City Council Minutes 11-13-1984MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
November 13, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Mayor Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack
Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion by Maus, second by Blonigen, and carried unanimously
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 22,
1984, and the special meeting held November 7, 1984.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Don Cochran, member of both the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
and the Monticello Planning Commission, came before the Council
to tender his official resignation from those bodies. He expressed
his appreciation for the opportunity to serve the City and stated
that he found the operation of the City government to be efficient
and admirable. He indicated that he found his time on both
Commissions to be rewarding and an experience to value. He
stated that he would miss Monticello and that he simply wanted
to stop in to bid one final farewell before leaving for the
state of Maryland. The Council acknowledged receipt of the
resignation and acknowledged an excellent job done by Mr. Cochran.
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Vacating a Portion of River
Street.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There being no representatives
from the hospital, the Mayor asked City Administrator Eidem
to give a brief introduction with respect to the request. Eidem
explained the request that had been submitted by the Monticello -Big
Lake Hospital for the vacation. Using a graphic provided by
the hospital, he showed that a portion of the proposed construction
and the parking lot would lie within the River Street right-of-way.
Eidem noted that he had talked to Barb Schwientek of the Hospital
District and informed her that he did not want to take an adversarial
position to their project, but that he held a general position
that cities should avoid vacations if other alternatives could
be presented. Eidem also stated to the Council that he did
not want to take unfair advantage of the hospital's absence
to present his case and that he would try and be as objective
as possible.
-1-
Council Minutes - 11/13/84
Eidem went on to explain that the portion of River Street lying
behind the hospital would not necessarily be a problem. However,
vacating the full extent of River Street until its termination
could eventually leave that portion inaccessible. He said in
terms of long range planning, it might be valuable to hold the
right-of-way even though there are no development plans for
street in the foreseeable future. Eidem went on to say that
it was that very issue that was at conflict between the City
and the hospital. He noted that Schwientek had indicated that
part of their desire for vacation was to preclude the possibility
that a street could ever be opened on the north side of their
building. He went on to say that Ms. Schwientek had indicated
the possibility of a compromise by creating a north/south roadway
that would join Hart Boulevard and the eastern most extension
of River Street. Eidem stated that one of the more attractive
alternatives would be to arrange for a vacation of a southerly
portion of the River Street right-of-way in exchange for an
equal amount of footage on the north side of the existing right-of-way,
thereby allowing the City to retain a full 80 -foot street right-of-way.
The Mayor asked a question with respect to the sewer collector
line that runs through the center of existing River Street.
John Badalich of OSM responded that the proposed building was
approximately 10 feet away and that there might be some question
as to the stability of the line and the footings, but that matter
would have to be resolved with the hospital's architects. Badalich
noted that the building plans had been altered slightly so that
the City and hospital could avoid a recircuiting or rerouting
of the collection line. Councilmember Fair asked whether or
not a construction easement couldn't be granted to allow the
nursing home to be built in the street right-of-way without
going through the formal vacation. Eidem responded that yes,
such an easement could occur, but once the building is built
we have, for all practical purposes, given up that section of
right-of-way. The Council unanimously expressed support for
the nursing home project and indicated they did not wish to
jeopardize the construction in any way, but felt that an exchange
of some land to the north for the vacation of some land on the
south was a viable alternative. They further agreed that the
development of a thoroughfare to the north of the hospital was
highly unlikely, but the protection of an 80 -foot right-of-way
for the City is important enough to enter negotiations for an
exchange. Councilmember Fair also indicated that long-range
planning may see River Street united through to Minnesota Street.
Again, the Council agreed that this is highly unlikely to occur
in the near future since there are buildings currently in the
route as well as sections of unplatted areas that separate the
two rights-of-way, but the notion was that they may be able
to be connected several decades in the future. It was this
possible connection that the City did not wish to rule out.
-2-
Council Minutes - 11/13/84
There was a brief discussion of snowplowing at the end of existing
River Street and how that would be accommodated. John Simola
was instructed to try and work out those differences with the
maintenance and design people involved with the hospital. At
this point the Mayor closed the hearing.
