" shall mean any
mechanical, electric or electro ic, or other type of device which
dispenses tobacco, tobacco pro ucts, or tobacco-related devices upon
the insertion of money, tokens, or other form of payment directly into
the machine by the person see ing to purchase the tobacco, tobacco
product, or tobacco-related de ceo
INDIVIDUALLY PACKAGED. "Individually Packaged" shall mean
the practice of selling any toba co or tobacco product wrapped
individually for sale. Individu lly wrapped tobacco and tobacco
products shall include, but not e limited to, single cigarette packs,
single bags or cans ofloose tob cco in any form, and single cans or
other packaging of snuff or che 'ng tobacco. Cartons or other
packaging containing more tha a single pack or other container as
described in this subdivision s all not be considered individually
packaged.
LOOSIES. "Loosies" shall mea the common term used to refer to a
single or individually packaged cigarette.
MINOR. "Minor" shall mean a y natural person who has not yet
reached the age of eighteen (18) years.
RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT. " etail Establishment" shall mean any
place of business where tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related
devices are available for sale to he general public. Retail
establishments shall include, b t not be limited to, grocery stores,
convenience stores, and restaur ts.
MOVEABLE PLACE OF BUSI ESS. "Moveable Place of Business"
shall refer to any form ofbusine s operated out of a truck, van,
automobile, or other type ofveh'cle or transportable shelter and not a
fixed address store front or othe permanent type of structure
authorized for sales transaction .
TOBACCO.AMD: 1/6/98
ttr~
Page 2
.
3-14-2:
3-14-3:
.
3-14-4:
.
3-14-5:
SALE. A "Sale" shall mean y transfer of goods for money, trade,
barter, or other consideration
COMPLIANCE CHECKS. "Compliance Checks" shall mean the
system the City uses to inves 'gate and ensure that those authorized to
sell tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco-related devices are following
and complying with the requi ements of this ordinance. Compliance
checks shall involve the use 0 minors as authorized by this ordinance.
Compliance checks shall also ean the use of minors who attempt to
purchase tobacco, tobacco pro ucts, or tobacco-related devices for
educational, research, and tra'ning purposes as authorized by state
and federal laws . Compliance hecks may also be conducted by other
units of government for the p rpose of enforcing appropriate federal,
state, or local laws and regula ions relating to tobacco, tobacco
products, and tobacco-related evices.
LICENSE REQUIRED. No p rson shall sell or offer to sell any
tobacco, tobacco products, or t bacco-related devices without first
having obtained a license to d so from the City.
APPLICATION AND ISSUAN E OF LICENSE. An application for a
license to sell tobacco, tobacco roducts, or tobacco-related devices
shall be made on a form provi ed by the City. The application shall
contain the full name of the ap licant, the applicant's residential and
business addresses and teleph ne numbers, the name of the business
for which the license is sought, and any additional information the
City deems necessary. Upon r ceipt of a completed application, the
City Administrator shall forw d the application to the Council for
action at its next regularly sch duled Council meeting. If the
Administrator shall determine that an application is incomplete, he or
she shall return the applicatio to the applicant with notice of the
information necessary to make the application complete.
The Council may either approv or deny the license, or it may delay
action for such reasonable peri d of time as necessary to complete any
investigation of the application or the applicant it deems necessary.
LICENSE FEES AND TERM. 0 license shall be issued under this
ordinance until the appropriat license fee shall be paid in full. The
fee for a license under this ordi ance shall be an amount established
by the City COWlcil.
All licenses issued under this 0 dinance shall be valid for one calendar
year from the date of issue. Fo any license issued after January 1 in
any year, the fee shall be comp ted by pro-rating the annual fee over
the remaining months or a frac . on thereof until December 31.
DISPLAY OF LICENSE. Allli enses shall be posted and displayed in ,_
plain view of the general public on the licensed premise. II) ~.,
TOBACCO.AMD: 1/6/98
Page 3
.
.
.
3-14-6:
3-14-7:
3-14-8:
3-14-9:
3-14-10:
3-14-11:
TRANSFERS. All licenses iss ed under this ordinance shall be valid
only on the premises for whic the license was issued and only for the
person to whom the license w s issued. No transfer of any license to
another location or person sh I be valid without the prior approval of
the Council.
REVOCATION OR SUSPENS ON. Any license issued under this
ordinance may be revoked or s spended as provided in the Violations
and Penalties section of this 0 dinance.
MOVEABLE PLACE OF BUS ESS. No license shall be issued to a
moveable place of business. 0 ly fixed location businesses shall be
eligible to be licensed under t . s ordinance.
RENEWALS. The renewal of license issued under this section shall
be handled in the same manne as the original application. The
request for a renewal shall be ade at least thirty (30) days but no
more than sixty (60) days befo e the expiration of the current license.
BASIS FOR DENIAL OF LIC NSE. The following shall be grounds
for denying the issuance or ren wal of a license under this ordinance;
however, except as may othe 'se be provided by law, the existence of
any particular ground for deni I does not mean that the City must
deny the license. If a license is mistakenly issued or renewed to a
person, it shall be revoked upo the discovery that the person was
ineligible for the license under his section.
A. The applicant is under t e age of 18 years.
B. The applicant has been c nvicted within the past five years of
any violation of a federal state, or local law, ordinance
provision, or other regul tion relating to tobacco or tobacco
products, or tobacco-reI a d devices.
C. The applicant has had a icense to sell tobacco, tobacco products,
or tobacco-related device within the preceeding twelve months
of the date of application \ '(.f ~
9.:~,;U;)
D. The applicant fails to pro 'de any information required on the
application, or provides f1 se or misleading infonnation.
E. The applicant is prohibit d by federal, state, or other local law,
ordinance, or other regul tion, from holding such a license.
PROHIBITED SALES. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any
person to sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco-
related device:
A.
To any person under the ge of eighteen (18) years.
(0'1
TOBACCO.AMD: 1/6/98
Page 4
.
.
.
3-14-12:
3-14-13:
B. By means of any type 0 vending machine, except as may
otherwise be provided i this ordinance.
C.
By means of self-servic methods whereby the customer does not
need to make a verbal r written request to an employee of the
licensed premise in ord r to receive the tobacco, tobacco product,
or tobacco-related devic and whereby there is not a physical
exchange of the tobacco tobacco product, or tobacco-related
device between the lice see or the licensee's employee, and the
customer.
D. By means ofloosies as efined in this ordinance.
E. Containing opium, mo hine, jimson weed, bell a donna,
strychnos, cocaine, ma "uana, or other deleterious,
hallucinogenic, toxic, or controlled substances except nicotine
and other substances fo nd naturally in tobacco or added as
part of an otherwise la ill manufacturing process.
F. By any other means, to ny other person, or in any other
manner or form prohibit d by federal, state, or other local law,
ordinance provision, or ther regulation.
VENDING MACHINE SALES. It shall be unlawful for any person
licensed under this ordinance t allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco-related de . ces by the means of a vending
machine unless minors are at I times prohibited from entering the
licensed establislunent.
SELF-SERVICE SALES. It sh II be unlawful for a licensee under this
ordinance to allow the sale of t bacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-
related devices by any means hereby the customer may have access
to such items without having to request the item from the licensee or
the licensee's employee and wh reby there is not a physical exchange
of the tobacco, tobacco product, r tobacco-related device between the
licensee or his or her clerk and e customer. All tobacco, tobacco
products, and tobacco-related d vices shall either be stored behind a
counter or other area not freely accessible to customers or in a case or
other storage unit not left open d accessible to the general public.
Any retailer selling tobacco, tob ceo products, or tobacco-related
devices at the time this ordinan e is adopted shall comply with this
section within sixty (60) days. he self-service restrictions described
in this section shall not apply to retail stores which derive at least 90%
of their revenue from tobacco a d tobacco-related products which
cannot be entered at any time b persons younger than 18 years of
age.
