The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 04-23-2001 . Mayor: AGENDA REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY C01JNCIL Monday, April 23, ZOOt - 7 p.m. Roger Belsaas Council Memhers: Roger Carlson. Clint Ilerhs1. Brian Stumpf and Bruce Thielen 1. 2.A B ^' .L cJ4. t' 5. I( \J~ \J Call to Order Approve minutes of April 9. 200 I regular Councilmecting. Approve minutes of April 17.2001 special Council meeting. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. lOw", C....-I--- fl4lJJ ufd.:t"'- IJK4 - P05>S,f,I( cl4./ld ~iG- f7l>IStfl.:ss Citizen comments/petitions. re~1uest and complaints. CoM ^^ C')-;L consent~e~" ; '" 8~ /11 A. Consideration of resolution Declaring Costs oflmprovement Projects to he reimhursed hy future hond sale. B. C. . ~OU ~ \v \~ ~ Cf' @ . Consideration of Personnel Committee recommendations. Consideration of drilling four test wells to determine water quality in the lower aquifer the length of Monticello. Consideration to approve the preliminary concept for use ofTIF assistance for redevelopment of previous St. Henry's site. Consideration to approve the prel iminary concept for use of TI F assistance for Amoco site. (~~S 0'" <;1t<j{jJ/fL (LL1 ft' r~(~ ~) F. Consideration of approving charitahle gambling license - Monticello Alnerican Legion Post #260. G. Consideration of accepting feasihility report for Front Street Reconstruction, Project 200 1-06C. H. Consideration of accepting feasihility repor1. ordering plans and specifications and advertisement for bids fiJr Grovcland Phase 1 L Project 2001-05C. 1. Consideration of adopting resolution accepting feasihility repor1. ordering plans and specilications and calling flJr a public hearing on the street and utility improvements at Cedar Street between Oakwood Drive and Dundas Road. J. Consideration of adopting resolution ordering feasibility report. accepting feasihility report. ordering plans and specifications and calling for a public heai'ing on street reconstruction, curb and storm sewer and sidewalk improvements to 7111 Street between Cedar and Washington Street. . . ~ Consideration of cancelling uniform contract for Public Works Department with G & K Services. 6. Consideration or items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. 7. Public llem'i ng _ Consideration of a resolution adopting proposed assessment roll for delinquent utility hills and certification of assessment roll to Wright County. 8. Puhlic Hearing _ Walnut Street Corridor Improvements. Project 2000-17C. Consideration of ordering improvement and preparation of plans and specilications. 9. Consideration of request to allow National Guard to use Community Center for sleeping facility during Guard weekends. 10. Consideration of proposals for gravity helt thickener for wastewater treatment plant. Project 200 1 ~03C. 11. Approve payment of hills for April. 12. Adjourn. . . . . MINIJTES REGIJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COlINCIL April 9, 2001 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Roger Bclsaas. Roger Carlson. Clint Herbst. Brian Stumpf and Bruce Thielen. Members Absent: None 1. Call to Order Mayor Belsaas called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. Approve minutes of March 26.2001 regular Council meeting. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCil 26. 2001 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AS PRESFNTED. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of addine: items to the agenda. Clint Herbst asked that a discussion of an MOAA item be added to the agenda. Fred Patch added an update of the acoustics for the council chambers to the agenda and JeffO. Neill added discussion of fenci ng for the Klucas property to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments/petitions. requests and complaints. Tom Feaski. I 103 Club View Drive. came before the Council. to request the Council's approval to allow the local national guard unit to sleep in the guard facilities at the Community Center on weekends when the guard is using the facilities. At the present time the guards are not allowed to sleep at the Community Center facilities but must llnd lodging elsewhere. Mr. Feaski. a former national guard member, stated that pay for a guard member f()J' a weekend is about $150. When you deduct food. travel expense and lodging from this amount. there is little if any actual pay liJr the individual. The Council directed staff to review this issue including any liability ilnpacts and report back to the Council at the April 23.2001 meeting. 5. Consent Agenda A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for the COlnmunity Center and Deputy Registrar. Recommendation: Ratify hiring or employees as identified. B. Consideration of adopting a resolution calling fiJr public hearing on the modification of the Redevelopment Plan 1'01' Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-28. Recommendation: . c. D. . Council Minutes - 4/9/0 I Adopt resolution calling It,r a public hearing on modilication of the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-28. Res. #2001-23. Consideration to approve a loan agreement between the HRA and City. Recommendation: Move to approve the Loan Agreement hetween the liRA and the City in the mnount of $109,400 for acquisition of the property located at 8 Locust Street at an interest rate of 6.5% over 15 years. Consideration of resolution authorizing entering into an agreement with MnDOT prescribing terms and conditions of participation in Federal Aid Projects. Recommendation: Adopt the resolution authorizing the City to enter into a federal participation agreenlent with MnDOT. Res. #2001-18. Consideration of a resolution approving sale of tax fiJrfcited parcels by Wright County Auditor. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution requesting conveyance to the City of Monticello of parcels 155-0 10-035042. 155-059-000010. 155-059-000020 and 155-059-004010 and approve sale of parcel 155-014-0010 II at public auction. Res. # 2001-17. F. Considcration of concept and development stage planned unit development and consideration of preliminary plat approval for a 92 unit townhomc development. Applicant: Craig Scherber & Associates and Edgar Klucas. Recommendation: Mow to approve the CUP/Plll) and preliminary plat hased on the finding that the proposed pIaL is inc compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance subject to the following conditions: F. -I. 5. (" 7 . X Prairi..: Road Illw;tlw ..:\knd..:d frol11th..: subj..:ct property to \\her..: the ..:\istin!;' >tr..:..:l ends. n1.: ('it) Inust dct..:rl1lin..: Iw\\ to Illwnce this ..::--t..:nsion. 1 Dri\..:\\ays must bl' s..:panlkd by at kast four f..:..:t atth..: curb to avoid th..: app..:anlnc..: of.1 \\ id..: ..::--p,\I1s": of ,lSphall. .J, The landsul\w plan must be revis..:d to includ..: \":!;'dativ..: scr..:..:nin!;' alung th..: south prop..:rty line to screen Inlcrstak 'i<I ,md aloug th easl prup..:rty line' to scr..:..:n b.:t\\een the backyards of till' propns..:d d..:\ eloplllent and the e:--istini'- dn..:lopn1.:nt to the ..:asl. The landscape plan nlLlSt be r..:\ bed tn includ..: at ka>t 1-Ilnllil-li\'ed Iwrd\\uod deciduous Irces, .1.5 ilKh..:s in diamckr as n1.:asun:d si:-- inch.:, ulT th..: ground. Th.: ,it..: plan mu,t b.: revisnlto mid a Iw III Ill..:r-heml turn-around atth.: ..:nd of ..:ach of thc Ihr.:e dead-..:nd side Slr.:cts and the tnlsh cnlkction ar..:as along th..: nwin int":rIIal strcctl1lust bc clinlinatcd Thc pr.:lilllinary i'-radinil pl.\I1 is ,ubjcCl to th..: rc\i..:\\ and appro\;d of the City h1i'-in.:cr Ih..: prl,lilllinar\ utility plan i, ,uhieCltoth..: re\i..:\\ and approval of the City Lniliue..:r. The ;Ipplic,mtlllust ,ubl1lit a copv of all ruks and by la\1S tu bc utili/cd by the dev..:loplll..:nt's 11l1I1lCu\\n.:r, associalion lor ('it\ re\ic\\, The ruks/byLl\\S ,hOldd address sllch issu..:s a, Illaint..:nanc..: of COllllllon np..:n space and snU\1 ren10\al. 7 . 9. 10. I'll.: appli':clllt nHlSt l:nkr illto .1 dl:v.:loplll.:nt at!n:':llll:nt \\ith Ih.: City al final stilg.: !'UI) approval. i\ lighlillg plall must hl: suhmitt.:d for 1'':\ Il:\\ h> thl: ('ity, Council Minutes - 4/9/0 I II. Conlmu\h I'rom olh.:r Cit> sullY. G. Consideration of development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat approval for mixed commercial use. Applicant: Dan Mielke. Recommendation: Move to approve the CUP/PUD and preliminary plat based on the finding that the proposed plat with conditions is appropriate f(n the location and proposed uses. and that the proposed improvements qualify for pun consideration under the City's pun ordinance. Approval is conditioned upon the following: I. 1 ,'. 4. 5. . h. 7. X. 9. 10 Thl: plant sl:hl:dule on Ih.: I<1I1<.:l,;l'1I1l: pi un IllUSt inl:lud.: thl propos.:d Ilumhl:r of plunh and Ih.: Iandslapl plan Illnsl inllud.: I<mdslupillf'- uround huildings. I he' upplil:unl nlUst rl:ll:iv.: pl:rmission rrom th.: propl:rty (l\\nl:r to Ih.: north in ord.:r to planl on thai prop.:rty or Ih.: sitl: and landslapl: plans nHlsl 11.: rnis.:d 10 inlludl: lallll,;laping alollg th.: norlh.:rn hound,lry \\ithin thl: suhj.:<.:t sitl:. Wull plan signs Illusl hl: SUhlllitt.:d so Ihal SiglHlg.: l.111 b.: l:\alnakd us a tolal pUlkaf'-':. ;\ppro\.,1I of signag.: plans tabled until furtlll:r rnil:\\ of plun .llld .:'-.bting signs in Ih.: arl:,\. Th.: grudinf'- plan b subil:lt W Ih.: 1'':\ k\\ alld .lppro\ul of Ih.: City 1'.llgilH:l:r. I'h.: ulility plan is suhj.:<.:t (0 till: r.:\i.:\\ dlld apprmal ortll.: City I':nf'-in.:.:r ,\ ligllting plall Illust hl: suhlllittl:d 1'01' 1'':\ i.:\\ b\ thl: City. i\ slyle or lighting Illnst hl: dwsl:1l in \\hidl th.: light SOllrl': is not \ bibk frolll adjal':1l1 propl:l.ty or pnblil: right-of-\\a>. Thl: dpplil:ant mUSI .:nl<:r into a d.:vdopnll:nt agrl:l:Illl:llt \\ilh th.: City. ('Olllnll:llh from oth.:r City stall. II. Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for establishment of a convenience food type restaurant in the CCD District. ^pplicant: BBF Properties. Harry Fluth. Recommendation: Move to allow a conditional use permit for BBF Properties and Pizza Man to establish a convenience fiJod establishment in the CCD District subject to the terms of the Zoning Code Section 14B-5[D I as related to such a business. I. Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned unit development allowing multiple structures on an industrial site. ^pplicant: Blue ('hip Development Company. Recommend.ltion: Move to recommend approval based on the findings contained in the report to the Council and subject to the following: . I. 11ll1i<.:dt.: a pOklllialnsl: for till: propos.:d huildings. 1 [).:nHlnstrak thllllhl: sit.: can alcollllllOdal.: tll<: r.:quirl:d Ilulllb.:r or on~strl:l:1 parking sl,i1I,;. ') .J . . . Council Minutes - 4/9/01 I knlOnslrall: that thc sill: can pnnidc ,ldcqllall: nlanell\cl'ing room lilr larg~ trllcKs, -L Align the n:nll:l' Cllrh ull lIith the proposc'll drive'lIay. ). Redesign thc' ,ill: to creall: ,I lIniqllc and cohc:siv e de\elopnu.:nt. This design should n:lo~all: the oIT-stn:ct loading al'c'a all,IY rronlthe adjacentl'esidenlialus<:, h. As part or the duclopmellt slUg<: PlIll upplication. the upplicalltmust suhmit and n:l<:ive approvul orthl rolllllling lliall:rials: /\. (,rading. drainag~ and utility plans, 1\. Ikwikd photolll<:tric plan. e. COlllprchcnsivc sign plan rur th<: elltirc sill:. I). Sill: plan illustrating adcquall: trash storagc, L. ll~t,likd landsc'lj"lC plan th,lt incllldcs th<: requircd hlrlTcr yard and landscaping. F. Building ekvations. J. Consideration of accepting petition and ordering feasibi lity report 1()f Groveland Phase II. Recommendation: Move to accept petition and order feasibility report and plans and specifications for Grovcland Phase II contingent on developer deposit equal to cost to complete said design work. Res. #2001-21. K. Consideration of ordering feasi bility study for reconstruction of sanitary sewcr, water and street located at Front Street between Walnut Street and Linn Street. Recommendation: Move to order feasibility study I'lli' reconstruction of sanitary sewer, water and street on Front Street between Walnut Street and Linn Street. Res. #2001-22. L. Consideration of approval of the final plat of Klein Farms ]Ill Addition. Recommendation: Move to approve the final plat of Klein Farms 7'11 Addition. Res. #2001-20. M. Consideration of approval of the linal plat of Rolling Woods 2'1(1 Addition. Recommendation: Move to approve the final plat of the Rolling Woods 2nd Addition contingent upon compliance with fee requirements and completion of standard development agreernent to the satisf~letion of the City Staff and City Attorney. Res. #2001-19. BRUCE Tl IIELL.:N MOVED TO APPROVL:: TIlE CONSLNT AGENDA. CLINT llERBST SECONDI]) TI.!l': MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. None. 4 . . . Council Minutes - 4/9/01 7. Consideration of resolution supporting lee:islation providing a partial exemption from the utilitv personal property tax and replacement of lost revenues to host eommunities. Todd Rapp and Tim Flaherty. representing X-cel Energy and the Coalition ol'Utility Cities. spoke to the Council regarding the legislation that would provide a partial exemption Ji"om the personal property tax fl.)!" the utility company and provide replacement revenuesll.)