Motion by Fair, second by Maxwell, to consider vacation of a
portion of River Street favorably provided successful negotiations
can be accomplished to regain a similar amount of footage on
the north side of River Street. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of Adopting Assessment Roll for
Delinquent Sewer and Water Bills.
A current listing of delinquent sewer and water accounts and
other sundry delinquent accounts with the City were presented
to Council members with a request to adopt as an assessment
roll so that they may be certified as a lien against the property
with the County Auditor. There was no one present to speak
at the public hearing. The Council asked if the list that had
been presented to them was up to date and current. Eidem confirmed
that all late payments had been recorded and that it was up
to date.
Motion by Maus, second by Fair, and carried unanimously, to
adopt the following resolution. (See Resolution 1984 #47.)
6. Consideration of a Planned Unit Development - Applicants, Jim
Powers/Kent Kjellberg.
The Mayor asked Eidem if all information had been presented
as requested for final review. Eidem indicated that no drainage
plan was included in all of the documents, nor was the narrative
statement on the PUD plan, but that all other information now
was compiled into a single package. Eidem indicated that, lacking
the drainage plan and the narrative, it was then a Council decision
whether or not to hear the matter. Mayor Grimsmo asked John
Badalich to comment on what is missing with respect to the drainage
plan. Badalich explained that while the ponding provisions
had been accounted for, there was nothing to account for the
outlet. He noted that uncontrolled flow out of the ponds would
be unacceptable and the plan could not be approved if it permitted
water to run uncontrolled onto an adjacent property. Badalich
stated that he would be contacting the developers' engineer
in writing so as hopefully to clarify precisely what is missing
and what will be required for final review. Mr. Powers, representing
the developers, indicated that they were trying to hurry everyone
along, including the engineer, in order to accommodate City
review. Councilmember Fair asked if the pond outlet would be
an expensive construction project. Badalich responded that
it might be in the $2,000-$3,000 range. He indicated he felt
-3-
Council Minutes - 11/13/84
that pipes should be able to control the runoff, and in some
cases ditching would also control the outlet so that the amount
of runoff running into the remote pond would be equal to what
is currently going into that pond. Badalich noted that an increase
of water would not be acceptable but that it is acceptable to
allow equal amount of runoff as what currently exists. Eidem
explained that final approval of the Development Stage was scheduled
for this meeting, with final approval of the final plans scheduled
for the Planning Commission on November 14, and final approval
and plat signing scheduled for November 26 before the City Council.
He indicated that the Planning Commission had approved the development
plan contingent upon the receipt and approval by the Consulting
Engineer of an acceptable drainage plan. This approval then
allowed the developers to continue in their development progress.
Eidem noted that the Council had the same option open to them
and could still halt the entire project on November 26 if all
documents were not fully in order.
Motion by Maxwell, second by Maus, and carried unanimously to
grant final approval to the Development Plan of Plaza Partners
PUD contingent upon receipt and approval by OSM of an approved
drainage plan and the ordering and compilation of all related
documents for the PUD.
7. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to the Jay Miller Replat.
Mr. Jay Miller was present seeking final approval to a townhouse
replat on Lot 9, Block 4, of Par West Subdivision. The townhouse
replat would be known as Colony on the Green. Tom Eidem explained
that the plat had been put in place and that a variance had
been granted on a sideyard setback at some time in the past.
He went on to note that to deny final approval at this point
was an exercise in futility since the building, in fact, was
already in place and the zero lot line construction was transferred
to the plat definition. Eidem noted that in a conversation
with Jim Ridgeway, Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr.
Ridgeway had indicated that the granting of the variance carried
the significance of approving its final location, although the
language in the motion did not indicate as such. From that
conversation, Eidem concluded for the Council that final approval
had been given by the Planning Commission, and the project was
now before the Council for its final approval and directions
to record. Mayor Grimsmo asked whether or not the confusion
and somewhat disorderly sequence of events had been resolved
to prevent future occurrence. Eidem indicated that they had
been and that the main source of the problem was the oversight
of exerting the right of conditional use to go beyond strictly
the number of units allowed. Eidem indicated that any future
building plans would have to be reviewed as conditional uses
with the exception of maximum number of units. Eidem indicated
-4-
that such review should thus eliminate
Motion by Fair, second by Blonigen, and
to grant final approval to the replat o
and to process the plat for recording a
Council Minutes - 11/13/84
similar circumstance.
carried unanimously
Colony by the Green
the County.
8. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the Certification
of a Special Levy with the County Auditor.
Eidem explained to the Council that, based upon recommendations
of Springsted, Inc., it would be financially advantageous for
the City to certify a debt retirement levy for the proposed
Fire Hall bonds that were approved at the most recent General
Election. He noted that by certifying the levy at this time,
collections would commence in 1985, thus eliminating any need
to bond for capitalized interest. Councilmember Fair raised
a question concerning whether or not the City could gain a sum
equal to the 2% bidding discount in either construction savings
or investment interest. Eidem said that they very likely would
be able to recover that $17,000 difference. The Council then
agreed that the levy should be based on an $860,000 bond sale
which was sanctioned by the election rather than the $863,000
plus a 2% bidding discount amount as allowed by Statute.
Motion by Maus, second by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to
adopt the following resolution. See Resolution 1984 #48.
9. Consideration of Authorizing the Firm of TKDA to Commence Work
on Phase II (Plans and Specifications) for the Proposed Monticello
Fire Hall.
Councilmember Blonigen raised the question with respect to TKDA's
percentage figure for their services. Eidem stated that in
their response to the Request for Proposals, they had cited
a specific dollar amount in relation to a projected construction
amount and that that percentage figure came out to be 711%.
They did not, he stated, bid on a percentage basis. The consensus
of the Council was to pursue negotiation to establish an actual
percentage amount of construction cost to serve as the fees.
It was also agreed by Fair and Blonigen, the representatives
to the Fire Hall Committee, that TKDA had been responsive, and
they should be given the opportunity to complete Phase II.
Motion by Fair, second by Maus, and carried unanimously to instruct
the Administrator to begin negotiations on the architectural
fees for the preparation of plans and spec's under Phase II
of Fire Hall construction, said architectural fees to be brought
back to the City Council for ratification at the next regular
meeting.
-5-
Council Minutes - 11/13/84
10. Consideration of Making an Offer for the Purchase of Block 13
as the Proposed Site for the New Fire Hall.
Councilmember Maxwell reported that he had made contact with
Robert Americk prior to the election and agreed to recontact
Mr. Americk after the results of the election were known. He
indicated that he does have his Florida address and that he
can contact him by phone or by mail. Mr. Maxwell originally
suggested making an offer equal to the appraised value with
Mr. Americk paying all of assessments. Councilmember Fair raised
a question on having Councilmember Maxwell, realtor by profession,
represent the City in this real estate transaction. Her question
revolved around whether or not the City should utilize Mr. Maxwell
as an individual or Mr. Maxwell's company. Councilmember Maxwell
said that he would be glad to conduct the transaction without
any compensation, but he would wish to be reimbursed for actual
out-of-pocket expense. Eidem also commented that the City should
probably consider using Mr. Maxwell as the individual, since
he is a Council member and real estate is his area of expertise,
rather than giving an appearance of trying to cover the transaction
and avoid conflict of interest by utilizing a company name.
Mr. Maxwell again reiterated the fact that he did not want compensation,
only expense reimbursement, and thus felt no conflict of interest
was present.
Several members had a question about the projected amount of
fill for the site and whether or not the proposed cost makes
the land unreasonable. Using comparable values for the sale
of Block 32, which does not require fill, the City might consider
repurchasing the west half of that block in order to facilitate
Fire Hall construction. Eidem raised a question as to whether
or not the actual appraisal should be reconsidered when the
projected cost of filling the lot is established to be $96,000
while the appraisor reduced the value of the land by a mere
$20,000 because of the need for fill. Eidem stated that perhaps
the appraisal was not entirely accurate or did not take into
account the quality and quantity of fill that would be required
to make the property comparable to Block 32. Councilmember
Maxwell said that was a very real possibility; and in light
of the soils testing and architectural recommendations for fill,
the offer for the land should be reduced accordingly.