TOBACCO.AMD: 1/6/98
J 0'" ~
Page 5
3-14-14:
.
3-14-15:
.
3-14-16:
.
RESPONSIBILITY. Alllicens es under this ordinance shall be
responsible for the actions of t eir employees in regard to the sale of
tobacco, tobacco products, or to acco-related devices on the licensed
premises, and the sale of such n item by an employee shall be
considered a sale by the lie ens holder. Nothing in this section shall
be construed as prohibiting the City from also subjecting the clerk to
whatever penalties are approp 'ate under this ordinance, state or
federal law, or other applicable law or regulation.
COMPLIANCE CHECKS AND INSPECTIONS. All licensed premises
shall be open to inspection by t e City police or other authorized City
official during regular business hours. From time to time, but at least
once per year, the City shall co duct compliance checks by engaging,
with the written consent of the r parents or guardians, minors over the
age of fifteen (15) years but les than eighteen (18) years, to enter the
licensed premise to attempt to urchase tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco-related devices. Minor used for the purpose of compliance
checks shall be supervised by ity-designated law enforcement officers
or other designated City perso e1. Minors used for compliance checks
shall not be guilty of unlawful ossession of tobacco, tobacco products,
or tobacco-related devices whe such items are obtained as a part of
the compliance check. No min r used in compliance checks shall
attempt to use a false identific tion misrepresenting the minor's age,
and all minors lawfully engage in a compliance check shall answer all
questions about the minor's ag asked by the licensee or his or her
employee and shall produce an identification, if any exists, for which
he or she is asked. Nothing in his section shall prohibit compliance
checks authorized by state or fi derallaws for educational, research, or
training purposes, or required or the enforcement of a particular state
or federal law.
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTI
A.
If a licensee or employee of a licensee sells tobacco to a person
under the age of 18 year, or violates any other provision of this
ordinance, the licensee s all be charged an administrative
penalty of$75. An admi 'strative penalty of $200 must be
imposed for a second vio ation at the same location within 24
months after the initial . olation. For a third violation at the
same location within 24 onths after the initial violation, an
administrative penalty 0 $250 must be imposed, and the
licensee's authority to se I tobacco at that location must be
suspended for not less t an seven days. No suspension or
penalty may take effect ntil the licensee has received notice,
served personally or by ail, of the alleged violation and an
opportunity for a hearin before a person authorized by the City
to conduct the hearing.
10'" ,
TOBACCO.AMD: 1/6/98
Page 6
.
.
.
B.
An individual who sells t bacco to a person under the age of 18
years must be charged administrative penalty of$50. No
penalty may be imposed til the individual has received notice,
served personally or by ail, of the alleged violation and an
opportunity for a hearin before a person authorized by the City
to conduct the hearing.
C. It is an affirmative defen e to the charge of selling tobacco to a
person under the age of 8 years in violation of this ordinance
that the licensee or indi dual making the sale relied in good
faith upon proof of age a follows:
1. A valid driver's lic nse or identification card issued by the
State ofMinnesot ,another state, or a province of
Canada, and inclu 'ng the photograph and date of birth
of the licensed per on; or
2. A valid military id ntification card issued by the United
States Departmen of Defense; or
3. In the case of a for ign national, from a nation other than
Canada, by a valid passport.
D.
Misdemeanor. Nothing i this section shall prohibit the City
from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any violation of
this ordinance.
E. Minor~. Minors found in unlawful possession of, or who
unlawfully purchase or a tempt to purchase, tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco-rela d devices, shall be
3-14-17:
SEVERABILITY AND SAVING CLAUSE. If any section or portion of
this ordinance shall be found constitutional or otherwise invalid or
unenforceable by a court of com etent jurisdiction, that finding shall
not serve as an invalidation or ffect the validity and enforceability of
any other section or provision 0 this ordinance.
Adopted by the City Council this 9th day of ebruary, 1998.
Mayor
City Administrator
/b"O
TOBACCO.AMD: 1/6/98
Page 7
.
.
.
11.
CounciIAgenda-2/9/98
. (J.D.)
The small group made up of Bruce T . elen, Brian Stumpf, Brad Barger, and
Steve Andrews has met twice to disc ss design and financing issues. At this
time, a complete recommendation fro the group has not been forwarded and
is pending additional discussion. A meting of the small group has been
scheduled immediately prior to the C'ty Council meeting on the 9th. In
establishing the small group, it was h ped that a recommendation that could
be acceptable to a small group repres nting both could be developed prior to
consideration of the project by the ful boards. The following is a status
report on the group discussion on va . ous facets of the project.
Desi~
It appears that there is agreement on development of a facility design as
recommended by the Task Force. The group has discussed cutting portions of
the building to lower cost. It may be p ssible to reduce the cost of the facility
by up to $500,000 by reducing the siz of city offices, reducing senior center
space slightly, and by making reducti ns in the aquatics area. The group is
sensitive to the goal of maintaining a unctional and attractive facility and
does not want to make cuts that will dermine these goals.
Location
Although the group has heard other i eas from citizens regarding facility
location, it appears that the site locati n is acceptable. No matter where the
facility is located, there will be detrac ors. The facility fits the comprehensive
plan for the city and therefore should e located as proposed.
F' .
Inancm~
There is some agreement on certain fi ancing issues, but a consensus on the
complete financing plan has not devel ped. In terms of areas of agreement,
all four members of the small group e interested in utilizing cash flow
from liquor store proceeds to help sup ort the debt for the project thus
reducing the direct tax impact. In the ast, liquor store funds have been used
for Public Works projects and it was a so used to get the industrial
development revolving loan fund star d.
1
.
CounciIAgenda-2/9/98
Currently, the liquor store generates 0 er $240,000 per year in cash for
various city projects. By the time the f: cility is built, there is likely to be over
$500,000 available in addition to the a nual cash flow. The group would be
willing to invest a portion of the annu I liquor store proceeds to help pay the
facility debt. TIF dollars have not been allocated for the project due to the
uncertainty regarding future TIF cash flows.
Both HRA members have expressed a esire to construct the entire facility
using a combination oflease revenue d liquor store funds. This option
would not require a vote. As an altern tive to this proposal, it was suggested
that city offices not be included in the roject, or if a vote was necessary, the
city office portion should be put to a vo e.
.
Both City Council members have expr ssed support for constructing the core
facility using lease revenue bonds. Th aquatics portion of the project would
be funded via a combination ofliquor tore proceeds and a general obligation
bond. This option would require a vote on the aquatics portion of the project.
Under this option, the added annual c st for the aquatics portion of the
project for $120,000 home would be $1 . The design of the core facility would
allow future development of the aquat cs in the event the referendum is
defeated. In summary, all four membe s of the small group indicated support
for a community center but have not d veloped a consensus on a funding
approach.
C. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. No action requested - Develop fi rmal position on February 23, 1998.
The small group did agree that he formal decision on which direction
to take should occur at the Feb ary 23 meeting of the City Council. In
addition, the Task Force is exp cting notification of the date that the
formal decision will be made a d we have not notified them of decision
making on the 9th. Therefore, formal decision on which direction
should take might be better lef to the 23rd.
.
Under this alternative, the sm II group has additional time to develop
a consensus. If a consensus is ot developed, then the City Council can
review the item on February 2 and forward its decision to the HRA
for review at their regular mee ing in March. Please note that the
HRA has a special meeting on ebruary 11 and has tentatively placed
discussion of this item on its a enda. It is up to Council if it would like
to communicate a position to t e HRA prior to this meeting.
.
CouncilAgenda-2/9/98
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City dministrator to continue small group
discussions with final decision makin to occur on February 23 with or
without a specific recommendation fro the small group.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
.
.
3.
.
.
..
12.