!" the host cities. This bill is currently being considered by the legislature as I [ouse File 112339 and Senate File #2191. Todd Rapp indicated that they arc still working with some school districts to resolve the revenue gap should this legislation pass. The Council expressed their concerns about getting the school district issues resolved. The Council also noted that the lost of the market valuc will impact the Citis tax base but felt this legislation might provide some security about replacement revenues rather than relying on the whims of the legislature. Todd Rapp indicated that the tax values used would be the 200 I values and if the legislation was passed it would likely be implemented in 2002. BRUCE T1IIEIJ':N MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-16 SUPPORTING HOUSE FILl,: #2339 AND SENATE FILE #2191 WIIICII WOULD PROVIDE A PARTIAL EXEMP'TION FROM THE UTILITY PERSONAL PROPeRTY TAX AND RI':J)LAC'I~MENT OF LOST REVENUES TO IIOST COMMUNITIES NCHING TIIA T EFFORTS WOUI.D CONTINUE TO RESOI.VE ISSUES AFFECTING THE SCHOOl. DISTRICTS. CLINT IIERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRieD lJNANIMOUSL Y. Res. #2001-16 8. Consideration of a reuuest to rezone from R-2 to a planned unit development and consideration of a eoncept stage planned unit development allowine: mixed uses. Applicant: Church of St. Henry and Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc. Jell <fNeill provided background inl'ormation on this agenda item noting that the land usc is similar to those that were proposed earlier fl.lr the site by a different developer. The mixed uses proposed fl.)r this site would include a f~lCility ll.lr the perfi)rming arts and residential potential fiH 14 to 22 home sites. John Komarek I'rom Cedrus Creek Craftsll1an. Inc. spoke regarding the proposed development. He noted that under this proposal the current parking lot (Block 21) would he redeveloped into residential units and the parking would be located on Block 28. There was some discussion on the most appropriate location ll.lr parking and it was emphasized that this is just a concept stage approval and at the development stage approval these items would be more fully addressed. Dick Frie. Planning Commission Chainnan. noted that the Planning Commission did have a concern ahout having a specific time frame tl.lr the development. He also poi nted out that the residences were in the area even be Core the church was there and that proposcd development should not negatively impact the residential area. Brian Stump I' noted that the agenda item indicated that rezoning was being requested and 5 . . . Council Minutes - 4/9/0 I asked what properties were alTeeted by that. Stall responded that all the properties covered by the proposal would be rezoned to R-PLJD but the rezoning request would be acted on when the Council considered the development stage PUD. CLINT IIFRBST MOVED TO APPROVE TIIF CONCEPT FOR TilE RE-USE AND REDl~VI':LOPMFNT OF THE ST. III':NRY'S CHURCII AREA BASIJ) ON A FINDING Tl-[AT TIll.: MIXED USE CONCEPT WOULD BE POSITIVE FOR TI II.: PROPERTY AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED AS A PART OF THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS. BRIAN STUMPf SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Consideration of settin1! a special meetin1! date for estahlishment of an assessment policy rchltin1! to street construction. The Council discussed setting a date for a special meeting on an assessment policy t'(X street reconstruction. Since there are some projects that will soon be coming up for construction. the Council wanted to get the policy in place as soon as possible. The Council set Tuesday. April 17.200 I at 5:00 as the llleeting date. Added Items: ;\40.111 Upda/e_- CI int Ilerbst indicated if a proposal for the annexation of the Ral ph Hermes property was approved it would leave a 1 Y2 acre site (Simondet property) of township land surrounded by city property. The Silllondct property is not requesting annexation into the City and Clint Herbst questioned whether the City had a policy that would address this situation. Jeff CfNeill stated that hc believed the MOAA agreement allowed for the annexation of parcels without petition under certain circumstances. Acolls/ics Update: Fred Patch indicated that quote had been received from EMI Audio for upgrading of the audio system fl.lr the Council Chambers. The quote was in excess of$20.000 but a portion of this lllay be reimbursed by the Cable Commission. Fencing !ssue' .Ieff Michaelis requested that the City Council require as part of the conditional use pennit approval for the Klucas property that a fence be installed by the developer. JeffCfNeill indicated that this was discussed in Planning Commission consideration of the conditional use permit and that the ordinance docs not require a fence. If the adjacent property owner is concerned about the security of his property. there is nothing that prevents him from constructing a knce but the Planning Commission did not fee/that developer of the Klucas property should do so. The Council took no action on this request. "'/Jecia! Mec/ing: Mayor Relsaas reminded the Council of a special meeting of the HRA schcduled t'(lr April 25. 2001 at 6:30 p.n1. 6 . . . Council Minutes ~ 4/9/01 1 n. Approve pavment of bills for April. BRIAN STUMPF MOVU) TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Adjourn BRUCE rI--IIELEN MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 8:05 P.M. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CAR.RIED UNANIMOUSLY. -,~-,., --., ,.--. - --..-"..-..,.-..".- Recording Secretary 7 . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COlJNCIL April 17,2001 - 5 p.m. Members Present: Roger Lklsaas. Roger Carlson. Clint Herbst and Bruce Thielen. Members Absent: Brian Sturnpf Stall Present: City Administrator. Rick Wolfstellcr. Deputy City Administrator. kIT O'Neill. Public Works Director. John Simola and City Engineer. Brct Weiss. The special meeting was called to order at 5 p.m. A quorum of the Council was present. The purpose of the special meeting vvas to discuss and formulate an assessment policy for street and utility reconstruction projects. City Engineer. Ilret Weiss submitted a list of the projects that the City would need to consider doing within the next ten years. These projects include: . Reconstruction of "core" streets and related uti 1 ity repairs CSAIl 75 CSAIl 1 X Interchange (partial) Fallon Avenue Overpass ]Ill Street Widening Cedar Street The City Engineer and City Administrator met with officials from the City of Minnetonka regarding their "no assessment'. pol icy for reconstruction projects and how it was set up. Bret Weiss then presented information on two assessment options: I. No Assessment - Under this option the cost or reconstruction of existing inrrastruetures would he done through City funding sources. Brct Weiss pointed out however. that new or expanded development would he assessed at rull cost. If a street was reconstructed and curb and gutter was where no curb and gutter existed previously. the full cost or the curb and gutter would he assessed. Also under this option any improvements initiated by a developer would be fully assessed. 2. 25% Assessment - This option would assess 250;() of the cost of a reconstruction project and the remaining 7Y!;. of the cost the City would rund. Since at least 20% or cost was being assessed. it \vould allow the City to bond for the rernaining costs. . Based on the estimated costs or the projects being considered. the City would be looking at a $1.700.000 per year expenditure or irstate aid runds are included $1.500.000 per year. Irthe City used the 25% assessment option. they would still need to levy $1.125.000 per year. . . . lhe Council discussed the figures submitted by the City ^dministrator showing the tax impact for properties of various values if the City \vas to raise an additional $1,500,00 per year through taxes to cover the cost of the reconstruction projects. One of the issues discussed \vas if the City \vent with ,I no assessment policy could the projects be delayed until such time as sunicient funds wcre collected through the tax levy to fund the projects. It \vas pointed out that the earliest any amounts could be levied would be in 2002. The general feeling of the Council and stall was that some of these projects would need to be started shortly and therefore the City did not have enough tinle to build up a fund to use for linancing these projects. ^nother option the Council discussed was to assess a portion of the cost of the project (at least 201;() to allov\/ the City to bond) and levy the alnount needed for debt service. It was generally thought that the taxpayer would be more hostile to this since they were not only being assessed but were also having their taxes increased to cover the improvement. It was stated that when a property owner is assessed for the cost of the improvernent he has some idea of the value of the improvement. [fthe City levies an amount for all properties, the value of the improvement to the property owner is not quite so ohvious. Clint Herbst kIt that City should set up their policy so that sOlne money was being generated now that would be going into a fund for reconstruction projects. [f initially the City bonded to cover the cost of thc projects. the property owner could see on his taxes an assessment,( if the City goes with the 25% assessment option) the cost of the debt service and a surcharge or cost that would be used to establish the reconstruction fund. Lioing this route vvould allow construction on the projects to start earlier since the City could bond for the projects and it would still put in place the means to establish and build a fund to handle future reconstruction projt'cts. Clint I Icrbst felt that since it would take a number of years to build up the reconstruction fund. the bonding process would still allow projects to take place as they were needed. Roger Helsaas felt that there should he some assessments but that the shouldn't distract the City from getting the perpetual reconstruction fund established. The consensus was that assessments would be a part of the City's policy on reconstruction projects. and there was some discussion on whether the assessments wouldjust be initially until there was a good fund balance in the reconstruction fund or whether the assessments would always be a part of any reconstruction project. Public Works Director, .John Simola felt that if you start a policy of assessing a portion of the cost that policy should remain throughout. Since the City already charges S^C/W ^C charges and area trunk charges. the City does need to make an errort to make clear to property owners and developers what these charges are and the need for the levy increase in order for the City to be able to fund reconstruction projects. The Council agreed that the City would have to do a good job of explaining the assessment policy to the public. Roger Belsaas asked about the current debt load and how soon there would be significant reduction in debt service. City Administrator. Rick Wolfstellcr replied that there would not be any significant decline in the debt service unti12013. The Council discussed the various projects proposed and seemed to feel that the extension of TIi Street and the Cedar Street projects would most likely be ones that would be started this year. Comparing the Ccdar Street project to reconstruction of the City's core street. the question came up if the street width was expanded how is that cost handled. [n the case of Cedar Street because the street width is being increased to accommodate development. the cost oethe difference between what the existing \vidth is and what the linal width of the street is would be assessed 100II(). The Council . . . also dclcrm i ncd that uniq uc /'eat urcs. i.e. t urn lanes. dri \'e\\ays. would be assessed 10CYYo. BreI W ei ss wi II !(\rIllal izc an asseSSlnent pol iey f()r street reconstruction based on: 2{)% o/slrce! reconslrllcl ion cosls 10 he ussesscd (il if il)" reconslrllcl ion cosls 10 he fllndcd hJ' ('il.v - nol us.\csscd. E\punsions or cn!wnccll1cnls or('/' Il'hUI is cxisling II'iI! hc ussesscd J ()()%. Dcn)O!JlI1enl inil iUled ill1jJmrell1enls us,\essed J ()()%. Dehl senice coslsfhr reconslruction IJrojecls !eried · /lddilior!u!!Cl)' ulIwunllo esluhlish/fi/lulfiilure slree! reconslruction IJmjeels crhe specialmceting closcd at 6 p.m. Recording Secretary . . . Council Agenda - 04/23/01 SA. Consideration of Resolution Declaring intent to Reimburse Proieet Costs throu2h Bond SaIl' Proceeds. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND IRS regulations now require that bellJre a city ean issue bonds to reimburse itselr fl.)r expenses it has already paid through a bond sale. a resolution needs to be passed indicating which projects the city willlikcly sel1 honds for in the future. This resolution is simply a technical requirement required by the bond counsel. The resolution being proposed covers various improvement projects that are currently underway or wil1 be started in the near future. This resolution will allow the City to finance any of these improvements in the future by selling bonds. Adoption or the resolution is not authorizing a bond sale at this time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. Adopt a resolution declaring intent to reilnburse expenditures to the proceeds of bond covering the various projects outlined. 2. Do not authorize the resolution. C. ST AFF RECOMMENDKrION It is the recommendation of the City Administrator that the resolution be adopted as proposed. thus enabling the City to sell bonds to finance the various ilnprovelnent projects listed, if desired, in the future. D. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of resolution. ____~'--...-.--~______,. .. -.'...._....' ".,,_--..L..- ._ . . . RESOLUTION NO. 2()()1-27 RESOLUTION DECLARIN(; THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO TO REIMBlJRSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WI-IEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Tn.::as. Reg. ~ 1.150-2 providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures wi II not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the City expects to incur certain expenditures which may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of a bond; NOW. THEREfORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIl, OF TilE CITY OF MONTICFIJJ) (THF "CITY") AS fOLLOWS: 1. The City reasonably intends to make expenditures for the projects described in Exhibit A (the "Projects"), and rea~~H1ably intends to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of debt to be issued by the City in the maximum principal amount described in Exhibit A. 2. The City Administrator is authorized to designate appropriate additions to Exhibit A in circumstances where time is of the essence. and any such designation shall be reported to the Council at the earliest practicable date and shall be filed with the official books and records of the City as provided in Section 3. 3. This resolution is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of Treas. Reg. ~ 1.150-2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. Adopted by the City Council of the City this 23rd day 01" April. 