City Council Minutes 05-14-1984MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
May 14, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Ken Maus, Fran Fair,
Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held April 23, 1984.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Petitions for sewer and water extensions for the Bondhus Tool
Corporation facility and the First National Bank Building were
received by the Council. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by
Maus, and unanimously carried to accept the petitions and refer
them to the City staff to prepare feasibility studies on the best
alternatives for serving these properties with utilities.
4 & 5. Public Hearing - Improvement of Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street, and
Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the Preparation of Plans and
Specifications for the Improvement of Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street.
At the previous Council meeting, the City Engineer, John Badalich
of OSM, presented feasibility studies for the improvements of Cedar
Street and Hart Boulevard with bituminous surfacing and curb and
gutter. Mr. Badalich reviewed with the Council a revised feasibility
report for the above improvements with revised cost estimates, etc.
The revised feasibility report for Hart Boulevard consisted of a
combination of urban and rural type construction with an urban type
street being 33 feet in width from the medical clinic eastward to
a low point in Hart Boulevard. From this point easterly to where
Hart Boulevard connects to County Road 75, the proposed construction
would be a 26 foot bituminous surfaced street without curb and gutter.
Mr. Badalich noted that the estimated cost of this improvement,including
some storm water drainage improvements, was estimated at $77,800.00.
Based on approximately 1,400 feet of assessable property, the cost
for the street improvements was estimated at $48.21 per foot and
$28.22 per foot for water main construction that would be assessed
to approximately 365 feet of frontage.
- 1 -
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
Prior to the meeting, Mr. Badalich noted that he had met with Mr.
John Bondhus, property owner along Hart Boulevard, and noted that
Mr. Bondhus would prefer that the curb and gutter be extended all
the way past his property to a point approximately adjacent to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant entrance. Mr. Bondhus felt that the
additional curb and gutter would help direct water flow from
entering his pond areas on his property. The additional cost
for the 500 ft. of curb and gutter on both the north and south sides
of Hart Boulevard to the Wastewater Treatment Plant property would
raise the proposed assessments for the assessable property to
approximately $50.50 per foot for street improvements.
Mr. Badalich also reviewed the improvement of Cedar Street from
the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to Lauring Lane. There are three
alternatives consisting of Alternate A, blacktopping existing
gravel surface of approximately 26 feet in width at an estimated
cost of $37,200.00; Alternate B would consist of widening the
surface to approximately a 36 foot width with curb and gutter at
a total cost of $79,600.00; Alternate C consisting of a 34 foot
bituminous surfaced street without curb and gutter at an estimated
cost of $54,200.00. At the previous Council meeting, Alternate C
was tentatively recommended for consideration by the Council.
With 1,130 feet of assessable property along Cedar Street under
Alternate C, the assessment per foot was estimated at approximately
$48.00.
Mr. Wilbur Eck, majority property owner along Cedar Street, noted
that under the proposed assessment, he would be assessed approximately
$32,000.00 for street improvements, which he felt would be excessive.
Mr. Eck noted that at the present time he would still not have
sanitary sewer available to his property and questioned why his
property would be assessed 100% for street improvements when in
1977, the majority of the City property improved under the street
program was only assessed 20% of the cost. Mr. Eck noted that in
1978, he requested that his property along Cedar Street be improved
as part of the 77-3 Improvement Project and be assessed only 200
like everybody else; but he was denied the improvements,as future
utilities had to be installed along Cedar Street. Mr. Eck felt he
is being penalized because of the delay in installing sanitary sewer
along Cedar Street, and as a result should be considered for a 200
assessment similar to the 1977-3 Project. Mr. Eck noted that he
will strongly oppose any assessment in the $30,000 to $40,000
category at the assessment hearing.
In regard to the Hart Boulevard improvement, Dr. John Kasper also
questioned not the improvement but the method of assessments, as
he also was informed during the 77-3 Street Project that Hart Boulevard
could not be included in that project because of future water main
extensions; and he also felt the Council should consider a 20% assessment
- 2 -
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
factor now that Hart Boulevard is being proposed for curb and
gutter. It was noted by Councilman Maus that possibly if property
owners along Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street were denied street
improvements in 1977 because of future planned utility improvements
by the City, possibly the City should consider an assessment policy
similar to the 77-3 Project, as it appears it is not the fault of
the property owners that the improvements were not made six years
ago. It was also noted that since the original street project
in 1977 included curb and gutter for all streets, possibly the
City should consider improving Cedar Street under Alternate B,
consisting of curb and gutter and a 36 foot width rather than
Alternate C, which was only bituminous surfacing.