Council Agenda - 2/9/98
(R.W.)
Representatives from the city and tow ship again met on Thursday,
February 5 to further discuss negotiat ons on a potential orderly annexation
agreement. Township representatives presented a draft of an outline they
wanted the city to consider as a possib e solution which is enclosed for your
reVlew.
As you may recall, there appeared to e a general agreement within the
group that most of the issues and con erns discussed by the group pertaining
to land use planning and the procedu es for future annexations have been
ironed out and appeared to be agreea Ie concepts. The issues that remained
to be further negotiated concerned th actual tax-sharing arrangement for
future annexed properties and future oundary line adjustments to expand
the orderly annexation area. The dra t proposal enclosed with the agenda
and corresponding map of the area wi I need to be discussed by the full
council in a closed session at the end f our meeting Monday night. Both the
City Attorney Dennis Dahlen and Cit Planner Steve Grittman will be in
attendance to review the proposal an make recommendations for Council
consideration.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Council should close the meeti g at this point to continue discussions
on our strategies on the annex tion dispute with the township.
C. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of township concept proposal; C py of corresponding boundary map.
."
. DRAFT #2
For Consideration at Februa
CONCEp.T..OUTLIN OF POTENTIAL
ORDERLY ANNEXA ION AGREEMENT
MONTICELLO T WNSHIP/CITY
.
1. Annexations only by request of lando er of parcel to be annexed or on
request of township.
the City and consistent with the joint
2.
;l:
3. Creation of joint planning board consis . ng of five members, two appointed by
the City, two appointed by the Townshi , and a fifth member jointly appointed
by the City Couneil-anQ-'H}wn-Bo he-Gi-ty-and-T-eWll-Gannet-agFee-en
the-4if-th-person, the-G:Hinty--Bear-d-wi ak-e-the-appe-intmenf.. Wright County
,J?9..~.Ig:.....AIL~'pp'.QJ!1trQ~nt~..~.b.f!n..Q.~...fQL~.t .gg~r.~.gJ:~9...Y~f!rJ~.rm~.>..~!!b..Q!l~...C!j:y
and one Townshi term ex irin each ar. Funding for the joint planning
board will be the same as the current jo nt planning board....lh~..w:righLCQ.Y.TIW
Plannin and Zonin Administrator sha I act as zonin administrator for the
area overned b the Joint Plannin Bo rd.
.
4. Joint planning-be-aFdPlanning Board wi I adopt land use plan, zoning and
subdivision ordinances within........................ .....If months of the date of this
a eement and shall lace a moratoriu on subdivisions of less than 40 acres
~ml.Q.!1..r.~;?;QD.jng.f!D..4..y.m:!~J1.9..~..r.~.m~~~.t~.... ~...$.Qg.!1..f!~..P.If!9.tjg~Ql~,...w!!h..!miQ
moratorium to be terminated agreem upon the adoption of said land use
plan, zonin and subdivision ordinance . The land use plan will incorporate
the Southwest Area Concept Plan. The 'oint plarming board's zoning and
subdivision ordinances may be modele after the City's own zoning and
subdivision ordinances. The joint pIa ing board ordinances will specify
1
1;).4'1
.
interim land uses and zoning classific tions, and future land uses and zoning
classifications, the method of future la d use authority transition within OAA,
and the method in which the subdivisi n process will occur within the OAA.
The joint planning board will update t e land use plan periodically. The Joint
Plannin Board will consider amendm nts to the land use Ian u on etition of
~J;!!tg.QWJWr..Y.nQ.~.Lth~..J.Q.iD..tP.JJ~Jm.!.D.K. ..Q.;!r.Q.:.&jm;i~g.i~!iQD.....YP'QD..r.~mJ.~.~tQf..!h.~
Ci or Townshi or u on the Joint PI nnin Board's own initiative.
5. At least 50% of each parcel annexed ust be served with sewer and water
within three years of annexation of the property. If not served within 3 years,
no future annexations of any property ntil sewer and water are extended to
50% of said property. Exceptions to 5 % rule:
A. Regulatory impossibility outside th City's control. (e.g. MPCA will not
allow property to be sewered withi 3 yr. time period).
B. Cost of installing utilities exceeds 0 150% of the City Engineer's
estimate (same estimate as used for letter of credit?).
C. Cemeteries and arcels used rima'l for water towers or wastewater
treatment plants
.
6. Annexation procedure:
A. Landowner submits annexation peti ion and preliminary plat requirements
to the City.
B. The City forwards this information 0 the joint planning board with enough
lead time for the joint planning bo d to make a determination and
comment back to the City regarding the proposal's consistency with the
joint planning board land use plan d contiguity of the property to the
City.
C. City grants equivalent ofprelimin plat approval (or site plan approval if
platting of the property is not requir d by ordinance) and enters into
development agreement consistent ith the land use plan in the OAA. The
developer's agreement will require e developer to agree to install sanitary
sewer and water to the propelty to b annexed and require developer to put
up a letter of credit or other secUlity guaranteeing payment of installation of
sewer and water utilities. The City ust also make a detelmination that the
property is capable of being served ith City sewer and water within a
three year peIiod and must estimate he cost of such service extension.
.
D. If the Ci and Townshi disa Tee 0 the consistenc of an ro osed
.~ky..~lQp.m~m.t~i!hJh~J;!D.4.g&.~..p.J.~m... Q.~.ifJh~...CHY..~.nQ..IQ.Ml~.bj:p'..Qi~.~gr~~
2
1:V~
.
al
E. City then annexes land to be sewer d and watered within three years of date
of annexation and grants final plat pproval (or site plan approval, if
appropriate). Future phases which ave received preliminary plat approval
remain in township until they are ready to have utilities installed.
.
7. erderly annexation agreement shall be in force for -l-925 years. If less than
aeres% of ,1:h.~..9.rigin~.Lvac t residential land,
aeres% of original vacant commercial I d or aeres% of the
.QIigin~1.vacant industrial land ~iJhinJ.. ~..Q.AA..MJh~Ji.m~...Q.fJh~..~?f.~.9..YJi.Q.n..Qf
this agreement remain in the OAf..,O at an time durin this a reement
the City and Township shall have peri ime-{9-menth5+:}-tesix months to
rene otiate the terms of this a reement. If a new or revised a reement is not
ado ted b the Ci and Townshi wit in said six month eriod this
.~gr.~.~.m~nJ..~.h~UJ.~.D..D:i.n~~~..~tJh~...~p'-'Q..Qf renegQtiatenagl:eement:....lf.nQ.new
. . . .said six month,
p.~ri9..Q:.:
&-City owned land west of Highway 25 wi l-be-antl-e*ed-immedi-ately-u-pen
approval of-tffis.-agree-men~ ship--and-M-M-B:-
8. PID # ma be annexe b the 1 Ci ursuant to ara ra h 6
.~.Q9..y~...9.Lyp.9.njn.~t~JJ~Ji.Q.n..Q.L~.~n.Hill.Y...~.. ~~r..l?~n~i9.~.Jhr9..1J.gh...~lJ~~~1
linear feet of the arcel in he event the Ci instaIls sanitm
.~~~~.r...l?~IY.i9.~jP.-...?~ig..P.~I9.~.L~.?..~..m~.~.n~.. ...f.l?~!yi.ng.~H..Qr..p..~.rt..Q.f.~j.~.uQ.~nf.~
mobile home park with sanitary sewer.
9-:City will not annex, attempt to annex, or upport the annexation of any land
outside of the OAA area while the agre ment is in feroe-:
fQr9.~.:..Jn..1h.~.J~y~ntp.r9.p..~m..ftQm..QyJ~i!;kJ.. .~..QAA..~~.~.J~..~!}n~.?5:~.gJQ..th.~..Ci~
without the consent of the Townshi eithe via the Munici al Board its successor
.~g~nf.y'..Qr
10. Tax sha-ring---te-be-deteFmineth
.