2001. Mayor A'rrES'I': City Administrator . . . Resolution No. 2001-27 Page 2 EXHIBIT A TO OFFICIAL INTENT IlESOLUTION ADOPTED AI'I{I L 23, 20()) MAXIMUM DATE OF PRINCIPAL DECLARA TlON DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AMOUNT OF DEBT FOR PROJECT 4-23-200 ] Walnut Street Sidewalk Improvcments $273.520.00 4-23-200 I 200] -03C Gravity Belt Thickcncr $825.000.00 4-23-200 ] 2001-05 P Grovc land Phase [11m rrovclllcnts $] .328.000.00 4-23-2001 200 1-06C Front Street lJtilitics $150.000.00 . . . Council Agenda - 4/23/01 5B. Considcration of Pcrsonncl Committee Rccommcndations. (R W) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Personnel Committee has met a couple of times (.January 16th and February 2:)rd) to review a number of personnel issues and has made recomnlendations on thcse issues for Council approval. The COlnmittee had originally hopcd to also review the cxisting personnel policy and cOlnpare the policy to our city ordinance to arrivc at onc doclllllcnt but has not yet COlllpletcd this final process. It is anticipated that thc personnel policy revicw may take another month or so. and as such. the issues previously revicwed arc now being brought fiHward for Council approval. Previously thc Councilmcmbers were provided with the agendas of the Personnel Committee meetings which outlined the issues being discussed and also the City Adnlinistrator's recommendation fin the Personnel COlllmittee to consider. These agenda background items fix each of the issues is again being enclosed for your rcview. but rather than repeat the entire in formation hcre, r wi II attempt to briefly summarize the issuc and the Personnel Comm i ttee' s recommendation. The following were the issues discussed and the Personnel Committee recommendations: Accumulated Vacation Polic.l'" Currently the City does not have a maximum number of vacation hours that can be accumulated and carried over from year to year. The City currently has about eight employees who have acclIlllulated over 200 hours of vacation over the past 25 years. "rhe excess varies from just a few days to over a 1.000 hours. Since the City has always accounted f(n these accumulated vacation hours by budgeting and setting aside funds to annually to cover the cost our audit reports have always shown that the funding has been provided for to cover the potential payout of the accumulated vacation hours. Questions discussed bv the Committee included whether a maximunl numbcr of hours accumulated should be established and if so. what would be an appropriate number of hours and how do you address those individuals who have accumulated over a certain number of hours in the past? Rather than repeat all of the agenda background provided previously. the following summary is the recOlllmendation of the Personnel Committee: . MaxinlUm number of hours should be established at I 1/2 times the amount of annual earnings by each employee. For example. if an employee earns two \veeks per year. the maximum accumulation would be 120 hours. For an employee who carns three weeks. the rnaximum would be 180 hours. Any el11I]loyee who has already accumulated more than their maxinlUm number of hours would have those hours grandfillhered in. but would not be . Counci I Agenda - 4/23/01 recommendation \vas to be effective April] _ 2001. I Council could choose not to adopt the Personnel Committee recoll1ll1endations as a pacKage and takc specific action on each issue separately. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and the Personnel Committee that the f()llr personllel issues discussed above be approved hy the Coullcil. The Personnel Committee will be reviewing the present personnel policy and personnel ordinance to eliminate any cont1icts in the documents and will he rnaking a reconlll1enclation to the Council in the near future. It is also anticipated that the Personnel Committee will discuss the estahlishment of a separate wage scale and hene/it package that would he applicable to Community Center operations. that may he different from our existing policies and salary structures. O. SlJPPORTING DATA: . Copy of Personnel Committee Agendas from 1/16/0 I and 2/23/0 I Personnel Committee Reconunendations ii-OIl1 1/16/0 I. 2/23/0 1 and 4/17/0] . . 4 . Counci I ^genda - 4/23/0 I allcl\ved to incrcase the hours above what they already have. · Any employee who has accumulated above the maximum arnount would be required to be paid 1(11' or utili/:e at least 100 hours annually of their accumulated vacation. · ^ll employees would be required to use at least Y2 of their annual vacation accrual each year. or the vacation would be forfeited. · Non-exempt (hourly) employees would lose or forlCit any vacation above their maximum each year i fit is not used by December 3 1'101' each year. · Exempt (salaried) employees who, in the opinion of the City Administrator arc unable to use their vacation by year end and have reached the maximum accLlll1ulation amount can be paid f()r up to Y2 of their annual earnings. Employee Mileage Rehnhursement Rate: Since 1994, the mileage reimbursement rate j(1I' city employees has remained at $.28/per mile. For the year 2001. the IRS will allow $.345/per mile as the mileage rate. . Personnel Committee Reconunendation: To silnplify the mileage reimbursement for city elnployees who use their own vehicles. it is the reeommendation of the Personnel Committee that the City annually adjust the mi leage reimbursement rate to correspond vvith the IRS allowance. For the 2001 year, the mileage reimburselnent rate would be set at $.345/per mile. Group /lealtlt Insurance Contribution Levels: In 1993 a policy was established that had set the amount the City would contribute towards enlployees health insurance coverages that provided $232.47 for family coverage options. Since 1993. as the premiums increased. the city employees have been responsible f()r picking up the additional cost of family coverage above the $232.4 7 amount. Over the years. coverages have been eliminated or reduced to keep the premium level af/(mlable for the City and employees. but the average cost of an employee and fall1ily package has still risen to over $642/per month. Assuming the CPI index was used to adjust employees share over the past S years. the currently monthly contribution by an employee fl.)!' tiH11ily coverage would be $69.72. This number happens to be approximately 2(Y% of the Jiul1ily coverage premium. . Since the City C'ouncil had not formally amended the city contribution level since 1993. it was recommended that the Council officially indicate that the contribution levels would be adjusted annually to renect cost of living index or that a sill1ple percentage of the family coverage be established that the employees would be expected to contribute. ! . Council Agenda - 4/23/01 Personnel Committee Recommendation: It is the recomrnendation of the Personnel Committee that since the current level of contributions was about 2m1, of the I~lmily premiullL an easier calculation mcthod in the future would he to simply establish a policy of the City providing 1000;\) of the single employee coverage and contrihute XOl};, of the j~lInily coverage. with the employee being responsible f()r the 20% balance. It is recommended that the 20% contribution Icvel rate he effective next January 1 'I. and that the current amount calculated of $69.72 I(Jr employee contributions remain as is for the balanee of this year. . Comparable Worth/Pay Equi(v Adjustments: At the time the cost of living adjustment vvas granted by the Council in Deeember for the year 200 I. it was recollunended that the Personnel Committee review the comparable worth program and also review current market data to determine whether further adjustments may he warranted to the city's overall pay structure. 8ased on salary survey information that had been compiled by city stall it appeared that salary ranges were approximately X)l!() of the average of communities surveyed near Monticello and including metro area cOllununities. The Personnel Committee also reviewed how the comparable worth plan was estahlished in 1991 and discussed the seventh step that was eliminated li'om the oriu;inal recommendations bv the Leau;ue of Minnesota Cities L. J ~ consultant report. The information reviewed by the Personnel Committee supported an adjustnlent to the salary structure and the Personnel Committee recOlllmended that the seventh step be re-established erlective April 1.200 I which would amount to a 4.2(1'0 increase to the salary ranges. As part of the implementation of the new step. employees would not be eligihle to rllove to Step 7 until three years after obtaining Step 6. With the intent of the additional step being to provide additional incentives for continued longevity with the City. The Council is again l"Clllinded to review the agenda packages that were provided to the Personnel Committee f(x the January 16th and February 23'0 meetings and to also review the Personnel Committee recommendation summaries that are enclosed with this agenda for more detail on the discussion and recolllllH:ndations. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. Council could adopt the recommendations of the Personnel Committee for the four specific areas discussed. including accumulated vacation policy. employee rnileage reinlbursement rate. group health contribution levels and comparable worth/pay equity adj ustments. . The accumulated vacation policy and employee lllilcage reimbursement rate were intended to be erlcctivc January 1.2001 while the group health contribution level would not change until January 2002. The cOlllparable worth/pay equity adjustrnent ,.., -) . . . 4. AGENDA PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Tuesday, January 16,2001 - 3 p.m. 1. Consideration of establishing a full-time liquor store clerlustock person position. 2. Review of Riverside Cemetery operational policies. 3. Discussion on accumulated vacation policy amendments. If time permits, discussion of comparable worth/pay equity/salary schedule review. - . ACCUMULATED VACATION POLICY At the last Personnel Committee meeting, we briefly reviewed that the City did not have a maximum number of vacation hours that could be accumulated and carried over from year to year and the Personnel Committee was looking at ways of establishing a maximum amount that could be accumulated by each employee and to also address what to do with individual cases that may have more hours than the maximum being established. In addition, one of the issues discussed concerned whether an employee should be allowed to receive payment for any unused vacation hours at the end of each year, if time did not allow the person to take all of their vacation. A number of cities were surveyed and a summary of their vacation and sick leave policies is enclosed for your review. The following is a brief summary of vacation accumulation policies. . Name Maximum Accumulation Additional Notes Andover 200 hours Additional hours over 200 forfeited after anniversary date. Becker 160 hours Forfeited at year end. Big Lake 200 hours Forfeit at year end. Buffalo 144 hours (if they earn less than 12 days per year. 124 hours (if they earn over 12 days per year. Champlin 80 hours Forfeit at year end. Elk River Carryover equal to their annual vacation earnings. Maple Grove 40 hours Excess hours paid on at year end. Plymouth Non-exempt employees: IV2 Forfeit at year end. times annual earnings Exempt employees: 2 times annual earnings. Based on the above examples, if the Personnel Committee is looking at establishing the maximum accumulation number. it seems like t"vo hundred hours might be a good number. This would be close to I V2 times a typical employee's vacation ifthe:y earn three \veeks per year. As a starting point. it seems like a reasonable number to establish as a maximum. . Assuming a maximum is established, the next question becomes I1mv dn we handk :.lny amounts that - . have been accumulated by employees over the maximum and also how do you handle additional accruals that may occur in the future. Currently the City has about eight employees that have accumulated over 200 hours of vacation over the past twenty~five years. The excess varies from just a few days to over a thousand hours, in my own case. Since the City has always accounted for these accumulated vacation hours by budgeting and setting aside funds annually to cover the cost our audit reports have always shown that funding has been provided tor the potential payout of the accumulated vacation hours. Other than for the purpose of clearing off the liability off of Our books. I am not sure why the City would want to spend the money today to buyout the accumulated vacation hours since we would be able to earn more interest on the money by simply leaving the funds in our Own bank accounts. It would by my recommendation that if a maximum number of hours is established in the future, those employees who currently exceed that number should be allowed to grandfather in those hours but not be allowed to accumulate any additional vacation above that number. As employees leave city employment. the accumulation of those grand fathered in would be eliminated and paid as severance benetits at that time. As far as how to handle vacation hours that are not used on an annual basis. an employee would simply be allowed to continue to accumulate hours they haven't used until they reach the 200 hour maximum. at which time they could either be paid for the hours or they would lose them. It may be beneficial to allow employees the opportunity to be paid for some of their hours rather than tarcing them to take all of their vacation by year end. If'vve would adopt a "use it or lose it policy:' we may tind ourselves in a position where employees are taking vacation near the end of the year that may not be in the best interest of the City. leaving us short staffed. . If a policy was established to allow' employees to be paid tar some of their vacation each year. it \vOLdd be suggested that a maximum amount of hours be established that they could be paid for each year. such as no more than Y:: of their annual accumulation could be paid. Also. I would sayan employee shouldn't be allowed to be paid for any unused vacation each year until they have reached the 200 hour maximum. One of the reasons I would suggest allow'ing those employees \vho have over 200 hours already accumulated to be grandfathered in. is that these employees have been operating under the policy of being allowed to accumulate vacation hours to be paid as severance benefits once they leave city employment. If the City was to no\v establish a maximum number and require employees to be paid tor their excess hours in one lump sum. it could be creating an unexpected income tax liability on some individuals. For example. many of the employees 'vvho have accumulated excess vacation hours could continue to defer this income by contributing more funds to a detened compensation program we have available. This option would not be available to myself in that I already utilize defer compensation to the maximum allowed because this is my only retirement program. I do not belong to the PERA. system. \vhereas other employees would likely have deterred compensation options available to them. Again, in my o'vvn situation. my income tax liability would likely take 1/3 of any amounts I recei\'e whereas I had been operating under the assumption that I could recei \ie a severance benefit at a time when my income tax obligation would have been lower. . Recommendation: . Establish a maximum accumulated vacation of 200 hours. ') . . . . Allow any employee who has already accumulated more than 200 hours to be grandfathered in and allow them the option of either receiving payment for their accumulated vacation over a specified number of years or be allowed to defer payment until retirement or leaving city employment. Allow employees who accumulate 200 hours to be paid for any excess at years end, up to a maximum of Y:- of their annual earnings. Any amount over y; would be forfeited. Funds have been accounted for annually and set aside to fund the vacation and sick leave accumulations as a severance benefit. The City is able to earn more interest income by not paying for accumulated vacation benefits until absolutely necessary. The likelihood of annual increases in salaries exceeding what interest earnings are is remote under normal circumstances. . The above recommendations would: 1. Establish a maximum number of hours that can be accumulated. 