As a result, motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and
unanimously carried to adopt a resolution authorizing plans and
specifications be prepared for the improvement of Hart Boulevard
as discussed with the additional curb and gutter to extend to
the Wastewater Treatment Plant property and to improve Cedar Street
under Alternate B, consisting of curb and gutter and a 36 foot
bituminous surfacing but without sidewalk being considered at the
present time. It was noted that at the time the bids are received,
the Council can decide whether to hold an assessment hearing and
establish an assessment roll prior to the actual awarding of the
contract if so desired.
6. Consideration of Making Final Payment to PALCO for the Construction
of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
At the April 23 Council meeting, the final payment request to Paul
A. Laurence Company on the Wastewater Treatment Plant construction
project was tabled to allow the staff to review existing odor
problems at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to determine if any
construction defects were causing the odors before final payment
was made.
Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council his
findings relating to the odor problems at the Treatment Plant, which
he summarized as follows: 1) A possible leak in the sludge storage
tank has been found by the Wastewater Treatment Plant personnel because
the cover on the tank may be too light and raises slightly as pressure
increases, letting gases escape into the atmosphere. The contractor
would be responsible for adding additional weight to the cover to
eliminate this problem. 2) A problem with the resource recovery
system, which consists of methane gas being supplied to a waste gas
burner. Currently, moisture collects in the line feeding the gas
burner which blocks the flow and results in gas escaping through a
release valve. A definite solution to eliminating the moisture problem
has not yet been determined but does not appear to be the fault of
the contractor at the present time. 3) Some problems are occurring
- 3 -
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
in the odor control system consisting of air scrubbers that scrub
the air prior to being released from the preliminary treatment area.
The problems are with the chemicals that are being used and are sometimes
crystalizing causing the chemicals to not reach the air scrubbers.
A solution may be in the search for a new chemical that would not
crystalize. 4) Public Works Director noted that there may be
some problems with the operation and how the Plant is being run
by the personnel in that the staff is currently using the equalization
tank as an aeration basin, and not as an equalizing tank as it was
originally intended for. It was noted that by using the EQ tank as
an aeration basin, an activated sludge culture is being grown
resulting in odors being emitted from this area that were not
originally designed for this purpose. In addition, currently
almost all of the sludge is being reprocessed and not being hauled
away as originally planned for. This operation procedure of
continually recirculating sludge is not condusive to controlling
odors at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
In summary, the Public Works Director felt that once the first three
items were corrected along with some changes in Plant operations by
the staff, odors could be reduced substantially at the Plant, but
it should be noted that the facility will not be 1000 odor free.
As a result of their research, the staff recommends that the final
payment to Paul A. Laurence Company be made, as any items needing
correction by the contractor would be covered under their one-year
performance bond.
As a result, motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and
unanimously carried to authorize final payment in the amount of
$103,354.00.
7. Consideration of a Request to Extend the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Grant.
Also at the April 23 meeting, the City Council discussed the extension
of the Grant budget period six months to January 31, 1985. This
item was also tabled at the last meeting until the final payment
request was reviewed.
Project Engineer, Jerry Corrick of OSM, explained to the Council the
primary reasons why the City should request an extension of the
Grant period to January 31, 1985. Mr. Corrick noted that although
it was learned it would not be necessary to extend the Grant budget
period for the purposes of paying back the EPA and PCA for legal fees
if the City should recover them through the lawsuit in process, there
were two other reasons for requesting the Grant budget period extension.
Number one was that the claim made by OSM for additional engineering
monies on Step II. The Engineer has requested additional fees relating
to the preparation of plans and specifications for the Wastewater
Treatment Plant,and currently the EPA has ruled these funds are
- 4 -
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
ineligible but is currently reconsidering its decision. The
appeal process has been time consuming; and if the appeal is
granted to OSM, and the Grant budget period has elapsed, the
engineering firm would not be eligible for reimbursement even
if they received a favorable determination from the EPA.
The second reason noted by Mr. Corrick for keeping the claim open
was that the City could possibly receive some additional funds
from the PCA for innovative and alternative technology funding
for Change Orders Nos. 62-96. Mr. Corrick noted that the PCA
is currently reviewing this request which could amount to an
additional $5,000.00 reimbursement to the City if approved by
the EPA. If the Grant period is not extended, Mr. Corrick noted
that the City would not be able to receive this additional $5,000.00
in Grant monies.
On the other side, one reason for not extending the Grant budget
period would be that the City could apply for final payment
reimbursement from the PCA, which is currently withholding 10%
of the Grant monies totalling approximately $86,000.00. By
extending the budget period to January 31, 1985, the City would
not be able to receive this $86,000.00 for an additional six months,
which would result in approximately $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 in lost
interest income.
As a result, a motion was made by Blonigen to approve applying for
a Grant budget period extension to January 31, 1985, but to ask for
reimbursement from the City's engineering firm for the City's lost
interest income by doing the Grant extension. The motion died for
a lack of a second.