9. OAA area--te-bendeteFffiinethboard or n other a enc with the authori to
annex ro e the Ci a rees not to ovide munici al sewer service to such
.@n.~.?5:~Q..p.rQP..~!1i~.~nQy.ri.!}gJh.~J~r.m...Q.f..L i.~..~gr.~.~.m~.!}1:mJnJh~m~.y~ntth~..C..i!Y.
violates this rovision the Ci shall a the Townshi all taxes collected from
3
,~~
.
hm.4~.j!nn~~.~.4Jr.Q!n...m!~~.t4!:;...th!:;...Q.AA.... jthm~.Uh.~..TQ.wf.l:~.hip'~.~..!;.Qn~~DtfQLth~
duration of this agreement.
J J. All Taxes due in the ear 0 annexatio
I to land upon which the MPCA
ll..QM..f?.r.gg
.
B.
C.
con emns land from cement lant for
E.
F
.
Provision to annex cement
.fI~~W~YJ!9.9.~~.~:.
4
,~.... ~
. IQFn.~hil?..}'y'.QYlg..Hk~..~nQm.~YJ~~~~..p.r.Q.yj.~ 9..~..Qm.in~~t..
.
.
5
I~-(
.,:
. :...'
NAC
NO RT H WEST
612 595 9837 P.01/05
SSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
5775 WA ZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555
ST. L U IS F' A RK. M INN E SOT A 5 5 4 I 6
PHONE (51 2>SSS-96.35
DATE: 2--b-qB
TO: hC-t::- WDv~~
FROM:
-.----.....----..
QUANTITY:
VIA:
MAIL
I
!
!
!~,A[
I :
: I
Pie K U P
OELIVE~Y
!
PRO.JECT:
JOB NUMBER:
".'....-..----- .., --".. -_.~_...-..J
I
NUMBER
OF PAGES
INCLUDING
COVER:
s
s~' &e.-nTM
.. .0. ,........__... _.._ _....__11__
!
i
.._ _u_""'---___"_.__.... _____ _.. _~.
MATERIAL/DES RIPTION:
REMARKS;
~f\D~~
tJDJ fD{L D L -::mLt &J 1l oJ
~--'--_._'
-..-,,"""-
DATED;
. ...,...' ,.....-......,., .....- '---- -....---..----....... __ '_'__'.0" ...... _... .
XLI
.
.
.
FEB-06-1998 11:22
NAC
612 595 9837 P.02/05
City Council Closed Session ~ 2/09/98
wi Mo'
Yes. (NAC)
A
REFER~NCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you are aware, the Mayor and City St have been negotiating with Monticello
Township representatives with regard to the possibility of an Orderly Annexation Area
agreement If such an agreement were to be ade, the necessity of a hearing before the
Minnesota Municipal Board (scheduled for M rch 9) would be avoided, and the current
OM regulations and borders would be mo ffied. At the City Council's January 12
meeting, we reported on the possibility of an agreement based upon negotiations
represented by a 12 point conceptual outll e. We believed that there was general
agreement on 10 of the 12 points, with taxation and boundaries being the disputed areas.
It was understood.that final language would b worked out on the ten points in which the
City and Township seemed to be in concurre ceo
The task which we left with from that negotiati n was to "prioritize"the three areas which
the City has proposed be added to the OM: The southwest area generally along 90th
Street, the northwest area generally around th Osowski property north of Silver Springs
Golf Course, and the Orrin Thompson/Herm S south 40 acres. Our report back to the
Township was that the City gave equal weight the two areas to the west, and would be
willing to rate the Hermes property lower if e agreement were final/zed in the form
generally agreed to by the negotiating group.
At our meeting last Thursday, February S, . was discovered that the Township had
prepared a proposal which gave a similar prio i2:ation to the three areas, but which also
eliminated the agreement on attorney's fees to e prevailing party in a dispute, and added
several restrictions to the annexation and d velopment of the lands in those areas.
Moreover, the Township objected to the pro osed definition of contiguity (but could
proposed no alternative definition), increased the term of the agreement to 2S years,
created a tax penalty to the City if land were a naxed during the term of the agreement
from outside the OM, and established a brand ew taxation scheme for annexed parcels
[a declining percentage over 10 years for the eady-mix plant and the Monte Club, and
a lump sum payment of 3 years taxes for all 0 ers].
Finally, the Township's proposal limited the ability to annex or develop into the new OM
areas until at least after 2010, and in no case s ner than when the adjoining lands were
"75% developed". This latter restriction creat s an arbitrary mandated staging that is
unresponsive to current transportation patterns nd would ignore market conditions In the
City over time.
x-~
.
"=s
:::
~
~
~
.2
"0
o
',.:;l
g
::E
'0
.€
u
f:TI
LJ
~~
"0"<:
35 :l
.2 ~ ~~ ',9
~ .9' ld ~ .!!l
~~ ~~ !
~....,~V>_
:~ j .;;: ]
o Q., j:l..,
D Q]
.
'S
(1)
S
Q.)
(1)
bh
<
~
o
U') ._
~~
a><--'
~~~
U<O
] ~~
U') ........ '-'
o ~
0...(1)
O~
~O
o
........
........
Q.)
u
.-
~
o
~
o
~
.
~.--.---_,.,.,I,
2
....
"<:
5
!!l
'll l!j !1
~ ~~-
'll 'll~~
j ~'" '-'
Q.,~
nm
~
:l
o
'S
:6
a
~
'"
j
j:l..,
ri1..~. "
~
tl a ~
~ ~ ~
~ e 8
4-
..
~+m
IJ
.
.....
-\ "(?i"
!'~?t):,'J,/._1
! 0, ~.l' \
!
I
I
!
:" ")i('
... -
... t-J
I.>J
,"
:,
j;Kb
.
.
.
FEB-06-1998 11:22
NAC
612 595 9837 P.03/05
City Council Closed Session.. 2/09/98
Staff does not believe these changes are oDd policy for the City. The definition of
"contiguous" was designed to avoid the need for City utilities to cross any township land
in order to serve annexed property. The Ii itations on annexation process assured
everyone that only landowner petitions would initiate annexation, and that annexed land
would be ready for immediate development. ase two clauses together eliminated the
possibility of llleapfrog developmenr in th OAA. The staging requirements of the
Township's proposal are marketplace meddlin which have no relation to the ability of the
City to assure orderly growth and efficient u of land. They could have the effect of
creating an artificial barrier to growth which in ates the price of development land inside
the OM boundary. The taxation proposal, a ough potentially acceptable, was a new
format which the Township argued was being proposed due to "simplicity".
The staff believes that the conceptual outline . hich had previously been discussed was
a reasonable approach for all parties. It included concessions from the City's original
proposal, but the value of establishing a new agl eement should have been worth the price
which the Township was asking. This Is due to e revised boundaries which would permit
protection of the future land uses in the C' s primary growth direction, and allow the
extension of utilities in a manner which respon ad to City service capacity and landowner
development pace. The new Township propo I interferes with those goals.
With some modification of the proposal, the a reement could be made acceptable if the
Hermes property were reinserted into the n w OAA boundary. Therefore, we would
recommend that the City counterpropose two isaete options:
Firlit, we would recommend the ncept format prior to the Township's most
recent revisions, with a taxation structu e similar to state law (a six year declining
payment), and boundaries which inclu e the two westerly OM expansion areas,
excludes the Hermes property, and leav s the easterly OM area and the Franklin
Denn property in or out as preferred by the Township.
The second alternative would be a modification of the Township's counter-
proposal as follows:
1. No change.
2. No change as written (inclu es the 20 foot contiguity definition).
3. No change.
4. No change as written.
5. Add D. Parcels which are undevelopable due to public use, natural
environmental condition, or othe constraint beyond the City's control.