2. Grandfather in those individuals that have relied on past policy when their hours were accumulated. 3. Provides for a way to not force all employees to use all of their vacation every year. which may cause a hardship for the City. and 4. Allows the City to retain the accumulated vacation dollars in our bank account until the employee leaves city service rather than spending the funds to day. Attachment: Survey Vacation Policies . . . 5. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING Friday, February 23, 2001 - 2:30 p.m. l. Discussion on general policies regarding outside employment by city employees and discussion on setting procedures for bringing forth items to Personnel Committee meetings. 2. Consideration of modification of employee mileage reimbursement rate. .... J. Consideration of comparable pay equity review. 4. Discussion on group health insurance contribution. Consideration of establishing a pre-tax flexible spending account. ~ l: . . . 1. DISCUSSION ON GENERAL POLICIES OR GUIDELINES IN REGARDS TO OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT BY CITY EMPLOYEES AND DISCUSSION ON SETTING PROCEDURES FOR BRINGING FORTH ITEMS TO PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Brian Stumpf requested that the Personnel Committee discuss whether a general policy is needed concerning outside employment by city employees. I believe Brian's main concern relates to possible outside employment by city personnel that may contlict with general work schedules as a city employee. Brian had specifically noted at the council meeting the concern alleging an employee may have been working for someone else other than the city during regular working hours. In discussing this issue with Brian after the meeting. I have not been able to obtain specific facts to support this allegation nor have I received any contirmation from any other citizen that supports any employee \vorking for someone else on city time. It is my understanding that Brian's reason for bringing this to the council meeting and asking for the Personnel Committee to review the allegation relates to our building otIicial who has a separate contract with the City of Big Lake to perform certain commercial building inspection activities after hours. Again. I am not aware of any documented problem with the building ofticiaI"s outside employment so I am not sure what the Personnel Committee wants to discuss in regards to policies or procedures for all city employees. Another issue related to this that r think should be discussed by the Personnel Committee is what type of process does the Personnel Committee and council want to use for topics to be considered in the future? In the above case. r believe it would have been proper to bring any concerns relating to city employees to the administrator's attention before the issue is made public at a council meeting. This would have allowed myself the opportunity to investigate any allegations or charges that are implied. after which the Personnel Committee could have met to review any information I had obtained. While I don't have information that supports there is a problem with city employees working elsewhere. public perception is likely to be that there are problems before the issue has even been investigated. If the Personnel Committee feels this is the proper venue tor bringing up issues at a public council meeting. so be it. but it is suggested that a better method in the future \vould be to approach myself or another supervisor first. Recommendation: At this time I do not have any recommendation for the Personnel Committee to consider. If the Personnel Committee teels there is some type of problem that exists in our organization that needs to be go\-erned by new policies or procedures. the guidelines should apply to all city employees. I am not sure \vhat it would be other than a simple statement that an employ'ee should not have any other outside activities that materially atTect the ability to perform their duties during regularly scheduled working hours. I certainly don't think the city wants to establish a policy that dictates \vht.:n or where an employee can work after normal hours. In the case oftht.: building official performing duties for another community'. this arrangement was reviewt.:d by both his supervisor and the city administrator and the council \vas informed of the activity in advance. The arrangement has we understand it should not cause any problems with the performance with the indi\'idual's duties fix the city, but I do understand their could be a perception b,y the public that is di fterent than ours. ~ . 2. CONSIDERATION OF MODIFYING EMPLOYEE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE. Since about 1994, the mileage reimbursement rate for the City has remained at $.28/mile. For the year 200 I. the IRS will allow $.345/mile as the mileage rate. For occasional mileage reimbursement $.28/mile may seem appropriate but with the price of gasoline now exceeding $1.60/gallon, the City should look at increasing this rate to a higher level. Currently construction inspector, Elmer Ohnstad uses his own vehicle in his job and has indicated that if the mileage rate reimbursement amount is not increased in the near future. he will be requesting the City provide him w"ith a City owned vehicle. . The IRS mileage allowance rate for last vear was $.325/mile. It is recommended that the Citv .... . increase the mileage rate to correspond with whatever amount is annually set by the IRS. The IRS takes into account the typical cost of operating a vehicle. including the cost of new vehicles. maintenance along with the price of gasoline in establishing their rate. It would seem appropriate to likewise have the City set the rate in a similar manner and if the Council would follow the IRS lead. the City could automatically change the rate each year to reflect current costs. For those instances where an employee is expected to use their Own vehicle during work hours. if the rate is not increased sufficiently to cover the employees cost. the City will likely be faced with a large capital expenditure to purchase vehicles for the employees use. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City adopt a policy of establishing the mileage reimbursement rate that would be annually be adjusted to reflect what the IRS mileage allowance is. This would allow' employees to be fairly reimbursed tor their expenses and would likely prevent the City from being forced to acquire additional vehicles tor some employees who require a vehicle to their job. ...... ~ - . COMPARABLE WORTH/PAY EQUITY REVIEW Recently it was suggested that since our original comparable worth program is now nine years old and has never been reviewed. now might be the time to take a look at the program again. If it had been nine years since anything had been done to the comparable worth study. I would be in agreement that we may need to review whether we are still in compliance with the comparable worth Imv. but that is not the case. As a little background. when the comparable worth program was originally set up by the League of Minnesota Cities, it consisted of evaluating all of the current positions within the City. modifYing and developing job descriptions for all of the positions and ranking the positions in comparison to one another by developing points and a grading system. The League also conducted a market study and made a recommendation on establishing a salary structure for the City to be competitive with neighboring communities. . Since the initial adoption of the comparable \vorth program. all employees were given an opportunity to have their job descriptions reviewed and appealed. which took place during the first year after adoption. Since that time. an additional opportunity was given to all employees to again have their job descriptions reviewed, updated and an evaluation was made to determine whether additional points \vere warranted for any job description changes and whether any increases in their grades would occur. This occurred in 1995. In addition to the above, many of the individual positions and job descriptions have been moditled over the years to reflect Current job changes and conditions and the result is that many of the positions saw increases in their point values and also may have included increases in their grades. All of the reviews were done by supervisors and administrative staff with the ultimate approval being determined by the administrator. While not everyone may have been in agreement with my evaluation. a majority of the job descriptions for various positions have been modified over the last nine years and many of the positions have seen increases in their comparable worth value and resulting pay structure. To say that it has been nine years since the comparable worth program was initially adopted and no\v it is time to have a complete review may not be a fair statement. As an additional note. the City has been required to file reports with the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) every three years to see if we are still in compliance and I am happy to report that the City has always been found in compliance with Our latest notice of compliance being for the year ended December 31. 1999. While I don't believe a complete review of our comparable worth is necessary, I do feel an updated market study to see whether we are remaining competitive with surrounding communities is warranted. Over the past few years we have found it more difficult to fill vacant positions at the entry level of our pay structure. Although this could be from a combination of reasons including low unemployment and a good job market. \vhen we did find qualified applicants tor the various positions. it seemed like we had to ofter a starting salary in the mid-range or upper end of the pay scale to even have an applicant consider the position. This leads me to believe that we may not be keeping up \vith the current market conditions. even with cost of living adj ustments that have occurred over the years. . One nf the points that I have mentioned a numher of times over the years is that when the League recommended a salary structure as part of the comparable \vorth program back in 1991. the salary structure consisted of seven steps for each grade. The League's market study included comparing salaries from various suburban communities and out state cities. but placed more weight on metro . communities as they felt we were more similar to the demands ofa metro community than out state. Upon adoption of the comparable worth program, the Council chose to eliminate the seventh step from the program \\ihich immediately reduced the recommended salary structure by 4.2%. As I recall. one of the reasons noted by the Council at that time was that they thought may be we \\ieren't quite as "metro" as the League personnel had thought. One of the things the City could do is to simply re-establish the seventh step which would increase the salary schedules on the top end by an additional 4.2% since it could be argued that the City is now certainly more metro than it was nine years ago. Since it appears more difficult to even hire people at the entry level on step one of Our grades. it \\iould be my recommendation that we should look at adding the 4.2% increase to the top of the ranges and deleting the first step, which would increase the beginning wages by a like percentage. . A salary survey has been done in-house comparing various positions in the cities of Andover. Becker. Big Lake. Buffalo, Elk River. Maple Grove and Plymouth. These communities were used to get an idea of some metro communities and cities around Monticello to see how we may compare. The problem with this type of survey is that not every community has a similar position or it is difficult to tell from their title of the position whether it is comparable to another city's pOsition. For example. a community development director in one community may have completely different duties and responsibilities than the same title in another city. The salary survey that was done previously is enclosed for the Committee's review. In trying to review how Monticello' s position might compare to the salary survey. I took all of the positions from the other communities that appeared similar to ours and came up with an average salary from the other communities. When reviewing what Monticello's salary is compared to the average, it