Motion was then made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously
carried to approve the Grant extension request to January 31, 1985.
Voting in favor was Maxwell, Maus, Fair, Grimsmo. Voting in the
opposition was Blonigen.
8. Consideration of an Earlier Adopted Resolution Authorizing Plans
and Specifications for the Improvement of County Road 75.
At the April 23 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution
approving the feasibility study and ordering plans and specifications
for the improvement of Highway 75 contingent upon the County Board
approval. The County Board, at their May 7, 1984, meeting,approved
the feasibility study as presented and agreed to the alternate proposal
of entire replacement of the existing pavement chosen by the City.
It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with the project as
originally planned and no further action was necessary at this time,
as plans and specifications were previously authorized.
- 5 -
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
The City Engineer noted that plans and specifications should be
ready for approval by the Council on June 11 with possible bids
returnable June 21, 1984, with construction to start as early as
the first part of July, 1984.
9. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting a Revised Environmental
Assessment Worksheet and Authorizing Distribution.
Originally, the Meadow Oak Subdivision required an Environmental
Impact Statement because its number of units proposed exceeded
500. The developers of the Meadow Oak Subdivision reduced their
overall planned number of units from 532 to 465 resulting in the
necessity for a revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet on
this Subdivision.
In reviewing and commenting on the revised Environmental Worksheet,
which has been recently completed by the developer, the goal is to
determine whether or not an Impact Statement shall be required as
opposed to what scope will be in the required Impact Statement.
Had the number of units remained over 500 within the Subdivision,
an impact statement would have been required; but now it can be
determined by the Council that an Impact Statement is not necessary.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried
to adopt Resolution 1984 421 accepting the revised Environmental
Assessment Worksheet and authorizing distribution of the Worksheet
to various federal, state, and local agencies. At the end of the
comment period, all comments will be assimilated and presented to
the Council for determination as to whether or not an Impact Statement
will still be required.
10. Consideration of a Proposal to Replace the Roof on the Picnic Shelter
at West Bridge Park.
Last year, the City staff attempted to replace the roof on the
Community Building in West Bridge Park through a combined project
with the Lions Club. The Lions Club had initially wished to add on
to the existing Community Building by extending the roof overhang
with an open type shelter. The Lions Club and the City were unable
to get together on the combined project and, as a result, the Public
Works Director is recommending that the City replace the roof only
on the structure at an estimated cost of approximately $3,500.00.
The Public Works Director has received two quotes for the roof re-
placement from Blonigen Builders for $4,323.00 and from a partnership
consisting of David Crummy and David Briner for $3,226.00.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to accept the low quote for the roof replacement on the West Bridge
Park Warming House in the amount of $3,226.00 from David Crummy and
David Briner.
- 6 -
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
It was noted by Councilman Maus, who is also a member of the Lions
Club, that the Lions are still considering a proposal to build an
entirely separate structure independent of the existing Community
Building that would be primarily a shelter facility.
11. Consideration of a Proposal to Replace Air Compressors at the WWTP.
Public Works Director John Simola reviewed with the Council the
problems the City is having with its two air compressors located
in the basement of the digester building at the WWTP. The compressors
are currently Worthington, three cylinder, air-cooled models that
have had numerous breakdowns during the past year. Mr. Simola noted
that apparently these air compressors are running at too high of an
RPM and too close to the maximum pounds per square inch capacity
and that possibly they were not sufficient for the needs being
generated at the WWTP. Both air compressors have had malfunctions
and parts for repairing these compressors are becoming hard to
obtain, as the company no longer has parts available except on
specific orders. Mr. Simola noted that in checking for suppliers
for parts for the Worthington Compressors, it has been brought to
his attention that these compressors may not be best suited for
this particular application at the WWTP. As a result, Mr. Simola
recommended that the City replace either one or both of the air
compressors with a new water-cooled, piston type air compressor or
screw type air compressor, which would be more suitable for this
application.
Councilman Maus questioned the City Engineer as to whether the air
compressors at the Treatment Plant met the specifications and if
they were suitable for the intended operations at the Plant. John
Badalich, City Engineer, noted that the compressors were suitable
for the intended use and have been used in similar situations at
other wastewater treatment plants, but he noted they were not originally
planned by their firm to be used as extensively as they are now by
the Plant operators. Mr. Badalich noted that additional demand for
the air compressors has been created by the way that operators are
running the Plant. In addition, he noted that they could have
specified more expensive compressors as now recommended by the
Public Works Director, but at the time the plans were being prepared
for the WWTP, they felt the ones specified would be sufficient and
were approximately half the cost.