6. Add clarification that the Min . MuniCipal Board will review the issue on
existing documents and attorney briefs, not full hearing.
7. 25 years for a time frame, b fill in the blanks with "50%".
8. Add "500 linear feet" as the ndition.
X-3
.
.
.
FEB-06-1998 11:22
NAC
612 595 9837 P.04/05
Ci.ty Council Closed Se.~ion # 2/09/98
9. Eliminate the taxation pena ty clause.
10. No change.
11. No change.
12. Revise as follows: Retain anguage in sub-paragraphs A., B., and C.
Change the remainder to:
D_ Annexation in Phas Two may not occur until events have
occurred as follows:
1. Annexation in ubdistrict A of Phase Two may not occur
until 50% of Subdi triet 4 of Phase One has been developed
with public utilitie and urban development (as defined in
paragraph 5) with n Subdistrict 4 of Phase One; Q[ urban
develOpment in Su district 4 is contiguous with at least 1,320
feet of Subdistrict . after which land in Subdistrict A may be
annexed accordin to the terms of paragraphs 6 above.
2. Annexation in ubdistriet B of Phase Two may not occur
until 50% of Subdl ict 3 of Phase One has been developed
with public utilitie and urban development (as defined In
paragraph 5) with n Subdistrict 3 of Phase One; Q.[ urban
development in Su istrict 3 is contiguous with at least 1,320
feet of Subdistrict ; after which land in Subdistrict B may be
annexed accordin to the terms of paragraphs 6 above.
3. Annexation lands which straddle the boundary lines
between Subdistri A and Subdistrict 4, or between Subdistrict
Band Subdistric 3, shall be treated as qualifying for
annexation as co plete parcels when that portion of the
parcels within P ase One qualify for annexation under
paragraph 6 above, notwithstanding the other provisions of this
paragraph 12.
4. The Hermes pr perty in its entirety will be Included within
the OM Bounda ,subject to annexation via the terms in
paragraph 6 above
5. The properties to the east of the City currentry within the
OAA, and that porti n of the Franklin Denn property currently
within the OM, ma remain in or be taken out, as preferred by
the Township.
~-~
.
.
.
FEB-06-1998 11:23
NAC
612 595 9837 P.05/05
City Council Closed Session.. 2/09/98
These two options should be offered to the ~ ship with the clarification that they are not
a smorgasbord. One of the difficulties in this egotistion has been that the Township has
continually taken City concessions on indi dual points, isolated them, then asked for
concessions on other points. It should be cl r that the City considers these two options
are packages, and that a concession by the C' on one point is weighed against the value
of the agreement to the City on another. T us far, the Township has not indicated any
willingness to trade anything, only take con ssions.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Council should consider its response to th Township and take action in open meeting
under one of the actions as follows.
1. Motion to accept the Township proposal for an Orderly Annexation Area agreement
as submitted by the Township, as mo meet
2. Motion to counterpropose to the Towns ip one of both of the two options suggested
in this report.
3. Motion to table action on the agreeme t pending additional consideration.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the second alternative as au ined in this report. We do not believe that
the proposal as suggested by the Township i in the best Interests of the City's planning
and development goals. We do believe that it s important to obtain an agreement which
replaces the current OM established by the Municipal Board in the early 1970s. That
OM puts the City at a severe disadvantag In both planning for future growth and
managing its infrastructure investments. Th s is particularly true given that the most
expedient annexation rules do not apply in AA areas and the current OAA has no
term ination date.
However, an OM agreement which does not gain efficient land use and infrastructure
management for the City is not of any benefit. If no agreement is attained, we believe that
the City can make a very strong case for. th current annexation petitions before the
Municipal Board in March. The primary downsid is that future annexations will be subject
to the same Township objections, required n iation sessions, and potentially, Municipal
Board Hearings as with the current situation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
None
'1-(
TOTAL P. 05
.
.
.
Conncil Agenda Update - 2/9/98
Planning Commission A tions Taken 2.3.98
1. Variance Approved: A petition for v 'ance was heard by the Planning
Commission for 300 East 3rd Street, t e residence of Mr. Jerry Sonsteby.
The Planning Commission granted a v . ance to locate a new residence 10
feet from the west side property line fr nting on Palm Street.
In part as a result of this variance, at heir next meeting the Commission will
be looking at possibly modifYing setba k requirements for urban residential
development and redevelopment as op osed to new suburban residential
development.
i : The Planning
Commission called for a public hearin at its next meeting for consideration
of adoption of amendments to the City Zoning Map and Zoning Code relating
to the establishment of the Central Co munity District (CCD) and
transitional rezoning including the co sideration of Performance Zone-Mixed
(PZM) District.
2.
3. SouthweRt Annexation Area: The PIa ing Commission called for a public
hearing at its next meeting for consid ration of adoption of amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan guiding land use and planning for related utility
services in the areas adjacent to the C ty's south and west bonndaries.
8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/29/98 14:40:00
.
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL050S-V05.20 COVERPAGE
GL540R
Report Selection:
RUN GROUP... 0129
COMMENT _ _. 1/29 KS
DATA-JE-IO DATA COMMENT
0-01291998-320 1/29 CKS
Run Instructions:
Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines cpr
J 01 Y S 6 066 10
.
.
aRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
~illif9' 11,10,01 Schedule of B; 1 s GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 1
V R NAME
OESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME UNO & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POil FIP 10 LINE
BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA COM
*FY* BEER 1,266.80 BEER 09.49750.2520 320 00008
*FY* MISC TAXABLE 92.70 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 320 00009
1,359.50 *VENDOR TOTAL
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATI
*FY* WWTP .3,486.64 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 436.49201.3199 9/6 TO 10/3 320 00012
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
*FY* BEER 405.50 BEER 609.49750.2520 320 00010
*FY* MISC TAXABLE 299.15CR MISC TAXABLE 609.49150.2540 320 00011
106.35 *VENDOR TOTAL
NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTA
*FY* ANNEXATION STUDY 310.35 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199 1682 320 00003
*FY* KLUCAS REZONING 14.80 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199 1682 320 00004
*FY* PROF SERVICES 2,326.90 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199 1682 320 00005
*FY* HOSPITAL EXPANSION 1,418.28 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199 1683 320 00006
*FY* PROF SERVICES 1,512.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199 7683 DECEMBER 320 00001
*FY* MEETINGS 600.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199 7684 320 00001
*FY* PARKS PLAN 1,599.15 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199 7685 320 00002
R~ TIRE OF MONTICELLO 7,961.48 *VENDOR TOTAL
*FY* SLOG INSPITIRE MNT 104.75 REPAIR & MTC ~ VEHICLES 101.42401.4050 320 00015
SCHLUENDER CONSTRUCTION
*FY* 3RD & WASHINGTON 541.00 MISe PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.49440.3199 2706 320 00014
TWIN CITIES FLAG SOURCE
*FY* FLAG REPAIR 42.00 REPAIR & MTC - OTHER 609.49754.4099 16628 320 00013
.
8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
019/98 14:40:01
VI: R NAME
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
REPORT TOTALS:
13,601.72
ACCOUNT NAME
RECORDS PRINTED - 000015
.
.
Schedule of 8ills
UNO & ACCOUNT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 2
CLAIM INVOICE PO# FIP 10 LINE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
0~98 14:40:02
FUND RECAP:
Schedule of Bills
FUND DESCRIPTION
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL050S-V05.20 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
DISBUR EMENTS
101 GENERAL FUND
436 93-14C WWTP EXPANSION PRJ
501 WATER FUND
609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
DISBUR EMENTS
----------------~-----------
GENL GENERAL CHECKING
LIQR LIQUOR CHECKING
T. ALL BANKS
8, 66.23
3, 86.64
41.00
1,07.85
13, 01.72
12, 93.87
1. 07.85
13,601.72
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVI WED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE ............