seems like our salaries are around the area of 85% of the average. Each position is a little different but it generally indicates that Monticello's pay ranges are less than the average of the communities we surveved. Scientificallv. I am not sure \vhat this means and it Olav not ... . - , be the appropriate indicator. but the average that r \vas using included some larger metro communities and also some smaller or equal sized communities near Monticello. The City also recently received a copy of the 2000 Twin Cities rvletropolitan Area Salary Survey that was completed by the DC A Stanton Group. This salary survey information \vas compiled trom over 110 cities. counties, and state agencies from around the metropolitan area. The survey covers large communities such as Bloomington, Plymouth and Brooklyn Park along with other smaller communities on the fringes of the metro area such as Hanover. Rogers. Lake Elm. Hugo, etc. The range of population of the communities surveyed was as low as 300 people to cities of 50.000 or more. As I noted earlier. Monticello's salary ranges for many of our positions \vhen compared to the average of the eight other communities we have normally compared ourselves to showed that we \vere closer to the 85% range. It is also interesting to note that v,,-hen you compare the Monticello salary ranges to those of the entire I 10 cities and counties that were surveyed in the metro area. we are again in that 85% range as an average. While there are certainly a multitude of ways \\ie could try to compare salaries, I think this points out that we are probably a little I o v". in our salaries on an average and that there may be merit for adding back that final step to our pay system which would O\'eraIl increase our salary structun: by 4.2%. . A copy of a summarized salary survey is attached that shows comparison of various positions that \ve have in Monticello compared to other communities. · Recommendation: Add back the original step seven that was proposed by the league study back in 1991 which \voldd increase the top steps by 4.2% and \\iould help bring our average salary for - . . . the various positions that are comparable to the communities we surveyed up to closer to 90% of the average from 85%. By adding the additional step back. the Committee could eliminate the first step which would result in our beginning salary structure to be increased by 4% across the board or we could leave it as is with the understanding that some flexibility may be necessary in starting people at a higher wage than step one depending on market conditions. The adjustments proposed would still be within the funds available as part of the 200 I budget. An alternative to adding the entire 4.2% back in one step would be to create a step seven and step eight. with each step being a 2. I % increase. This would allow the City to implement the increases over two years and minimize the impact on our budget the first year. While r believe we have sufficient funds budgeted for 200 I to accommodate an additional 4.2% increase in one step. it is just another option for the Personnel Committee to consider. Attachment: Salary Survey ~ o . .. Iii" -< J N~~~CC~WWW~~~~~~~~~ g ~~m~mmm~~~c~~~~ s ~~ml~~iw~~f~~~~ ~~ OO~~ w~~c~w ~~~o l>' . c m W 5' '9. - - ::? C ;jj' C.-;iD'C~--'-a~~::J' :'~!(5" fan iC-!~~ ~-=~ ~::?~~ Q ~ ~ ~~93 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ <= ~~~~~CC'Q~mmmm(')(')(')(')(,)~~l> ~mm~~~~Bm~'~~~COQ~~~C~Q ~ n n 3 3 Cae ~ ~ ~~,~, l> 3 3 ~ ~ ~ sii~~Q~Qmn~~~933Q~rS35 a-~~~~:a).S!.'-m"'illmm m33~~_ ~~~~~o~ono~~~nOO~_._.o~~. r rggm~m~~~ nl~a~i~.~ a~~~~Q~ng ~o~~~~g.~~- co~~~ ~E. ~" n;g-g~ ~ ~ ';;rt:'~, ffi" ..., ..., ~ ~ * to! ~ '" N ... '" '" -.., C;; '" .. ,'" i::1 . .......... "''''''' '-""'''' toto "''''' ...,,,,,,, in~~ "''''.. .."'.. 8l-"''O ",1r:~ . l:a~ 00 NW 0..., -'" M~ "''-'' '" - ".....1m 0", "'..., .... '" '" :... '" C' ... '" ..., '" o '" ....... ..", ..., - -.....~ "'0 "'''' ~~ ,-"", "'''' :""0, ,.... ,.., '" '" '" N '" N....~N .:..:::o~ 1Z .. ......... ~~N CoCa... ",..", -"'''' cA~tA ~I;;~ 00,"0 "''''0 """'''' ... .. .. ~ '" .. '-" '" '" '" '" ... ... "'''' ,'" '" ...,'" 8g rr 0"" ".....Iu, 0", 0.. ... '" !'> ..., .. '" .. '" '" :... '" '" ... '" .. ~ ...... "'''' ..,-" t..,)(n 'f~ "'Eft "'''' ,'" .. -w "'''' "'0 ,;., '" '" (, 'f r '" -..., '" '" ,;., '" o (, '" '" ....... "'''' "'0 ~~ ..In ..", 0,-" ON 0>..., 0", r ~ ~n:l _w _N.~._ U"IOlO)(J'J ....,.......~.ll- WNOf.O Mt,.~~ rnww(".) Ull\Jf.OO ~t...l~Cn A.lJr.C1J(,.) (,.)ONO;I rra~~ ...,,,, '" --..,Jc.o "'0 tDOJO--.", I\.JO)CI)N ~V.fAbJ (,nWWN ~(..:Ia:lCO .~ ~ ~ ~ ... '" '" "'''' ~i;.n 0"" ...,'" ~~ "'w "''-'' -....., ......... "'''' "".. '" ~~ 6>", o w ... ... ..", ...,..., OJ......, 0", ..., ~M "''' 0..., kl -..... '-"'" "'''' ... '" "'''' '-"'" mj...", '" ... ~~~ ~~:..., ",,,,.. ~ -...., (.ol 0>_ W'" ... .. '" '0 ~ .. '" '" ...., '" '" '" '" '-" ~ ..., In ~ ... w ..., '" '" '" ... '-" o W w a> '" a> '" '" Ijl ...., .. 0> .. '" '" ...., '" '" ~r~r ..b.ro..J..... r.or...,~"'...I ~~I;;~ .A~4A~ (OU'lO'.lU1 wc.nt.n(O :..... w (0....... ,..~ ..... It,. ~ -Il!. .... '" a> '" '" '" ,;., w '" '" '" '" rr "'''' m "!'.n """" "'''' ~EA "'''' 0'-" '- N "'.. "'''' '" '" "'''' Oa> :... '.. "'''' ...,..., ~~ "'''' "'..., om :gg WNNN...... t5g~~~ ... '" '" '" o '" .. w '" :... ..., 0> ... ... 1Z~ to;.,. "'''' "'''' iA~ g;'::J u,m "'0> "'a> Ef)~&J-6'J "'w", Cl)U1-."ta en ~ -,JlI. en Nb.c.ocn ~z:z:~ ~t~~ rnCDWo, W(..J-..JI\J cJ)(rIWU'! ..."'... w"'''' 0"'", (oo,N ...,..'" - '" i'~r ~..", :""0(0 "''-'''' "'0", '" w '" i;n '" '" .. .. o <> "" '" ... ~ b- o .. w ..., ~ '" rra~~~ OQ)I\)WCI'> ~-.c..CnC3:'::" ~'::J;jg)81 v.iJtv,~fs,. U'lWwW...... (,.)"""'NW"," :.... m """(0 w ~g~~~ ... .. -..., ..., '" '" .. '-" '" ...., .... ... ~ ~ In '" '" '0 'f .. ~~~~ ......N:I\JO ..., Efl~(nCtt~ NI'.nW,ll..t.1t WQJO)......c:.n o -...a."GJ"....! 0, OOCNNto CJ103OJO)<J:) .n~EI,tAM l'V-...I"Jli.C)')....., (OWQ)OO :..... "in c.o "a (.., ~~gC;;aI '" .. ..., io "" a> .. '" '" io '" '-" """'... '" '" .. "''''''' ~:...w ...,..,-" "'-'" /.n~b, "'Wa> ..",,,, tJJC7Jo, "'0>", o '" .. '" '" 0> -.., '" '" .. '" '-" t:; "'.... '-"'" "'''' .......(..) 9l~ "'''' "'0> "'''' (0 .~ .....1 I.n ... a> '" '"" o '? ... ..., W ...., ~ '" ... '-" .. ..., 0 u. -~ '" '" '" '" ~ fA a> '" '" '" c, :..... W '" W ..., .......... "'.... .en .-...1 0 (,.)......1;,., "'''''''' "''''a> MtAv, "'''''-'' "'''''0 ~ ....... -"J:i. (n A"" '" ~ ~ - ..", "'", ~..4~;;;~~ ~~N<DNN ~'-" ~M-u.~fJlJ.tA O).b!.W(..JW. _crJ.N m _0 ()l ~ .....tDu.I\)(o(o C')OCX)W(.n.....i. "'''''''-W9> ~~t~r" """"'o>",g) r..nWmt..Ju,03 r.n......~CI'>......c.n NO.......--.lOm ~ '" ... '" '" '" o '" ~ '" ;" '" '" .... '" '" i! in .. o -.., o '-" tA~6'l~ WNW..c.. c.Ji.lloO()l N (:, -~ 0 8808 ~M~v. t~..~ ~g~g o 00 ... .. '" '" '" o ... W '" o '" o ,;., .. 0> '" a> '" ... '" '" '" '-" b- 'P '" .. W io W '" i.o '" .. '" .. '" '" o ... ~ '" '" '" r "'''' ..", 0'" Ow .. 0 0" ~in "'..., w'" hJiJ, g~ - '" a> '" ... '" '" ...., '" '" .. '" '" ...., '" '" .......'" ...,..w to .U'1 !oN "(0 m a, kl~': ~iA'" 0>,-".. 0>...,,,, me:...,:..... -Wo "''''''' ~~MV<J Cf)c..:JW!\J _w ~ N a. 0, a -.1:10 -A ..r:........aJf,..) ;;:~~~ '" ..'" b~.cn~ ......(>>.....,0 '" "'''' '" '" .'" '" .. ~ o '" '" '" '" ..", o ~o "'''' EA~ "'w 0'" boO, ..... ,. ~f 5 ~ Qilii 3.3. ... ~ <0 '" o .. ~ N o o "'''' "'''' '" - O:J -(,.) ...,'" '-"'" t2r .. wm "'''' 0", -- ~ n :T .. 3 ~ :r .... .. '" '" a> '" .. '" ..., ...., '" W -- m ;;: ~ :C' ~ - ;: .. ... Ii" G) ~ ~ III =: 0' ~ - ~ fit '- l> ::l ~ o < ~ '- o:r m n ~ ~ '- III cC' , .. ~ '" o:r C "ll ~ Q en III Ai -< en l: < CD '< . 4. . . DISCUSSION GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION Since the Personnel Committee \vill be discussing a number of issues. a briefreview of the current group health insurance contribution policy is also in order. To provide a little background, prior to 1993, the City had provided group health insurance benetits to the employee and family. at no cost to the employee. In 1993 the City Council established a contribution level that amounted to the City paying $232.47 per month for an employee's family health insurance coverage and $145.37 for a single or employee only coverage. Since 1993, as premiums increased, the City employees have been responsible for picking up the additional cost for family coverage above the rate established in 1993. Over the years. coverages have been eliminated or reduced to keep the premium level affordable for the employees. but the average cost of a employee and family coverage has still risen to over $642/per month. The formula that I have been using assumes that the City continues to pick up the entire cost of a single or employee only coverage for health insurance and that a family coverage could be adjusted annually by the same cost of living index that has been applied to the overall salaries. Assuming the cpr was used to adjust employees share. the current monthly contribution by an employee for family coverage \\iould be $69.72. This is the amount that is currently being charged to each employee with family coverage. Since the City Council has not formally amended the city contribution for family coverage since 1993. it is recommended that the City Council officially indicate that they would adjust the amount of premium allowance provided for family coverage by a similar cost ofliving index each year. If this was not done. the City would, in effect. be freezing the contribution level based on an amount that is eight years old. · Recommendation: To clarify the monthly contribution level to be provided by the City. it is recommended that it be officially noted that the monthly contribution by the City would be adjusted annually to reflect the CPI adjustment granted for salary schedules. . PERSONNEL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ACCUMULATED VACATION POLIC'Y (REVISED APRIL) 7,2(0)) The fClJlmving is a summary of the PL'rsonneJ ('ommi~tee's recomlllendation concerning estahlishment ofma\illlLlIll accumulation and usage policy that should he estahlished for all city employees regarding accumulated vacation. The Personnel Comlllittee met /\pril ] 7.100 I at 4 p.m. and recommended the I(lllowing revisions that had originally been considered January J 6.100]. The recommendation fix full council consideration is as follows: A Inaximum numher of hours that can he accumulated should be established hy the council and the recOllllnendation is to the establish the maximulll acclllllulation amount at J Y2 times the amount of annual earnings by each employee. For example. if an employee carns t \Vo weeks per year. the maximum accumulation should be 110 hours: f(lr an employee \\'ho carns three weeks. the maximum accumulation would be ] 80 hours. for four wceks. the maximum \vOldd be 140 hours. . The recommendation is to allow any cmployce who has already accumulated more than their maximum numbcr of hours (cxample more than 180 hours I()!" a person earning three weeks per year) to be grandfathered in with those hours remaining as is. but not bc allowed to increase above the amount they currently have. The recommendation would also he to require any employee who has already accumulated above the maximllll1 amount to be paid tor up to a rninimum of 100 hours annually of their accumulated vacation. This amount would not be a financial hurden to the city since the city has accounted I()r these funds each year and it would allow the employee the ability to deplete their accumulated vacation over tillle. . All employees would be required to use at least Y2 of their annual vacation accrual each year. or the vacation would be l(lr1cited. Non-exempt (hourly) elnpJoyees would lose or l(lr1cit any vacation above their maximum each year ifit is not used by December 31'i of each year. · Ex empt (salaried) employees who. in the opinion of the City ^dministrator are unable to use their vacation by year end and have reached the maximum accumulation amount. can be paid for up to Y2 of their annual L'arnings. The above recommendations would: I. [stahlish a maximum number Or/lOurs that can be accumulated. . 7 C;randl~llher in those individuals who have relied on past policy when their hours were accumulated. but provide I(lr a mechanism to allow I()!" a required partial redemption each year so that the grand fathered amounts can be reduced over time. . . . ., -) . Requires most employees to use most, if not all. of their annual vacation each year. unless it would cause a hardship for the city. This is a sununary of the discussion of the Personnel Committee at their meeting of ^pril 17.200 I at 4- p.m. . . . PERSONNEL COIVIlVIITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS February 23, 2001 Meeting The follo'vving is a summary of the Personnel Committee recommendations regarding the various topics outlined below: 1. Discussion on Establishing General Policy Regarding Outside Emplo)'ment by City Employees. At the request of the City Council. the Personnel Committee briefly discussed whether a general policy was needed to regulate outside employment activities by city employees. Committee members felt that a separate policy was not needed and that if any problems arose with a city employee having outside employment interests that interfered with their normal job. city administration should first investigate the problem and if it can't be resolved through the City Administrator. the specific problems could then be brought to the Personnel Committee for further discussion. It was also the recommendation of the Personnel Committee that specitic personnel issues or employee problems should be first brought to administration before requesting Personnel Committee action. This procedure may avoid the necessity of the Personnel Committee having to review' an issue that can be resolved through supervisors and management. 