Motion by Fair, second by Blonigen, and carried unanimously
directing Maxwell to offer a $2,000 earnest check to Mr. Americk
and to commence negotiations for land acquisition and further,
upon tentative agreement of purchase price,to return to the
City Council for final ratification.
M
Council Minutes - 11/13/84
11. Consideration of Replacement of a 1972 Snowplow Truck, Approval
of Specifications, and Bid Advertisement.
Public Works Director, John Simola, began by reviewing the data
supplied in the agenda supplement. He indicated that the 1972
Chevrolet dump truck was due for replacement. He indicated
that a number of items were beginning to show wear and further,
at the budget meeting the Council had authorized an allocation
for truck replacement. Mr. Simola discussed the research that
City staff had done to determine what would be the most effective
vehicle for the City. He noted that the budget contained figures
based on an original projection that a tandem axle truck would
be beneficial but that on further review, it was determined
that a single axle would be most effective. Mr. Simola had
also provided some additional cost data at the meeting and reviewed
that with the City Council. Councilmember Blonigen stated he
had certain objections to the data supplied to the Council.
He noted that it seemed to be a more common occurrence lately
that he was at opposite ends with the Public Works Director
in determining cost estimates and cost effectiveness for City
services. He acknowledged that that was not as it should be
but was unable to resolve the differences. He felt that he
had clearly explained his objections to the data provided during
the budget work sessions with respect to truck replacement and
that the data provided at this time did not make him feel any
more comfortable with the acquisition. At that point, Mr. Simola
agreed to go over the sheet of cost data with the Council in
detail. He noted that from the actual records, the four City
units have an average mileage of 2.8 miles per gallon. Mr. Simola
stated that in talking to dealers of diesel dump trucks, they
had projected mileage rates in excess of 4 miles to the gallon,
but conceding to Councilmember Blonigen's concern that dealers
do not provide accurate information, Mr. Simola indicated he
contacted four other communities that used diesel trucks. Simola
noted that the four other governments that he contacted all
reported mileage ratings in excess of 6 miles per gallon as
opposed to the 4 miles per gallon stipulated by the truck dealers.
He felt that the actual records of these other jurisdictions
would bear out the fact that diesel was more effective in operations.
Mr. Simola also noted that using the statistics prepared by
the International Team Data Base, an organization that specializes
in compiling statistics for the maintenance and operations of
trucks, that there would be a $.098 per mile savings in maintenance
cost. In his preparation of statistics, Mr. Simola conceded
that even if the International Team Data Base had made an error
of 100%, the savings to the City would still be $196 a year.
The $196 per year maintenance savings when coupled with the
projected fuel savings totaled $1,232.05 per year in savings
for diesel over gasoline operation. Mr. Simola also acknowledged
that this figure does not take into account any down time for
wet engines, nor does it account for man hour time saved by
-7-
Council Minutes - 11/13/84
having to fuel the truck less often. Simola noted that the
decision to purchase a diesel engine for the truck as opposed
to a gasoline engine would cost the City approximately $5,000
more, but the savings in operations and maintenance would pay
for itself in slightly over 4 years. At that point, Councilmember
Blonigen raised the issue about whether or not they had computed
interest lost had the $5,000 been invested rather than spent
on a truck. Mr. Simola said that, in fact, they had computed
some interest but found that to be nonconsequential in that
computing lost interest on potential investments is not an accepted
practice within governmental units in gauging capital cost.
Simola indicated that Eidem had contacted a couple cities on
their financing procedures and cost analysis as well as utilizing
the International City Management Association's Management Information
Services for doing cost benefit analysis. Blonigen countered
Simola's statement by saying that interest absolutely had to
be computed, that it was irresponsible to not include interest
analysis in the cost. Blonigen went on to say that he felt
the numbers were totally inaccurate because the resources he
had discussed the matter with had informed him that any mileage
under 12,000 annually could not generate a savings with a diesel
engine. Blonigen went on to say that, in his estimation, the
figures had been inaccurately presented so as to project data
that would entice the Council to make a specific selection to
suit Mr. Simola's needs. He stated that it seemed to him that
John had predetermined that he wanted a diesel truck and, consequently,
presented only the numbers that would assist the Council in
selecting a diesel truck.