APPROVED BY
.
.....-. ............... ..+ +... I...
+ + . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . + + . . . . . . . .
B~FINANCIAL SYSTE~
0..,5/98 15:35:38
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL050S-V05.20 COVERPAGE
GL540R
Report Selection:
RUN GROUP.. + 0205
COMMENT. +. 2/05 C S
DATA-JE-ID DATA COMMENT
-------~------ ------------------------
0-02051998-322 2/5 CKS
Run Instructions:
Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold S ace LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 10
.
,
.
- -~.- _.,- - ---"-~'--,-
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
./98 15:35;38 Schedule of Bi ls GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 1
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE PO# FIP 10 LINE
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICE
AN SHELTER-CELLULAR 10.58 TELEPHONE 101.42701.3210 322 00036
AMERICAN PAGING OF MINNE
JOHN M & RICH C 18.38 TELEPHONE 601.49440.3210 322 00037
MATT 27. 24 TELEPHONE 602.49490.3210 322 00038
PATTY 15.14 TELEPHONE 101.42701.3210 322 00039
JOHN S 9.19 TELEPHONE 101.43110.3210 322 00040
GARY A 9.19 TELEPHONE 101.42401.3210 322 00041
JOHN L 9.19 TELEPHONE 101.45201.3210 322 00042
TOM B 9.19 TELEPHONE 101.43115.3210 322 00043
ROGER 9.19 TELEPHONE 101.43120.3210 322 00044
106.71 *VENDOR TOTAL
BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA COM
BEER 1,198.95 BEER 09.49750.2520 322 00049
MISC TAXABLE 171.35 MISC TAXABLE 09.49750.2540 322 00050
1,370.30 *VENDOR TOTAL
BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SF
*FY* ELM & WALNUT 36,000.00 IMPROVEMENTS 40.49201.5301 497115742 322 00001
Ct~AR 2000 OF ST CLOU
TOM B 10.82 TELEPHONE 101.43115.3210 322 00045
FIRE DEPT 0.61 TELEPHONE 101.42201.3210 322 00046
GARY A 16.25 TELEPHONE 101.42401.3210 322 00047
MA TT T 11.72 TELEPHONE 601.49440.3210 322 00048
39.40 *VENDOR TOTAL
CLARK FOOD SERVICE, INC.
*FY* CH-SUPPLIES 115.60 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 1 1.41940.2199 V251981 322 00002
CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS,
WALTER C MACK 26.00 MISC GENERAL INSURANCE 1 1. 49240.3699 01-10-149424 322 00051
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT
*FY* STREETS-SUPPLIES 66.22 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 1 1.43120.2210 135821 322 00003
CUSTOM MOTORS
*FY* PARKS-SEAT 53.25 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 1 1.45201.2211 9427 322 00004
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING
BEER 4,326.96 BEER 609.49750.2520 322 00053
NON ALCOHOLIC 243.00 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 322 00054
4,569.96 *VENDOR TOTAL
DAIIIIJTRIBUTING COMPANY 559.20 BEER 60 .49750.2520 322 00055
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
0.98 15:35:38 Schedule of Bi ls GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 2
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE PO# F/P 10 LINE
DC SALES COMPANY, INC
STORM-PW 590.01 1997 STORM DAMAGE EXPENS 101.42501.4401 653710 322 00052
DOTY/KAREN
MILEAGE EXPENSE REIMB 24.92 TRAVEL EXPENSE 101.41301. 3310 322 00056
CC MTG REIMB 78.38 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41110.4399 322 00057
103.30 *VENDOR TOTAL
FAI R/WI LLIAM
EXPENSE REIMB 101.60 TRAVEL EXPENSE 101.41110.3310 322 00058
FEDERAL EXPRESS
INSP-OELIVERY EXP 21.50 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.42401.4399 322 00059
FLESCH'S PAPER SERVICES,
LIQUOR-SUPPLIES 159.59 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 609.49754.2140 996250 322 00060
GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY
FREIGHT 93.00 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 322 00061
LIQUOR 6,522.02 LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 322 00062
~ MISC TAXABLE 390.33 WINE 609.49750.2530 322 00063
56.00 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 86990 322 00064
7,061.35 *VENDOR TOTAL
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE INC.
BEER 5,264.30 BEER 09.49750.2520 144140,143824 322 00065
HERMES/GERALD T
LIBRARY CLEANING 227.50 PROF SRV - CUSTODIAL 11.45501.3110 2/1 TO 2/15 322 00066
HOGLUND COACH LINES LTD
*FY* CONTRACT 5,433.64 PROF SVR - HEARTLAND BUS 10.49801.3060 DECEMBER 322 00005
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP
*FY* PLANNING SERVICE 627.59 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 01.41910.3199 DECEMBER 322 00006
JERRY'S AUTO SALVAGE, IN
*FY* SEWER-THERMO HSING 10.65 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 02.49490.2210 1100297 322 00009
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE L
FREIGHT 29.64 FREIGHT 09.49750.3330 322 00067
LIQUOR 598.68 LIQUOR 09.49750.2510 322 00068
WINE 1,339.17 WINE 09.49750.2530 322 00069
1.967.49 *VENDOR TOTAL
KI STORE
PW-FILM 95.82 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 01.43115.2199 322 00007
* WWTP PAID TWICE 4.36CR PROF SRV - CONSTRUCTION 36.49201.3025 322 00008
91.46 *VENDOR TOTAL
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
./98 15:35:38 Schedule of Bi1 s GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 3
VENOOR NAME
OESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME UNO & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS
INSURANCE-ORO REG 500.00 MISC GENERAL INSURANCE 01.49240.3699 11015423 322 00070
MARCO BUSINESS PRODUCTS,
*FY* CH-MA SF2022 COPIER 243.62 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 01.41301.3190 322 00010
MEDTOX LABORATORIES
*FY*-STREETS-DRUG TSTING 92.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 1 01.43120.3199 322 00011
MICHELS TRUCKING, INC
*FY* LIQUOR - FREIGHT 74.00 FREIGHT 09.49750.3330 322 00012
MN COUNTIES INSURANCE TR
PW ADM-MEMBERSHIP 250.00 DUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 1 01.43110.4330 322 00080
MN JAYCEES
LIQUOR-ADVERTISING 52.50 ADVERTISING 09.49754.3499 322 00072
MN MAYORS ASSOCIATION
MEMBERSHIP DUES 20.00 DUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 1 01.41110.4330 322 00073
M~ETY COUNCIL
OM-MEMBERSHIP 175.00 DUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 1 01.41301.4330 322 00071
MONTICELLO CHAMPION AUTO
*FY* STREET -MATS 3.20 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 101.43120.2211 11999 322 00013
MONTICELLO PRINTING
*FY* FIRE-PRINTED FORMS 52.30 MISC PRINTING 101.42201.3599 322 00014
*FY* FIRE-OFFICE SUPPLY 15.34 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.42201.2099 322 00015
67.64 *VENDOR TOTAL
MONTICELLO ROTARY
OLLIE-MEMBERSHIP 232.00 OUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 1 1.46501.4330 322 00078
MONTICELLO SENIOR CITIZE
CONTRACT 2,833.33 SENIOR CENTER CONTRIBUTI 1 1.45175.3136 MARCH 322 00079
MONTICELLO TIMES
*FY* LEGAL 1,961.91 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION 1 1.41601. 3510 322 00016
*FY* SNOW PLOWING 70.20 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATI 1 1.43110.3520 322 00017
*FY* BLG PERMITS 163.80 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATI 1 1. 42401. 3520 322 00018
*FY* RECYCLING INFO 33.60 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATI 1 1.43230.3520 322 00019
*FY* LIBRARY TIMES VOL 224.25 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATI 2 1.45501.3520 322 00020
*FY* L1QUOR- ADV 296.25 AOVERTISING 6 9.49754.3499 322 00021
*FY* COMMUNITY CENTER 210.60 ADVERTISING 1 1.41910.3499 322 00022
. PARKS 181.80 ADVERTISING 1 1. 4520 1. 3499 322 00,023
3,142.41 *VENOOR TOTAL
n_._ ._~--_._-_.- --.. ---
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
0.98 15:35:38 Schedule of Bill GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 4
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME F NO & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE PO# F/P 10 LINE
MONTICELLO/CITY OF
LIQUOR-SEWAGE/WATER 29.74 WATER & SEWER 6 9.49754.3820 322 00077
MOON MOTOR SALES, INC.
