Loading...
City Council Minutes 12-17-1990 I I I MINUTE SPECIAL MEETING - MONTI ELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, December 17, 990 - 3:30 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan B onigen Members Absent: None 2. consideration of dial-a-ride bus s Monticello Heartland Ex ress for 1991 and 1992. Assistant Administrator reviewed the staff and Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee analysis of the two bids submitted to the i ty of Monticello. 0 I Neill summarized the analysis by sa ing that the bid submitted by Hoglund coach Lines and the b d submitted by Medavan over a four-year time period would r suIt in approximately the same cost. In terms of performance Hoglund Coach Lines has shown throughout the first year of s rvice that the organization is capable of providing excellent transportation service. It is not likely that Medavan will be able to improve upon the service provided by Hoglund Co ch Lines; therefore, given the fact that the costs are reI ti vely equal, the Monticello Transportation Advisory Co ittee, along with staff, recommends that the City sel ct Hoglund Coach Lines as the transportation service provid r for 1991 and 1992. Warren smith remarked that e is happy with the way the transportation system has oper ted. He stated that the system is still relatively new and b ilding its ridership. Fran Fair agreed that the tr nsportation system is good for the city. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to award the 1991/1992 Monticello Heartland Express contract to Hoglund Co ch Lines of Monticello. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of establishin an assessment formula for the Sandberq East, 90-4 pro;ect. City Administrator, Rick Wolf teller, reported that the 1990-4 improvement project servicing the Sandberg East development is nearing completion with prima ily restoration work left to do in the spring. Staff has bee accumulating costs involved in Page 1 I Special Council Minutes - 12/17/90 this project and has compiled a total project cost, including change orders and all indirec costs. Total project cost for construction only will total 172,230. To this figure we must add indirect costs such as e gineering, legal fees, bonding costs, etc., to arrive at to al project cost. With indirect costs, the total project c st has amounted to $223,400. Wolfsteller then reviewed two methods by which the costs could be allocated to benefiting property owners. Wolfsteller reviewed option A which ess ntially called for the entire project cost to be assessed to benefiting property owners except for the City assuming 285 feet of side frontage along Gillard and also would include the City paying for the oversizing expenses associat d with future extension of the utilities. Wolfsteller note that utilizing this option may result in a proposed assesse amount for each lot that might be excessive. The reason why it is excessive is because only one side of the roadway can e developed, and there are not enough property owners to sp ead the total cost to. I Wolfsteller remarked that u der Exhibit B the City would assume 25% of the lateral ewer and water cost, with the remaining amount to be assess d to benefiting property owners on a front footage basis plus service connections. Wolfsteller noted that und r this option, the individual assessment amounts will not be excessive. In this situation, a precedent for the City payi g 25% of the cost of the lateral sewer and water cost is not bing set because the City is, to some extent, forced to prov de sewer and water to the area that was annexed as platted land. In addition, the only path available to get to the annex d property had limited access to the sewer and water lines f om one side of the improvement. Finally, Wolfsteller noted hat although the City will be paying for a portion of th lateral sewer and water costs associated with this project in the long run, the City will be able to recover a major po tion of that expense through the application of an area asses ment to be applied against those properties that utilize this water and sewer service line at some point in the future. Ken Maus noted that Council decided to go ahead with this project for environmental reasons. Extending the utilities to Sandberg East was the right way to do it but not the least expensive. I Pag 2 I Spec'al Council Minutes - 12/17/90 Fran Fair asked if staff fee s costs can be picked up with area assessments associated w th future projects in the area. Rick Wolfsteller responded by saying that the area assessment could be applied to pick up a major portion of the City's contribution to the project. Ken Maus asked if the cost per foot being charged to the benefiting property owners under option B is similar to that charged to properties improve as part of other City projects. John Simola reported that the cost per foot under Option B is nearly the same as that whic was charged to property owners that received benefit from te Highway 39 project done a few years earlier; therefore, th cost per foot being charged is consistent with what other p operty owners have paid. Under Option B, the cost per foot is quite higher than what the normal improvement cost per f ot would be, essentially because only one side of the roadway is being assessed. I Dan Blonigen remarked that Ci y payment of 25% of the project cost amounts to a City subsi y. He asked why we are dipping into the taxpayers bag. Ke Maus responded by saying that this is a unique situation wh re it was important to the City future considerations that ut Ii ties be extended to this area. At the same time, however, t e project costs have to be at a level that the property owners can live with. At some point, the assessments become too arge which could result in the City ultimately obtaining th property. Motion was made by Fran Fair 0 select Exhibit B as a program for assessing benefiting property owners, which includes City absorbing 25% of the lateral sewer and water expenses due to the unique situation whereby only one side of the improvement can be assessed. This al ernati ve was chosen with the understanding that a portion of all of the amount absorbed by the City may be recapture in the future through area assessments when additiona properties are developed or annexed. Dan Blonigen noted that he might support a compromise between option A and Option B. Shir ey Anderson was concerned that a precedent might be set here. Wolfsteller reiterated that the precedent is diminished beca se of the unique situation. Ken Maus seconded the motion and expressed support for moving ahead with Option B. Votin in favor of the motion: Fair, Ken Maus, Shirley Ande son, Warren Smith. Opposed: Blonigen. Fran Dan I pag 3 I I I Spec"al Council Minutes - 12/17/90 Rick wolfsteller noted that J hn Sandberg requested that the assessment be placed agains four lots. Council did not oppose placing assessments ag inst 4 of the 13 lots owned by Sandberg so long as there is sufficient security that in the event the assessments are not paid, the City will be able to obtain a property without going through the tax forfeiture process. 4. Ratification of salar City Administrator Wolfstel outline of proposed salary employees. Ken Maus reviewe called for providing the flexibility to provide staff pool. er presented Council with an adjustments for all non-union previous Council action which City Administrator with the increases utilizing a $26,000 Marlene Hellman expressed her concern that the method by which the overall employee increase were distributed was not fair. She complained that the evalu tion system was not consistent, and the method by which the money was distributed was not fair. Rick Wolfsteller noted that h would be happy to sit down with Marlene and discuss the spe ific reasons behind her salary adjustment. Shirley Anderson noted that f Rick can support the increase proposed for each employee, s e can support the overall plan. Rick Wolfsteller described i stances where individual salary adjustments could be readjust d in a manner that would improve comparable worth relationshi s. Ken Maus noted that he would Administrator an additiona; increase certain individuals Administrator. ot be against providing the City sum to provide latitude to s deemed appropriate by the City After discussion, motion made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Warren smith, to adopt the salary schedule as proposed with the addition of $500 to be used to correct inequities in the proposed s hedule as deemed appropriate by the City Administrator. vot"ng in favor of the motion: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson. Absent: Dan Blonigen. Pag 4 ') I I Special Council Minutes - 12/10/90 Rick Wolfsteller stated that it is certainly a good idea to begin implementation of a fo mal evaluation system. We have the forms already, and we sho Id be evaluating each person at their anniversary date. o~ Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator Page 5