Eidem indicated that a conversation very similar to this one
had been held at an earlier Council meeting when staff and Council
were discussing contracting versus hiring an additional maintenance
person. He indicated that at that time the same allegation
was made by Councilmember Blonigen that staff inaccurately reflects
the data collected so as to predetermine the selection by the
Council or to alter and affect the alternatives that might be
available to the Council. He indicated that a challenge to
the integrity of the staff was unwarranted in that there is
absolutely no personal gain to be had by making any particular
purchase over another. Eidem stated that the presentation of
data in order to assist the Council in making decisions is done
in an objective fashion based on the research of City staff
through various professional experts. Eidem cited that the
cost/benefit analysis method was taken from the Institute of
Engineering and Technology at the University of Oklahoma, that
data was compiled from the International Team Data Base, that
the Management Information Service and the International City
Management Association provided cost/benefit analysis techniques,
and further that the four communities Mr. Simola had surveyed
had provided their data which documented successful use of diesel
Wo
Council Minutes - 11/13/84
engines. Eidem stated that the staff clearly presented their
research and resource materials for the Council to question,
but that Mr. Blonigen provided no names as to who the expert
witnesses were countering the data provided by staff. At this
point Mr. Blonigen indicated that he relied on information supplied
by Hoglund Bus Company of Monticello. Continuing on, Eidem
requested permission to address the question of the lost interest
investment. He indicated that he had contacted several metropolitan
communities and some outstate communities and found that the
loss of interest because of a purchase of more expensive equipment
was never computed into the overall cost because such a concept
when extended out became absurd. He stated that absurd on one
end would be to say we have the option of shutting down the
City entirely and investing all $41:1 million because we could
earn so much interest on it. This, he noted, was clearly not
an option. The absurdity at the other end is whether or not
to buy a single package of toilet paper because it's cheaper
or to buy a whole case of toilet paper because it's cheaper
per unit. However, the computation of lost interest by buying
the case might make the 4 -pack cheaper. Eidem acknowledged
that both examples were absurd but felt that they amply illustrated
why lost interest investment could not be computed into the
purchase of essential equipment. Eidem also stated that in
the budgeting process the Council levies a certain sum for taxation
collection, and those sums have been predetermined to be expended.
He noted that if, however, the City is able to operate under
budget, then there definitely would be a benefit in investing
the surplus funds. He went on to say that the City does not,
however, levy to create investment funds for the sole purpose
of generating interest income. Eidem stated that levy was intended
to be spent and that the City is not an investment company bent
upon generating interest income. Blonigen responded that that
may well be but that the Council is still responsible for buying
the most cost effective piece of equipment. Simola responded
that according to the data, that's exactly what staff is recommending.
Regarding trade-in, Simola said diesel is reported to have greater trade-in value.
Mayor Grimsmo asked that discussion be brought to a close on
this issue in that the debate seemed to be not generating any
kind of resolution to the issue. The Mayor asked if there was
a motion. Motion by Maxwell to grant approval to the proposed
replacement of the 1972 Chevrolet, to grant approval to the
plans and specifications submitted by the Public Works Department,
and to authorize staff to advertise for bids. The motion was
duly seconded by Councilmember Fair. Voting in favor: Maxwell,
Grimsmo, Maus, Fair. Voting in the opposition: Blonigen.
12. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Payment to the Minnesota
Coalition of Outstate Cities to be Used for Legislative Representation
Services.