2. Employee Mileage Reimbursement Rate Modification To simplify the mileage reimbursement for city employees who use their own vehicles. it is the recommendation of the Personnel Committee that the City annually adjust the mileage reimbursement rate to correspond with the IRS allow'ance. For the year 2001. the mileage reimbursement rate would be set at $.345/per mile. 3. Recommendation on Employee Contribution for Group Health Insurance Coverages The Personnel Committee reviewed the policy that had been established in 1993 that had set the amount the City would contribute towards employees insurance coverages and additional family coverage for health. dental. life and disability insurance programs. The monthly premium in 1993 was $145.37 for an average single employee and an additional $232,47 for family coverage options. Since 1993. as the premiums increased. the city employees have been responsible for picking up the additional cost tor family coverage above the $232,47 amount. The Personnel Committee discussed what share of the current $642 monthly premium should be the responsibility of the employee who is requesting family coverage. Of the $642. $272 applies to the single employee while the balance of$369 is attributable to family coverage. The current amount being charged to each employee with family coverage was $69.72. which amounts to slightly less than 20% of the family awrage premium. It was noted tor committee members that in order to keep the premium level affordable tor . . . Personnel Committee Summary - 2/23/01 employees. coverages had been eliminated or reduced over the past eight years which allowed the employees share to be at the $69.72 monthly amount. For the year 200!' the $69 employee contribution amount was arrived at by assuming that the amount granted in 1993 of $232.4 7 should be increased by annually by the same cost of living index that was applied to the salary structure each year \vhich would bring this total to $299.78. The recommendation of the Personnel Committee was that since the current contribution level is approximately 20% of the family premium. an easier calculation method in the future would be to simply establish a policy of the City providing 100% of the single employee coverage and to contribute 80% of the family coverage with the employee being responsible for 20% of the family coverage. Establishing a percentage amount would appear to be an easier method for everyone to determine each year rather than calculating the cost of living adj ustment for the contribution level and comparing this to the average premiums. The recommendation of the Personnel Committee would be that the 20% contribution rate be effective 1/1102. and that the current amount of $69.72 remain as is for the balance of the calendar year 2001. If the 20% rate was applied to the current average premium in effect today. the dependent coverage contribution would be $ 73.90 compared to the $69.72 amount. 4. Comparable Worth Program/Pay Equity Review The Personnel Committee brietly reviewed the procedures that were used in 1991 when the comparable \vorth program and pay equity study had been prepared by the League of Minnesota Cities and adopted by the Council. It was noted that the League study had originally proposed a salary structure that consisted of seven steps. with each step being approximately 4.2% increase. It was noted that when the Council adopted the original pay structure. the seventh step was eliminated. \vhich technically placed our top end of the pay structure approximately 4.2% less than recommended by the League's salary survey at that time. The committee also reviewed some market survey data that had been compiled from various communities surrounding ~Ionticello and also from a metropolitan area salary survey that \vas conducted by DCA Stanton Group. The market study information seemed to indicate that the overall pay structure in Monticello is about 85% of the average of the communities surveyed. The information supported an adjustment to the salary structure and the Personnel Committee recommended that the seventh step with an increase of 4.2% be re-established effective April 1. 2001. It was also recommended that employees would not be eligible to move to step seven until three years after obtaining step six. In other words. movement from step six to step seven would not occur on annual basis and the intent would be to provide additional incentives for continued longevity. It \Vas also recommended that the pay levels for each grade on step one remain as part of the salary structure. but recognizing that market conditions may necessitate the hiring of ne\\ employees at a level above step one. This tlexibility would be prO\ided to administration on a case by case basis. 2 . . . Personnel Committee Summary -1/23/0 I 5. Discussion on Establishing a Pre-Tax Flexible Spending Account for Employees Committee members were presented with general information on the benefits of establishing a pre-tax flexible spending account for employees. The basic advantage for employees is that they would be able to set aside each year a certain amount of money from their earnings that could be used for paying uninsured medical costs. such as eye glasses. eye exams. medical bill deductibles, prescriptions and other medical costs using pre-tax dollars rather than after tax earnings. The advantage for the City would be all amounts set aside by employees would not require a social security contribution by the City. savings which could be used by the City to pay for the cost of administering the program. Preliminary information provided to the committee members indicated that annual cost to the City to provide such a bene tit program could be $1.000-$2.000 annually and the cost savings from social security contributions would likely be less than $1,000 per year. It was the general consensus of the committee members that establishing this type of a program may be beneficial if the cost to administer it can be accurately determined. It was recommended that the City Administrator do more research on the cost to implement the program and the ongoing maintenance that would be required before the committee makes a recommendation to the full Council. .... J . . . PERSONNEL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ACCUMULATED VACATION POLICY The follO\ving is a summary of the Personners Committee recommendation concerning the establishment ofa maximum accumulation and usage policy that should be established fl.)r all City employees. The recommendation for full Council consideration is as follows: . A maximum number of hours that can be accumulated should be established by the Council. Recommendation is to establish the maximum accumulation amount at 1 times the amount of annual earnings by each employee. For example. if an employee earns two \-veeks per year. the maximum accumulation would be 80 hours. For an employee who earns three weeks. maximum accumulation would be 120 hours. four weeks. maximum would be 160 hours. . Recommendation is to also allow any employee \vho has already accumulated more than their maximum number of hours (example more than 120 hours for a person earning three weeks per year) to be grandfathered in \vith those hours remaining as is but not allowed to be increased above the amount they currently have. The basis for allowing a grandfather provision was that the City has already accounted lor the liability on an annual basis and has set aside funds for eventual payment of any accumulated vacation benefits. Through attrition and retirements. the grand fathered amounts will eventually be eliminated. . Recommendation would also be to allow any employee \vho has already accumulated above the maximum amount to be paid for up to 100 hours annually of their accumulated vacation. This amount should not be financial burden to the City but would allow the employee the option of slo\ving depleting their accumulated vacation. if they choose rather than receiving it in a lump payment upon leaving City employment. . All employees will be required to use at least l/~ of their annual vacation accrual each year or the vacation would be forfeited. All employees are allowed to carryover and accumulate up to Ij~ of their annual earnings each year. provided they do not exceed the maximum amount allowed. . Non-exempt (hourly) employees who reach their maximum accumulation amount would lose (f()rfeit) any vacation above their maximum each year if it is not used by December 31 Sl of each year. Exempt (salaried) employees \\lho. in the opinion of the City Administrator are unable to use their vacation by year end and have reached the maximum accumulation amount can he paid for up to 1/2 of their annual earnings if approved by the City Administrator. If it is the opinion of the City Administrator that the organization cannot allo\\I a salaried individual to be away from work because of specilic work loads. the employee would not have to lorfcit their vacation. but could be paid for it at year end. To avoid the potential of an employee not being ahle to take off time due to \vork constraints. all vacation should he scheduled at least 30 days in advance. . The above recommendations would: 1. Establish a maximum number of hours that can be accumulated. 2. Grandfather in those individuals who have relied on past policy v.-hen their hours \vere accumulated and provide a mechanism to allow for partial redemption each year. if desired by the employee. 3. Requires most employees to use most. if not all of their annual vacation each year. unless it would cause a hardship for the City. .+. Allows the City to retain the majority of the accumulated vacation dollars in our o\\n bank account until the employee leaves rather than spending all of the funds today. This is a summary of the discussion of the Personnel Committee at their meeting of January 16. 2001. . . Council Meeting - 4/23/2001 . sc. Consideration of drillin 'fonr test wells across the eommunitv to determine the ( ualit . of water in the lower aquifers. (J .S.) A. BACKGROlJND REFF:RF:NCE : The C it y 0 fM ont ice II 0 has been in the process 0 f plann in g a n add i t i ona I we II lor the past three years. We had begun work on our Wellhead Proteetioo Program when we learned that the Environmeotal protec ti on A geney (E P A) was in the process 0 f 100 kin g at lowering the drinking water standard fiJ r the presence of arsenic in water supplies. The current standard lor arsenic in the water supply is 50 parts per b i I Ii on (ppb). This in i tsel f is a relati vel y small amO un t. JI 0 wcver. duc to health concerns with thc ingcstion of arsenic. the EP A had lookcd at lowering the drinking watet standard to 10 or possi b I y 5 pp b. This had C it y stalT concerned as our Well #4 located on Dundas Road next to N S P in tlie industrial park contains about 6 to 9 ppb arsenic. The well water in Well #3 located on Chel sea Road near the underground reservo i r eontai ns about 3 ppb arsen ic. The well s uptown. W ells # I and # 2. under the old water tower euntai n vi rtuall y no arsen i e. !loth Well #4 and Well #3 pump into the underground reservoir and are often mixed with other incoming water from Wells # I and #2. C onseq uent! y. the di seharge u l' water out 0 f the onderground reservoir generally con ta ins on I y 4 or 5 ppb of arsenic. Our proposed li1\h well was to he located a few hundred fcet south of Well #4 again. next to NSP in the i nd ustrial park. A test welL however. showed arsenic concentrations si mi lar tu We II #4. The only differcnce here is that Well #5 would be pumped directly into our water system at a higher press ure rather than g oi n g th rough the underground reservoir. I f the dri nk i ng water standard chosen was 5 ppb we would have to treat tbe water coming from Well #5. If the drinking water standard were 10 ppb it is likely that we would be under thaI standard with the new well but could not be guaranteed that slight changes may not oeeorr to put it over the drinking water standard if it sbould become 10 ppb. Basically. President Clinton. during the last posh ordered the drinking water standard to be I() ppb and the Federal Register publisbed. Even though the EPA bad actually considered re-evaluating the proposed drinking water standard to a higher number due to extremely bigh costs 0 f remo val at low concentrations and the no t totally supported med i eal in lormat i on abo ut the health dTccts of low concentrations of arsenic. C onseq uent! y . as soon as President Hush was elected. be remo ved the standard imposed by President Clinton even though it had already been published in the Federal Register. and ordered a new study to be dnne possibly proposing a drinking water standard at 20 ppb or higher. At the current time things arc in limbo but it is highly likely that the drinking water standard will be some place between 10 and 20 ppb. The water produced in Well #5 would more than likely be within the drinking water standards. City stafr. hnwever. feels it is prudent lilf us tn look lor a large quantity of water at anotber location in the City near a water trunk line that may contain a lower level of arsenic. We would like to have the well property owned by tbe City as we have to manage a certain zone around these well sites. Consequently. we have decided to obtain further inlormation about tbe water in the lower aquifers acrOSS the City of Monticello. We have proposed four locations Ii" wells. The locations are as follows: . . . . . Council Meeting - 4/23/2001 1. Out near the NSP ballCields on the south side of the freeway on the Paumen property. Mr. Paumen has indicated that he would allow us to drill a test well out there and possibly locate a water tower or well out there in the future. I Monticello Country Club on Outlot A. We lnay be able to Olnit this well as we are trying to determine whether or not we can sarnple a small diameter well that is in the lower aquifer at the Monticello Country Club. ,., -) . 4th Street Park near the intersection of 4th Street and Ramsey Street. 4. Freeway Fields on the west end off of Meadow Oak A venue. City staff would like to work with Liesch & Associates and prepare a request for proposals for drilling the three or four test wells and once we have the quotes. come back to the City Council with the information as to the cost of drilling these test wells. and as to whether or not we need the three or four. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. The nrst alternative is to authorize City staff and Liesch & Associates to prepare requests for proposals for drilling three to four test wells across the community to determine the \-vater quality in the lower aquifers and obtain quotes with the eosts to be returned at a later date for consideration by the City Council. 2. 'The second alternative would be not to drill the test wells across the eomlnunity. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director. City Administrator and Water & Sewer Superintendent that the City Council authorize the preparation of proposals and advertisement for quotes for drilling the three 10 fl)ur wells as outlined in Alternative # 1. We have discussed this with the Parks Commission and should it come to pass that a well is located on either of the two existing park properties or the possible park property on Country Club that they would not have a problem with locating a well and pumphouse on one of those sites if the water quality proved to be satisLlctory. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of map of test wdl locations. ------L- z 1 1 --- ") . II) c: tI ) ~ ... ) .- ..(I) ~- ... - C tI J ::13= 0 ~ U"O tI ... en .1::.0 :J .~ Q. ~ 0 ~ ~Q: ) " " " " " " " " ,~ " " " " I' I:: " l' I" ';-/1",' " " I' " " " /I h "' ........:---:.:.~-:--... .'"ii" . ..~." '0' ,/ I, 'I II I, II /I I{ ':' II, I, II .,~~, /, ......../ /1 " ':' I, II :1 " II "'-, ..::-II~ "'\ .' F. \ ,\ . -/ \. ( "I" \; ,'/ - ' I J \ \" (j"'- ~ '\ ( \ \ -r '- , I" \1 ~I ~ ~ \ \ ~ I , 'I \ '-- j , ~~ I' z - 10 ~ Q: ~ J: Z a: l- I I- CfJ LIJ ~ a.: - ci - ~ C\/ CJ) "'0 - OJ lL - - c CD a.. (J) z ~ ~ .. .rr'~ii::'~ -.-",./.,-.......--- "~._' / \ \ N A.. f'/') (1) Ln____~.~_.. . - i i I I n ., + !i =- \ '\ " ,. II 'JS U!daUU9H '7 0- c: ";n o u Qi ~ (1)- -c.o I -CO I,.... -0 - 10 r ;.' ~ v . v ;.. ~ l: if; en J: (~ -J. JJ ..'Z ClT 0 ,,9 . I- << .- ClT:l" 9 .... L rt)Q.: .. -: ,,;u If) =. enW J: ~ r"" ... I D~ \ \ " ., '- (.~ El' . lK, lB. '. EI ..., ^ CD, 0-. C,.,.O 9 II ./ * l ~ (i-LL) - i:lTG,,9 I _ -I~..S 9SWDU~1 ,'f,...- ___ 9 =--- . < <: 1---. . 1 ;.. " a:: v <.,$ W l ,.. (I) ---.-'.S..4 !JM-=I>- U CJ T:) 9 t - " II o 3 'a ...:. 0 o ~ aJ I ~: lrr....1 C: Cl. e- <lTa.~ aT:) 1,9 ,-- 'II" II ..: (I) v '0 ~ rt) I ...; (Il " .c. 0 .... <(1 "it I 01 . 51 -I c(, , 0:: I -. IL. (I) Z m II - I I If ~l .. <-'IS -MaN -<. .~-r= - -- . CSAH 18 i ! ~ N ,Jl. ::0= ~ !~ ~~- t1 -j I II 12 D.I.P. 16" D.I.P. II _ 24 D.I.P. / / z~ N .. P :lJ , I . . . 5D. Council Agenda - 4/23/0 I Consideration to a(lJ)rove the preliminarv concept for use of TIF assistance for redevelopmcnt of the area previously occupied bv the St. Henrv's Church. (O.K.) A. Reference and baekc:round: The HRA is requesting the City Council consider approving the prcliminary concept fl.)!' use of Tlr assistance for redevelopment of the area previously occupied by the St. I-Ienry's Church. This rrcliminary concept aprroval is for use ofTIF only. this gives the I IRA direction whether to rroceed or not proceed At a later date and after or if the HRA and the Redeveloper John Komarek enter into a Preliminary Development Agreelllent and the $5.000 fee is deposited. the HRA would then request the Council to call for a public hearing to establish a newTIF District. At the April 9 Council meeting. the council members heard some preliminary plan/design concepts for the rrorosed project. At the HRA meeting of April 4. 200 I. the commissioners first addressed the requirements to establish a Redevelopment llF District. Using the 70% and I YYo improvement rules. the district boundaries were defined and suggested. Yet to be determined to qualify as a Redevelopment District. the City Building Official would need to determine that more than 50% of the buildings (excluding outbuildings) within the boundaries are structurally suhstandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. The redevelopment rroject concept would consist of the construction of 10 owner- occupied twin homes and 12 owner-occupied quads at an estimated market value of $145,000 and $175,000 rer unit, respectively. The lIRA arproved the preliminary concept fiJr use ofTIF assistance for redeveloplllent of the area previously occupied by the St. I Icnry's Church subject to the Building Official determination. No level ofTIF assistance has been discussed.. as the liRA and Komarek have not entered. into a Preliminary Oevelorment Agreement. B. Alternative Actions: I. A motion to approve the preliminary concept for use of TIF assistance fiJr redevelopment of the area previously occupied. by the St. I Icnry's Church. 2. A motion to deny approval of the preliminary concept for use of TIF assistance for redevelorment ufthe area previously occupied by the St. Henry's Church. 3. A lllotion to table any action. . Council Agenda - 4/23/01 c. Recommendation: If the area canllleet the qualifications ofa Redevelopmcnt TIF District and this encourages redevelopment of a non-tax generating area. the City Administrator reeoll1l11ends alternative no. 1. D. Supporting Data: Suggested TlF District houndaries and proposed project concept. . . 2 ':Y, n~~ ,}~< s~t~' J?fi b ,. -'" . 't"?:,; -1'"'"-' ~,-7~"- -J""-J ,.' ;e.,",," ",' "",~......'/." ,"- 'c', 'k,l-'~, ", .''''; " Jk.1l "~f,1:';~'~, . .,~ . :.a,"',,'" ..' ~~ },~ '-- --, oU" ..(P "t.;, ',~," ,'~,-") I" " << :.s., ;~( :L>-' . r.,?%;llil , /"Y;l.t . f;..:o=. Jt :;.; ""',,, ", ,'-~,"" i1---:'Jol\,:; 'I~ . ,'to' ~ '.'~>~;~~ : ~ ~t; ~~ v )~\;~:;-~~ -':\ , ,>-;i~" .~' {~l <lJtci, '. .~,'.. :~ ~,;, .~'..-" .'" ''''~r' , ',1fftIO' ,r;_:'~-~",.." ~' , ,~~<<:.J; <- t , ',ft , ,is'' ,,,.' ,~ ~~ . ';"','",~ .. ,'O,4J{, /,~,;!: ,} .~r~:: ' .i~ "'0' tJ';}'". " ,"'lit: "~" '~'<jJJf .. t. t:~' ","'!IIi-' ~~.':~ U>i.~" t, ~...~, .,." .....,d- .~"';:.. 't'~ .J/ <;. ". c.:.)of,.-\;\ ,,'. ~~, "",~.- '>(7!""';"~, ,< - ~ ,., t '<II.. "J.,.-.........- -, . ", ''\t' ~;;::.-. , 'Ui/, ~SD . . ..... .... Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc. March 22, 200 I OUie Koropchak City of Monticello Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Ollie: Enclosed is a letter which was presented at the Monticello City staff "site review" meeting of March 15,2001. Reaction to said proposal was extremely favorable. We are scheduled on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting to be held April 3M followed by the HRA meeting on April 4lh. The city Planning Commission and H.RA meetings win begin our efforts toward following through on our proposal. For our proposal to be feasible, we will first look to the following groups and agencies: St. Henry's Board/Staff: .:. To authorize our request for consideration of rezoning into a planned unit development for offices, private school, off street parking and residential uses. .:. To work with us on structuring a sales price which would enable said redevelopment and restoration to be financially feasible. .:. To enter into an option agreement for purchase of the property that may be exercised on/or before some future date, established by our development schedule. This win enable us to secure an interest in the property during initial planning phases. City of Monticello and HRA: .:. Assistance in private acquisition of the following lots: o Lot 10, Block 28 o Lots 6 & 7, Block 21 o Lots 3 & 8, Block 22 .:. Assist in improving areas on all three blocks with removal and restoration of substandard conditions, which currently impede whole concept redevelopment. .:. Overall tax abatement .:. Contribution to municipal utility connection fees. C'edrus Creek Craftsman. 111c. (Liccn.H: #201351(0) 12420 Armitage Ave. NW +- lUrmt;cello, ltlN 55362 (763) 878-2943 +- five (763) 878-2343 sD -- . Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc. Proposed Utilization of Existing Sf. Henry's Compound As Planned Unit Development Location - Block 21,22,28 Original Plat Block 28: Our proposal suggests the reworking of the present St. Henry's compound into a performing arts campus recognizing the Land of Lakes ChoirBoys as its base supporter. .:. .:. .:. . .:. Existing sacristy to be utilized as a theater and arts center Parish center to be business offices, meeting rooms and practice room Original convent would initially be retained as a private day-care provider and eventually expand into practice room/class rooms related to Land of Lakes ChoirBoys facility. Lots 6 through 10 would be redefined as parking and green spaces (play area) with future expansion for Land of Lakes. Block 21 - Complete lots 1 through 10 (current parking lot block): Redevelopment as a cohesive residential neighborhood based on a cluster concept possibly on a courtyard core. Block 22 - Lots 4 through 7 (former priest's house): Potential to extended through old Bondus machine shop site. Expansion of new neighborhood base with potential abandonment of applicable block of Minnesota Street. This residential concept creates a potential of 14 to 22 new home sites within the respective neighborhood with a potential to generate $507,000 in property tax revenues (at a cap level over first ten year period). The performing arts campus would be a continuance of the east, west community corridor initiated by OUT new community center. Having the Land of Lakes ChoirBoys based in Monticello should add a new depth to our community. - - Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc. (License #20135160) 12420 Armitage Ave. NW -$- Monticello, MN 55362 (763) 878~2943 +- fax (763) 878-2343 .sD ~ Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc. . BURLINGTON NORTHERN BLOCK 21 ORIGINAL PLAT CITY OF MONTICEllO e: i (I) I:,> ~ ~ <:( ~ , , (--~-~_...! TWO QUAO UNITS , AT 144' WIDE BY ro ' OEEP : ... - - - - - - - - , . - - - - - - - - -, , , , , , ----~---- , , ~-------- THREE TWIN UNITS AT 75 WIDE BY 66' DEEP . ~--:s:a~' I I ! I I I I:,> a L____~___I ST, HENRYS SITE ~ - - - - I BLOCK 28 ORIGINAL PLAT CITY OF MONTICEllO I PRELIMINARY PLAT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ST HENRY'S SITE Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc. (License #20135160) 12420 Armitage Ave. NW +- Monticello, MN 55362 (763) 878-2943 -$- fax (763) 878-2343 .-------, , , , , a:: I- (I) <:( t- o (I) w z z :E BLOCK 22 ORIGINAL PLAT CITY OF MONTICEllO , , ~-----_. --------- , , !~----____I FOURTH STR ~ ~ SD ~ . 5E. Consideration to a Amoco site. (O.K.) Council Agend~l - 4/23/0 I t for use of TI F assistance for the A. Heferencl' and Back!!round: The liRA is requesting the City Council consider approving the preliminary concept lor use of TIF assistance for redevelopment of the Amoco site. If the Council objects to the lIse ofTlF assistance l(n redevelopment of this site, thc I IRA ask the Council do so at this point. This item is addressing the use of TIF only. Sonle months ago, the I IRA and Masters Filth A venue, Inc. entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement fix redevelopment of the Amoco site on West Broadway. The agreement was accompanied with a $5,000 deposit lee. The redevelopment concept of the Amoco site is Phase I of a planned two-phase redevelopment. - As you are aware, the Amoco site is located within the Downtown TIF 1-22 District: theret()fe, the district and budget were previously established. The redeveloper's Phasc I proposal is to acquire and demol ish the Amoco structure tlJr construction of a 5,700 sq ft f()otprint two~story building. First floor would contain a 3,500 sq it restaurant and the remaining 2.200 sq it I(n speculative office/retail. Second tloor would consist of 6 rcntal units. Additionally. the proposal includes one carriage unit consisting of six garage stalls on the first level and one apartment on second level. The redeveloper requested $166,800 pay-as-you-go TIF assistance to acquire and demolish the substandard structure and $35,000 up-li'ont for parking development. The I-IRA approved extending the ctTective date of the Preliminary Development Agreement from April 4, 200 I to June 6, 200 I for Phase I and agreed to a level ofTIF assistance as lollows: Pay-as~you-go TIF assistance in the amount of the lesser of a) the cost to acquire the Amoco site and demolition of structure, b) not-to-exceed $166,800, or c) the amount of the "avai lable tax increment" generated /l'om the project for the duration of the lite of the district. Su~jeet to acquisition and demolition orthe Amoco site prior to or on June 30,2001 and execution of the Contract Il.H" Private Redevelopment between the lIRA and Masters Fifth ^ venue, Inc. The up-front $35,000 subject to negotiation. - The required number of parking spaces and the WAC/SAC tees associated with the redevelopnlerH of the Amoco site arc items tl.ll" consideration by the PlanninglBuilding Department and not the HRA. B. Alternative Actions: I. A motion to approve the preliminary concept fl.lr use of llF assistance tl.ll" redevelopment of the Amoco site. l'Yw~~ ~ )N.(vJ,~(f~~ 'h.\j \- '"1\ l.t..;~.\ '1 ~ . ,.., Council Agenda - 4/23/0 I A motion to deny approval orthe preliminary concept I<-Jr use orTlF assistance for redevelopment or the Amoco site. 3. A motion to table any action. c. Rccom mcmlation: Although the parking spaces and WAC/SA W items need to he addressed. the City Administrator recommends Alternative No. J. This a preliminary concept len T1F use only and encourages redevelopment on a substandard site in the heart of downtown. n. Sunportin2: Data: Sketch of the proposed redevelopment area. . ,.., Mar 02 01 10:45a yU.I. c..u \oJU v.a..........,.. . } ,I r I I . . J Lotus Realt~ Services,Inc [952 J 934 -54.12 p. 1 U ~j I -If)' 1 J+ I j .2D I V" 1 (,f)' JiG' - I J .y'~- ~t oJ r -..$. -s' . ---"'-~ .. ~.~...j { ..' :{ _--:.._~ :..' fl u ~ t ll~ : Ii ~ '" . . -...",.-:....T .". . ~:.-_.j! . . z.urrc.~ ~[~~ / __.S ~ . hdl;1Vl: JfJIuM "/l; /'e.HAfN It1-fANWfI ~p. ~ Tf..f!z.e /p /'tL.I...f ~ 14" ~ J NP1E: ff) fU/J1f ~ 10 ~ /::. GO'; A/'('" p/mbVS/(JI1/'S AJZ.t:. SI16JU;T P, lfev/JIPtV fM 1'1. 3 @ TgMIN fwtNNIN(, (j)~"Th'~ REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT j",. Lea.aCJ Communities, l.LC IInd BBf Propcnies MonticeUo. MN Jul)' 21., 2000 f!tlt-I,,( M I-N' /fIl.,y {JP./KF'''T ~t#L fvAN - lift. /'af)/lf,W ~ {)/fCMrfl,()r.I OIV/..'(. . ". -". ,. . ". "':~:.,;-: ~.:.. Sf: -/. .. .' .. '...' . ...t: . ........ :.. ..~-' . . . ., '.,: 'f I "."- .:.' -....:,..-. ....,..~~':""- , -'-- . SF. Consideration of resolution authorizin the renewal of a amhlin(J license for the ~meri('an Ll'~ion Club. (RW) Council Agenda - 4/23/0 I A. REFERENCE ANn BACKGROUND: American Legion Post No. 260 or Monticello will be applying to the State Ciamhling Control Board I(n renewal of their pull-tah license. The renewal would be for an additional two year term expiring ./uly 31. 