Public Works Director presented quotations received from various
suppliers for the water-cooled, screw type air compressor ranging
in price from $5,336.00 to $8,245.00. His recommendation was that
the City still purchase at least one replacement air compressor
from Sullair Corporation in the amount of $7,181.00, which would
have a ten-year nonpro-rated guarantee.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to authorize the Public Works Director to purchase one Sullair
screw type, water-cooled air compressor with a ten-year warranty from
Sullair North Central for an amount not to exceed $7,181.00.
- 7 -
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
12. Consideration of a Motion Adjusting Building Permit Requirements
for Minor Building Improvements.
Building Inspector Gary Anderson reviewed with the Council a
recommended policy that be adopted regarding when a building
permit would not be required. The current policy has been that
a building permit not be required under the following five
conditions:
1. The amount of work to be done is less than $800.00 and
requires no structural change.
2. When reroofing or residing is to be done and no structural
repair will be done.
3. A portable building of less than 100 square feet is to be
placed on a lot, provided that it will be the only accessory
building in addition to the garage.
4. When driveways, sidewalks, and other similar hard surface
accessories are placed on a property.
5. For the installation of wood burning fireplaces or stoves.
Mr. Anderson recommended that the policy be changed for when a building
permit is not required as follows:
1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and
storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the
projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet.
2. Fences not over 6 feet high.
3. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet high.
4. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet in height measured
from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall.
5. When driveways, sidewalks, and other similar hard surface
accessories are placed on private property, except when
onto City right-of-way work must be done in accordance to
City specifications.
6. Painting, papering and similar finish work.
7. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall on residential
house and for garage when projecting not more than 54 inches.
8. Prefabricated swimming pools in which the pool walls are entirely
above the adjacent grade and if the capacity does not exceed
5,000 gallons.
- 8 -
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
Mr. Anderson also recommended that the Council establish a minimum
set fee that would be charged for inspections made by the Building
Inspector on projects that may not require a building permit but
should have an inspection done by the Building Inspector regardless.
An example was when a homeowner reshingles a roof or puts new siding
on, or replaces a picture window, etc., the Building Inspector would
like to determine the proper methods for replacement; and as a result,
a minimum fee of $15.00 to $30.00 should be charged even though a
building permit is not actually necessary.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, to adopt the Resolution
1984 #22 establishing the eight criteria for when building permits
are not required and setting a fee of $15.00 for the Building
Inspector's services as a charge when a building permit is not
necessary under the current fee schedule. The motion also included
a directive to the Building Inspector to publish in the local paper
an explanation of when a building permit is required and the procedures
for obtaining building permits, etc. Voting in favor was Grimsmo, Fair,
Maus, Maxwell. Voting in the opposition was Blonigen.
13. Consideration of. a Simple Subdivision.
Mr. Tom Chock requested a simple subdivision to divide Lot 3, Block 42,
into two equal 33 foot by 165 foot parcels with half of the lot to be
attached to Lot 4 and the other half attached to Lot 2. On Lot 4,
Mr. Chock currently has an existing 4-plex, which would make this
parcel a 99 x 165 ft. parcel; and the simple subdivision would create
another lot of the same size for a new proposed 4-plex Mr. Chock is
planning. The subdivision would create a lot that would be in
conformance with the Ordinance requirements for a 4-plex building.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the simple subdivision request of Mr. Tom Chock
to subdivide Lot 3, Block 42, into two equal parcels with half to be
attached to Lot 4 and the other half attached to Lot 2.
14. Consideration of an Appeal of the Decision of the Planning Commission
Relating to a Variance for Multi -Family Dwelling.
Mr. Bill Murphy is proposing to build a 12 -unit apartment building on
three residential lots, Block 10, Lots 8, 9, and 10. With the proposed
1.2 -unit apartment building, Mr. Murphy proposed to build eight 2 -bedroom
units and four 1 -bedroom units, which would require the lot size square
footage to be 33,500 square feet. The current lot size square footage
of Lots 8, 9, and 10 amount to only 32,670 sq. ft., resulting in Mr.
Murphy requesting a variance from the Ordinance for the 830 sq. ft.
shortage.
In order to be in conformance with the present Ordinance, Mr. Murphy
would have to build six 2 -bedroom units and six 1 -bedroom units rather
than eight and four.
- 9 -
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, recommended that
the variance request be denied because of precedences that this
would set. Previously, the Planning Commission denied a similar
variance to Construction 5 on a request of a similar nature and
the Planning Commission recommended that Mr. Murphy conform to the
City requirements.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to also deny the variance request for a reduction in the
square footage requirements and require that Mr. Murphy meet
City Ordinances as established.
15. Consideration of the Quarterly Liquor Store Report.
Liquor Store Manager Mark Irmiter was present at the Council meeting
to review the first quarter financial statements for the Liquor
Store operation. After review of the financial statements, the
report was accepted as presented by consensus of the Council.
Rick Wolfstell
Assistant Administrator
- 10 -