Councilmember Maus opened the discussion with a question relating
Om
Council Minutes - 11/13/84
to the role of the League of Minnesota Cities. It was his understanding
that the League of Cities provided all of the lobbying expertise
on behalf of all cities in Minnesota. Eidem explained that
the Local Government Aid issue had created a split in the League
of Cities to a point that the Board of Directors for the League
had assumed a position of no position. Because of the varying
interests in the Local Government Aid formula, the League of
Cities Board of Directors felt that they could not adequately
and justifiably maintain a position that would be suitable to
the majority of cities in the League. Consequently, the League
Board had granted permission to all member cities to align themselves
with whatever appropriate affiliation could lobby on the Local
Government Aid formula in their best interests. Eidem explained
that the Coalition of Outstate Cities had elected to pursue
engaging a professional lobbyist to represent the entire Coalition
in their efforts to protect the Local Government Aid formula
in the 1985 Legislative Session. He stated that as a member,
the 20� per capita fee would result in an expenditure of $584.
Councilmember Maus asked how many other cities were members
of this and what share would they pay toward the membership.
Eidem, in order to clarify the matter, stated that there were
46 member cities, but this was not the membership fee. He stated
that the $584 is a one time contribution to the Coalition to
hire a lobbyist solely for the 1985 Legislative Session. He
explained that this would not be an annual levy against the
City as a part of its membership obligation. The Mayor noted
that were the City to act alone to hire a professional lobbyist
for the Legislative Session, the $584 in question would very
likely be gone in a single day's effort. Consequently, it was
his position that the $584 would be well spent when combined
with the amounts of the other cities to organize a professional
lobbying effort to protect the Local Government Aid formula.
Motion by Maus, second by Fair, and carried unanimously to adopt
the following resolution. See Resolution 1984 #49.
13. Mayor Grimsmo asked City Administrator Eidem to present an update
on the status of the intersection of T. H. 25 and County Road 117.
Grimsmo acknowledged that this was not an agenda item but understood
that some developments had brought this issue to the forefront
of importance. Eidem explained that the concept of an interim
traffic signal had been denied by the Department of Transportation
based upon the plans that had been originally submitted. He
indicated that he discussed the rejection of the plan with Jim
Povich of the Department of Transportation on Thursday, November 8,
and that further solutions to the problems were discussed at
that time. Eidem noted that the discussion with Povich included
several alternatives that the City requested MN/DOT to continue
to investigate. He said that Povich agreed to look at it, although
Mole
Council Minutes - 11/13/84
they were uncertain as to whether or not they could grant approval.
Eidem reported that on late Friday afternoon, November 9, Mr.
Povich called City Hall and reported that an interim design
solution had been reached and would the City Council please
review the layout at their next regular meeting. Eidem then
went over the layout plan as presented by MN/DOT which would
provide for interim traffic signal lights as well as channelization.
He indicated that in order to facilitate traffic adjusting to
the new lane alignment, standard MN/DOT barrel dividers would
be utilized at least until spring and maybe longer. He also
indicated that the interim design is meant to last for approximately
18-24 months until final construction of the overall project
is complete. Eidem reported that the State is willing to assume
full cost for the design and installation of the interim solution,
but the State would like financial consideration to be credited
to their share of the overall project in 1986. Eidem stated
that MN/DOT, on a very rough estimate, computed the total cost
of the interim design to be $40,000.00, one-half of which would
be municipal responsibility. Eidem stated that the resolution
he had prepared for Council adoption stipulated that in no case
would the City expend more than $20,000 on the interim solution.
Councilmember Maxwell then stated that based on those figures,
$20,000 at 20 months yields a cost of $1,000 per month for the
installation of this light. Eidem confirmed that and noted
that the City would very likely be responsible for the ongoing
maintenance of those lights since that is a responsibility that
has already been passed to the City at the other traffic light.
Motion by Fair, second by Blonigen, and carried unanimously
to adopt the following resolution. See Resolution 1984 #50.
14. Mayor Grimsmo gave a brief report on the happenings of the Orderly
Annexation Area and reported that a large storage facility had
been approved, but that a proposed subdivision near the Halliger
property had been denied. He did state that the proposed subdiviw;ion
also contained a rezoning request which had been approved.
15. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Thous A. Eidem
City Administrator
man