*FY* TREE FUND-CHAIN 13.84 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 2 4.46102.2199 322 00024
NEVIN SONDROL
REFUND-14-0255-0000 45.89 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 6 1.11501 322 00115
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
WATER 2,875.19 ELECTRIC 6 1.49440.3810 322 00081
SEWER 1.583.09 ELECTRIC 602.49490.3810 322 00082
STREET LIGHTS 775.17 ELECTRIC 101.43160.3810 322 00083
DEP REG 76.19 ELECTRIC 101.41990.3810 322 00084
PARKS 887.27 ELECTRIC 101.45201.3810 322 00085
CIVIL DEFENSE 14.27 ELECTRIC 101.42501.3810 322 00086
SHOP/GARGE 701.48 ELECTRIC 101.43127.3810 322 00087
FIRE DEPT 344.17 ELECTRIC 01.42201.3810 322 00088
LI BRARY 1.256.51 ELECTRIC 11.45501.3810 322 00089
C!TY HALL 726.00 ELECTRIC 01.41940.3810 322 00090
,ING LOTS 135.45 ELECTRIC 01.43140.3810 322 00091
OR 926.77 ELECTRIC 09.49754.3810 322 00092
10.301.56 *VENDOR TOTAL
NORTHWESTERN SUPPLY COMP
LIQUOR-PLASTIC TWINE 24.24 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 09.49754.2199 322 00093
PETERSEN'S MONT FORO-MER
*FY* STREETS-AUTO MAINT 80.27 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 01.43120.2211 322 00025
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
FREIGHT 84.76 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 322 00094
LIQUOR 3,251.55 LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 322 00095
WINE 2.193.83 WINE 609.49750.2530 322 00096
5.530.14 *VENDOR TOTAL
PHOTO I
*FY* WWTP-REPRINTS 4.17 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 4 36.49201.3199 322 00026
*FY* COMM CENTER-FILM 41. 27 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 1 01.41910.3199 322 00027
*FY* PLANNING-FILM 12.34 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41910.4399 322 00028
*FY* BLDG INSP-FILM DEV 10.93 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 1 01.42401.3199 322 00029
68.71 *VENDOR TOTAL
PREFERRED TITLE
REFUND-B-0422-0001 25.33 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 601.11501 322 00097
~SIONAL SERVICES GR
SUNNY FRESH TESTS 1,513.60 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 6 02.49480.3199 OCT.NOV.DEC 322 00030
---'~---'--,,~- --_.~'-_._--
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
./98 15:35:38 Schedu 1 e of e'1 15 GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 5
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P ID LINE
PUBLICORP. INC
HRA-OLLIE-PUBLICORP SEM 150.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 213.46301.3320 322 00112
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS C
LIQUOR 310.94 LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 322 00098
WINE 143.00 WINE 609.49750.2530 322 00099
453.94 *VENDOR TOTAL
RED'S MOBIL
*FY* FIRE-VEH MAINT 284.55 REPAIR & MTC - VEHICLES 101.42201.4050 322 00031
RIVERPLACE PHYSICIANS
STREETS-DRUG TESTING 220.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.43120.3199 322 00100
RON'S GOURMET ICE
LIQUOR-ICE 30.00 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 322 00113
ROYAL PRINTING & OFFICE
*FY* LIBRARY-SUPPLIES 85.20 DUPLICATING & COPY SUPPL 211.45501. 2020 322 00101
*FY* LIBRARY-SUPPLIES 23.43 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 211.45501.2099 322 00102
*FY* WWTP-LABELS 11.40 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 436.49201.2199 322 00103
~ COM CENTER-SURVEY 64.49 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATI 101.41910.3520 322 00104
FF I CE SUPPLI ES 118.94 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.43110.2099 322 00105
WWTP-OFFICE SUPPLIES 56.15 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 436.49201.2199 322 00106
PW-OFFICE SUPPLIES 147.29 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.43110.2099 322 00107
CH-OFFICE SUPPLIES 25.92 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.41301.2099 322 00108
AN SHELTER-OFFICE SUPP 70.47 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01.42701.2099 322 00109
ANNEXATION-COPIES 88.74 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 01.41910.3199 322 00110
PLANNING-COPIES 314.46 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 01.41910.3199 322 00111
PW-POSTAL SCALE 227.12 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 01.43110.5701 322 00132
1,233.61 *VENDOR TOTAL
SALZWEDEL/PATRICIA
SUPPLY REIMB 70.38 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 01.42701.2199 322 00074
TRAVEL REIMB 77.56 TRAVEL EXPENSE 01.42701.3310 322 00075
FRAMING CHARTS 90.52 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 01.42701.4399 322 00076
238.46 *VENDOR TOTAL
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT SUP
LIQUOR-MISC TAXABLE 34.75 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 322 00114
SUPERIOR SERVICES-CENTRA
*FY* GARBAGE 8.464.51 PROF SRV - REFUSE COLLEC 1 1.43230.3100 DECEMBER 322 00032
T J MARTIN/LAKE TOOL
REFUND-7-0157-0000 730.32 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 61.11501 322 00117
T.ECOM
LI BRARY- 55.57 TELEPHONE 2 1.45501.3210 322 00116
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.98 15:35:38 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 6
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME F NO & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll FIP 10 LINE
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
BEER 5,642.15 BEER 6 9.49750.2520 322 00118
MISC TAXABLE 57.90 MISC TAXABLE 6 9.49750.2540 322 00119
5,700.05 *VENDOR TOTAL
TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS,
*FY* LIQUOR-R&M EQUIP 318.76 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EQ 6 9.49754.4044 322 00033
U SLINK
CH 70.69 TELEPHONE 1 1.41301.3210 322 00120
FIRE DEPT 0.22 TELEPHONE 101.42201.3210 322 00121
AN SHELTER 16.64 TELEPHONE 101.42701.3210 322 00122
PW 2.27 TELEPHONE 101.43110.3210 322 00123
DEP REG 0.17 TELEPHONE 101.41990.3210 322 00124
LIQUOR 10.50 TELEPHONE 09.49754.3210 322 00125
100.49 *VENDOR TOTAL
USA WASTE SERVICES, INC
*FY* REFUSE 2,746.95 PROF SRV - REFUSE COLLEC 01.43230.3100 THROUGH 12/31 322 00034
Vi COCA COLA
OR-TAXABLE MISC 368.25 "lISC TAXABLE 09.49750.2540 322 00126
WATSON COMPANY, INC/THE
GEN OP 230.61 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 09.49754.2199 322 00127
MISC TAXABLE 327.61 MISC TAXABLE 09.49750.2540 322 00128
558.22 *VENDOR TOTAL
WRIGHT COUNTY DEPT OF HI
*FY* WATER-UTIL PERMIT 50.00 LICENSES & PERMITS 601.49440.4370 1754 322 00035
WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECURITY
DEP REG 19.12 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.41990.3190 MONITORING 322 00130
PARKS 15.98 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.45201.3190 MONITORING 322 00131
35.10 *VENDOR TOTAL
WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELE
STREET LIGHTS 8.00 ELECTRIC 101.43160.3810 322 00129
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~/98 15:35:38
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
REPORT TOTALS:
.
.
AMOUNT
111 .677 .75
ACCOUNT NAME
RECORDS PRINTED - 000132
Schedule of Bills
FUND & ACCOUNT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 7
CLAIM INVOICE PO~ F/P 10 LINE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~/98 15:35:41
FUND RECAP:
FUND DESCRIPTION
101 GENERAL FUND
211 LIBRARY FUND
213 HRA FUND
224 SHADE TREE FUND
240 CAPITAL PROJECT REVOLVING FD
436 93-14C WWTP EXPANSION PRJ
601 WATER FUND
602 SEWER FUND
609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
610 TRANSPORTATION FUND
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
BANK RECAP:
~ ~~~=------------------------
GENL GENERAL CHECKING
LIQR LIQUOR CHECKING
TOT AL ALL BANKS
Schedule of ills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL060S-V05.20 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
DISBUR EMENTS
25. 88.74
1,872.46
150.00
13.84
36.000.00
67.36
3, 56.83
3,134.58
35,360.30
5,433.64
111,677.75
DISBUR EMENTS
76,317 .45
35,360.30
111,677.75
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE ............
.
APPROVED BY
3RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
J4IIIt98 12:35:20
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF M NTICELLO
GL050S-V05.20 OVERPAGE
GL540R
Report Selection:
RUN GROUP... M131D COMMENT... 1/31 MANUAL CKS
DATA-JE-lD
DATA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
M-01311998-312 1/31/98 MANUAL CKS
Run :nstructions:
Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 15
.
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
0.98 12:35:2' Schedule of Bill GL540R-Y05.20 PAGE 1
VENDOR NAME
)ESCRIPT ION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME F NO & ACCOUNT CLAIM INYOICE PO# F/P 10 LINE
A E MICHAELS
*eY* S/8 AN SHELTER 798.60CR TIF PAYBACK INSTALLMENTS 2 13.46515.6511 312 00024
*FY* AN SHEL-FLOOR&PAINT 798.60 BUILDINGS 101.42701.520; 312 00025
8.00 *YENDOR TOTAL
ADOLFSON & PETERSON, INC
*FY* #9 BALANCE 2,835.63 PROF SRY - CONSTRUCTION 436.49201.3025 312 00019
HARTMAN/JOSEPH A
LIQ-SHREDDER&CALULATOR 223.63 OTHER EQUIPMENT 09.49754.5801 RE I MBU RSEMENT 312 00043
HIGH TECH ROOFING
STORM-DEP REG ROOF 19,683.34 1997 STORM DAMAGE EXPENS 1 01.42501.4401 312 00035
MARQUETTE BANK MONTICELL
19968 BOND 125,000.00 BOND PRINCIPAL 85.47001.6010 312 00036
BOND INTEREST 7,445.00 BOND INTEREST 85.47001.6110 312 00037
1996A BOND 130,000.00 BOND PRINCIPAL 30.47001.6010 312 00038
BOND INTEREST 23,111.25 BOND INTEREST 30.47001.6110 312 00039
'! 996C BOND 90,000.00 BOND PRINCIPAL 60.47001.6010 312 00040
BOND INTERES: 1'i,686.25 BOND INTEREST 60.47001.6110 312 00041
~ TRANSFER FEE 15.00 BANK CHARGES 01.41520.4398 312 00042
387,257.50 "'YENDOR TOHL
MN DEPART OF NATURAL RES
SNOWMOBILE REG 2,568.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00001
ATY REG 534.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00002
WATERCRAFT TITLE 27.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00009
WA TERCRAFT REG 20.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00010
SNOWMOBILE REG 682.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00011
ATY REG 438.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00012
WATERCRAFT TITLE 424.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00016
SNOWMOBILE REG 515.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00017
A TY REG 412.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 212 00018
WATERCRAFT TITLE 132.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00031
WATERCRAFT REG 698.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00032
SNOWMOBILE REG 1,333.00 DNR PAYABLE 101.20811 312 00033
ATY REG 48.00 DNR PAYABLE 01.20811 312 00034
7,831.00 *YENDOR TOTAL
MONTICELLO DEPUTY REG #0
WWTP-98 POLAR TRAILER 13.50 LICENSES & PERMITS 36.49201.4370 312 00015
NASASP PROGRAM ADMINISTR
DUPLICATE CK-YOID- 35.00CR DUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 1 01.43110.4330 312 00020
p. BOWES
OSTAGE MACHINE RENT 440.91 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 101.41940.4150 1ST QTR 1998 312 00030
8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
./98 12:35:21 Schedule of Bill GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 2
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME F ND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
ROBERT & ANITA GRIEMAN
EASEMENT 3,462.18 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 4 9.49201.3199 312 00013
U.S. POSTMASTER
OEP REG-POSTAGE 364.00 POST AGE 1 1.41990.3220 312 00004
WINTER NEWSLTR-POSTAGE 462.02 NEWSLETTER 101.41301.3195 312 00008
PW-POSTAGE FOR MACHINE 1,000.00 POSTAGE 101.43110.3220 312 00014
(1) ROLL STAMPS 32.00 POSTAGE 101.42201.3220 312 00021
PO BOX RENTAL-SEMI 6.00 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.42201.4399 312 00022
NEWSLETTER/POSTAGE 439.67 POSTAGE 01.43230.3220 312 00023
*FY* WATER POSTAGE 4THQT 190.12 POST AGE 01.49440.3220 312 00026
*FY* SEWER POSTAGE 4TH Q 190.12 POSTAGE 02.49490.3220 312 00027
CH-POSTAGE 2,000.00 POSTAGE 01.41301.3220 312 00028
POSTAGE FOR NEW MACHINE 2,000.00 POSTAGE 01.41301.3220 312 00029
6,683.93 *VENDOR TOTAL
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
WANDA/FESTIVAL MGR PRG 499.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 01.41910.3320 312 00005
WRIGHT COUNTY RECORDER
EASEMENT-KLEIN FARMS 4 19.50 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 58.49201.3199 312 00006
~MENT-MEADOW OAKES 19.50 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 439.49201.3199 312 00007
39.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEYOR
PW/PLAT COPIES 57.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.43110.3199 312 00003
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
Q~98 12:35:21
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
REPORT TOTALS:
.
.
AMOUNT
428,991.62
ACCOUNT NAME
RECORDS PRINTED - 000043
Schedule of Bill
F NO & ACCOUNT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V05.20 PAGE 3
CLAIM INVOICE PO# F/P 10 LINE
- .-..- - - - - -. .-
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~/98 12:35:24
FUND RECAP:
Schedule of Bi IS
FUND DESCRI PTION
DISBURSE ENTS
----------------------------
'01 GENERAL FUND
213 HR~, FUND
330 1996A G.O. IMPR BONO
360 1996C SEWER INTER REFUND BD
385 TIF 19968 G.O. REFUNDIND BD
436 93-14C WWTP EXPANSION PRJ
439 93-12C M.O. TRUNK STM SEWER
458 97-04C KLEIN FARMS PHASE 2
601 WATER FUND
602 SEWER FUND
609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
35,593.54
7 8.60 CR
153,111.25
101.6 6.25
132,4 5.00
2,8 9.13
3,4 1.68
9.50
1 0.12
1 0.12
2 3.63
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
BANK RECAP:
. NAME
428,991.62
----------------------------
DISBUR EMENTS
GENL GENERAL CHECKING
LIQR LIQUOR CHECKING
TOTAL ALL BANKS
428, 67.99
23.63
428, 91.62
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REV EWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE ............
APPROVED BY
.
.' .. ~ . . . . + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+. ..+...................+,.+ +...
~ + +................... + + .. . . . . . . .
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL060S-V05.20 RECAPPAGE
GL540R