2003. It has been the past practice of the Council to request information from organizations requesting renewal regarding the type and amount of contributions that are made from the gambling proceeds. The Legion indicated that if the information is not available when the agenda is prepared it will be available the night of the council meeting. In order for the State Gambling Control Board to issue the renewal the local unit of government must pass a resolution approving the application. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: . I. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Stale Gambling Control Board to renew the gambling license requested by American Legion Post No. 260. I Do not adopt a resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the reconm1endation of the City Administrator that the resolution be adopted. The City is not aware of any problems associated with the pull-tab operation at the Legion Club. D. SUPPORTING DATA: · Resolution · Financial Information (if available) . CITY OF MONTICELLO RESOLUTION NO. 2001-29 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A GAMBLING LICENSE WHEREAS, the American Legion Post No. 260 of Monticello has suhmitted an application to the City Council of Monticello for the renewal of a charitable gambling license to conduct gambling at their club located in Monticello, Minnesota; and WHi:Rf-I1S, upon review of the organization's activities. the Council is not opposed to the gambling license being renewed by the State Gambling Control Board, NOW THEREFORE. BE iT RESOLVED BY THE CiTY COUNCiL OF MONT/CELLO, MiNNES'OTA: that the application of American Legion Post No. 260 for license renewal listed above is hereby approved. and the State Gambling Control Board is authorized to process the application. Adopted by the Monticello City Council this nrd day of April, 2001. . A TrEST: Roger Belsaas, Mayor ~,_. ~, Rick Wolfsteller. City Administrator . 51= . I~- fJ-~ 77l~Ac:h ~ . ?11"j /~ CI~7 . ~. ~?-nZ.~;~ ~ ~ f/~ ..t{..6 /~~ r'~~J l)~~ ~~/ c;~~ ~~ A~~ n'~;7 ~~ ~~oY'~ $~~ -pJ ?-z~ /37- .-4~ A~ 7o/d~ h~ /6~~~ .--d~ ;Z~ vJjIZ?--u t:lnv~~ ~ /3c-4J.-.InLe ?o/~z7 I<. ~~ ...J A.-' , ~?-e-- (/.~ t: <~ ~ 77~~ /C.~~ ~~ iJP'.u~ ~~~ 'P1~ A~ 1-~ -j-z- A~L. r- f!~ 1J..eh'4-"~>'-- f~ j(~ 7 -r;'~e- A~~ _ n~~7 j(~L~... -r1 t:'---Z~-c&- --d ~~ jJ a.LL. .A~~~ 7'1?'~~~ c~ .. .-'''- ,;e' - - ,.. y ~_ .7/ ~CJOC> ./ /j".t1 C? a c> ..:7?Pc> . ,:J 0 .y ?~. 5'0 "f 10, 0 0 .7'~Cfc;. 00 /jcCl. oc> 7'e'.CO t. (/0. d C) c:>--;;:, CJ ,:J 0 sC/. 0 0 l~-O- c>o 'jOCJ. CJl 0 7;1>'9: 0 0 ~.;t9.dO ..;?dOd. 00 .:t CJtP. 00 /' yo. oC; 'j'9F-:OO c:r-OC? ~"o .;,t." O. oc) !- oC:; _ 0 0 .3' 75": de; /eytfJ.OO ,3'.00. dO .5-tY6'.OO / g- tJ:t. 'fe:' .' -4~, oJ '-1#4. . fLe, . ~"'~~ ';??2a~7 8.--/ ~~~~~ ':p'~--4~ 7~ (z--<r~-4~) (0.,..L ~. ~ ~~ V~~ A~ 'J?1P~-~-a-- )/-~ ...J~.-r a2~~ &-r. ..Al~~~ A~ .A~ P1~~7 ~~-~ .vlt. JI~ 'n~~ ~~ ?;!p-...zx. ~ 7~ -z)~ $7 jJ~--J m,,;~ 9'c~~. ~-r-~ ~ ~-- -IA~-' e-z-~- .--t~ -d...r; J/~ ? ~ r--r-- '/t47 ~ na2;"~ ./d~ ~.-:- jJ~ ~--v .~ -I~ ~~7 J/---..- ..A~d t5.'Ji-. C~ ;?7 . - )(~ 'l- -?o/",~~L&- f~.e. Pl~b-- J/~ .A~ A~/L;r 'v.;t- If~ C-7~_A-- A7' n':Z-~7 ~ ,,;l .;;t::.--..,c;. t:Y>D /5"" C'" C"J. C-> 0 $/t:..CO 7;Z~'-'JCJO ",z?,/..2.5- J.il eN:>. 0 0 ,.2 cC'C' CJ C> / YCi t:? 00 7500 3/";'--: <~o :JOt:"), cO 735: 00 7J.---, c> b ,35&.00 /?'.cN9.cyO .,::;"ytfJ. ""0 5'.cPc.OO 9'?~6'. 00 YdC. 06 /joe, 00 ,/-71/.39 .'.1--7/. .2.>-' _;.c:;0'. 4' 0 /o.c:>tP.oo 7..;----'06 'Ii.C'- c>CJ ;[5hl"; Y' 7 I?? .fT, 5''' s~ ~?;;t /j'J YtPJ': 7 J -.:.,- """T ,,--- . . . City COllnci I Agenda - 04/23/0 I 5G. Consideration of accenting leasibility report. orderinf,: plans and specifications for Front Street utilitv svstem and road reconstruction project. (.10) I{/':FERENCI: AND BACKGROUND City Council is asked to approve the feasibility study and the plans and specilications supporting the Front Street improvements needed fiJr the proposed housing development. The total construction cost of the project is set at $146,000. Due to the I~lct that there remains a parcel to acquire before the project can proceed, action to authorize preparation of plans and spccifications should be contingent on City purchase of the final parcel. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to adopt resolution approving leasibility study and ordering plans and specilications, contingent on City purchase of the tinal parcel, and authorizing advcrtisement for bids for Front Street utility system and road reconstruction project. ) Motion to deny adoption of resolution approving feasibility study, ordering plans and spccilications, and authorizing advertiserllent fl.)!' bids fl.)r Front Street utility system and road reconstruction project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Administrator recommends alternative I. The developer has provided a cash dcposit to fund City expenses relating to developnlent of the TIF program, and the project is set to proceed to development process stage once the final parcel is acquired. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of Feasibility Study. . . . 5H. City Council Agenda - 04/23/01 Consideration of acceptin~ feasibilitv report and ordering and approving plans and specilications, and advertisement for bids for Groveland Phase II. (.10) REFERFNCE AND BACKGROUND City Council is asked to approve the feasibility study and the plans and specifications supporting the inlprovements to the Groveland II residential subdivision. Council is also asked to authorize advertisement fCH bids. This project is supporting development of 112 residential lots. The total construction cost of the project is set at 1.2 Million Dollars. The cost to the City for oversizing utilities ($198,000) is of/':..set by the trunk fees that will be funded by the development. The entire cost of the roads, pathways, sidewalk and utilities is being funded up-front by the developer. These funds will be provided to the City at the time that the project is ordered. City costs associated with plan development have been funded by the developer who has provided a check to the City in the amount of $57,000. AL:n,:RNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt resolution approving feasibility study, ordering and approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for improvements to the (,rovelandll residential subdivision. 2, Motion to deny adoption of resolution approving feasibility study, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for improvements to the Grovc\and II residential subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Administrator recommends alternative I. The developer has provided a cash deposit necessary to pay City expenses to-date. At such titne that the project is ordered and final plat is approved, the developer will be provided a cash deposit to the City providing coverage to pay the contractor and other costs. SUPPORfING DATA Copy of Opinion of Probable Cost Worksheet/Feasibility Study. Plans and specifications arc available for review if desired. t::l ~ ti jUC'l 8 oP-t\Oq ~, = I " QO ..... ~ = - ('f') :E UOO('f') '~ ~.-= 0 _ ~ ~:g~ 0 ~ ~<~~ ~ ~].~ l ~ to N 2 ~ :~ u 1 ~ ~ 8' 1)U~ ;> p ~ g o ~ N '" 8 g l:;g~ ~ g ~t-=l!l '"t ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~;;... '" '" 8 8 0 II II II .... ~ Jl ~ cx5 .... .. ~ t4 8 u ~ ! ;; lal ~ ~b 0 '=! '=! =:! ..0 .... - Ii .... $ Q\ .... .... ,!! 8 ~ ~~~~g~~~~~~~~g~~ O~O~~MN~~NM~~~~~i N -\o.....Q\'""....Q\~'""'" _,"","" '"" "''"'''"'''"''....''' '" . . .~~ . . . . ."'!Illl :g813~~o*o88;X '1.oo'1."),--:.st~~rt"),r-;,:Z ."....."<TM.....___~Q\."..". ...."'''''~'"'''"''Q\O."..".''''1e '"" '"";;"''''' ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~NO.....- - -<............O~ONO 0-'" ........'""M~'""foo'J"''''O -~o....~ - ~foo'J f"l foo'J f"l.... e iI'l iI'l~ foo'Jfoo'J M foo'J :~g88~888~=:-~8~~~ ... ~~~;!:~~ 00 ~ M- ~ ~ ~ Z ~ S ~t:~zzz~ttto~o~oo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ....l Ill:: >-:i I ~ ~ iA !;;J ~ o a I ~ ~ @ 1~~~nn~1 d ~~~~~~~~~~~A ::l8~~8~~~8~~~ foo'Jt;foo'Jfoo'J;;;) foo'Jfoo'J~;;;; ....., N.".\O\O\OO....-\Oo\O~ ~ oo--tr::oo~$~~~ "'" ""'-.... ~ tEH55t!i:tt5tt ~~~~~~~~~~~ ! ~ ~~ ~ ,... I:"" ~ VI ~ I:""!~ N ~~~ .... ~~~ d<;;~I:J~ I~~~~~ I ~ N ~ ~ l7llq N~ ~~. "'f"l ~'" 8 00 .... II II ~ ~e- 1" H8 ~ 0 0 - on ;! - o on ~~a~~~~~a~~2!!~l7j 8~~g8Si!88~~~~Si!~ ;1CSO-OOcs.......,.-\O\O.....csii . . . . ." . . . . 'A . .".N\O.....r--OONQ\_~_ ~!AMfoo'J"'....-....'""Q\\o N !A ........~!A....~ 2!!~~~~~~a~~~a~~ 8 8 ~ SUi18 8 ~ ~:::: M:q ~~ ....ooCS~I25""'-..,.....,iI'lfoo'Jfoo'J foo'JfIlM' "'.....fIl foo'J ....., ........\OSM....S80~....OSi!~ ~......~ .-tN~~(b('l")~ ..,. ....- t-- ~ 50aoeHJotttt~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~g2 ~ 00 ~I h .. .....l ~ x~ t'"ld MN&:l ........d ddz~ ~~~~ eleL :s~ ~ CI) ~ ]u~ 8 O~~9 ::::I I I 00 CI) Q)!:l - M ..0 uo8M -: ~.~ - ~ ~~~ 0 ti; ~<~~ ~ 'g"8"~ "~ @ eN 0,:5:; ::l .... '"d ~ I:Q ::l U C .e- tI'l ~ ~u~ ~ i u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..~ ~.!~~:~~!-5- ;l'fi ~ ~~~ - ~O~ M~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ N~~ ~~ N ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ VI OQ r-- . ... ~ ~ .... VI 8 888 g 888 8 8 8"" " II " ~ . "M vl g~g ci ~ ~~p tl tl 8gN r;;; .., 0 0 .....o;.otVl -....,~ U U ~ ~ "'t VI ..., I l la! I ~ e ! Os 1; 0 000 0 <=!\C!"'1 <=! 0 0 -1'12 ....; ....;;~ ci ~oo;:: - M ..c 0 ~ E-o 8 ~gg2g~cigci~ci~gvlgg2~gg~ q~~~~~~~~~~~q~~~~~~~ -o;.ot"'N~~vNg~....,r--Or--~_~r--_NOQ ~ ~M~~~~~NM~~~~M~~~~ ..,o;.ot.., ..,.., .., .., ;;: ~~~~~~~~~~~~q~~~~q~~~ 8~82g~~~~~~~8~28888~~ ..... ~c~"'o;.ot"''''t'''_N~~~~~N~''' ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ .., (,It .., fA N_-N~NO""'O~""'_O~N_N~_O! .....f'-o.f'--oNlO\OVlf'f"\N'P"""\'M t'l 'lI:f" .OOI,f')"'=t:::f"')~ __ g 5oootttttttttte5ooa~E-o ~~~~!!!~!!!~~~~~~~~B Ul~Ul~ ~ ~~~~_N~ ~8~~~~~ ;>;>~~~~;~~~!}:;!}:;~ ~~~~~~~~~;i;;iii !~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~cc5555S ~s ~~~~~~~~~S.S.S.S33~ D~ ............"""M ....0,0........ ~~~~~ :J;;::!-~...r VI VI VI II " " II II ~~i1~! t;je ie u lle-;C!ll lflf a ~ . . . City Council ^gendil - 04/3/0 I 51. Consideration of resolution authorizing feasibilitv study, apnrovinQ feasibility study and callin!2, j()f' a public hearinQ on road and storm se\Ver improvements to Cedar Street between Dundas and Oakwood Drive. Public hearinQ is scheduled for Mav 14,2001. (.J()) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Some weeks ago Dan Mielke petitioned the City t(n improvements to Cedar Street. Ilnprovements to this street section have been waiting development of the adjoining areas. Now that the Mielke project appears to he moving j(nward, the City needs to proceed with improvcments to Cedar Street hetween Oakwood and Chelsea. Please note that the feasibility study includes Cedar Street south of Chelsea between Chelsea and Dundas Road. This section of the project is optional. Mielke has indicated that he is anxious to proceed with completion of the development agreement and final plans supporting the project. Within the next few weeks we hope to have a development agreement prepared and more detailed plans in place supporting the project. The project calls t(n completion of roadway, water main, storm sewer and sidewalk improvements. The total cost of the project is estin1ated at 737,3 I 3. Detailed analysis of the project funding and assessments will be completed prior to the open house !()r the project. The distribution of these costs against individual properties has not been completed but will he available t(X the open house which is scheduled tin May ]'d at 4:30 p.m. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt resolution authorizing feasibility study. approving feasibility study and calling t()r a public hearing on road, water main and and storm sewer improvements to Cedar Street between Dundas and Oakwood Drive. Public hearing is scheduled for May 14, 200 I. 2. This alternative includes improvements to Cedar Street south of Chelsea Road \vhich are not needed to support the Mielke development. It is suggested that this section remain in the project at least through the public hearing phase so all property owners in the area can be appri7.ed of the potential of the project. If Council so desires, the section to the south can be removed from the project at a later time. City Council ^genda - 04/3/01 . 'I -, . Motion to deny adoption of resolution authorizing feasibility study, approving feasibility study and calling li.)r a public hearing on road. water main and storm se,>ver improvements to Cedar Street between Dundas and Oakwood Drive. 4. STAFF RECOMMENDAl'ION The City Administrator recommends alternative 1. SUPPORTING DATA Copy or feasibility study . . 2 . . . 5.1. City COllllcil ^gcllda - 04/23/01 Consideration of resolution authorizin!..'. tCasibilitv study. approvin!..'. feasibility study and callin!..', t()r a public hemin!..'. on road and storm sewer inmrovcments to TI1 Street between Cedar Street and Washin!..',ton Street. Public hearing is scheduled for Mav 14. ?001. (.10) RH.'ERYNCE AND BACKGROUND Some months ago at an early assessment program workshop the City Council directed staff to begin the process of making improvements to 7111 Street. This direction was prompted by the LIct that the City wcndd save money by doing an overlay now versus a complete reconstruction if done later. In addition to the overlay, the project calls for completion of storm sewer improvements, and installation of curb, pathway and trees. The total cost of the project is estill1ated at $412,000. A detailed analysis of project funding and assessments based on the new policy will be computed prior to the open house for the project. Open house is set fiJr May 10111 at 4:30 p.m. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. Motion to adopt resolution authorizing feasibility study, approving feasibility study and calling for a public hearing on road and storm sewer imprOVCll1ents to 7111 Street between Cedar Street and Washington Street. Public hearing is scheduled for May 14, 200 I. ? Motion to deny adoption of resolution authorizing feasibility study, approving feasibility study and calling for a public hearing on road and storm sewer improvements to 71h Street between Cedar Strcet and Washington Street. STAFF R.ECOMMENDATION The City Administrator recommends alternative 1. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of feasibility study Council Meeting - 4/23/2001 . 5K. Consideration of canceling our uniform services contract with G & K Services of St. Cloud, Minnesota. (.I.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Our most recent contract with (J & K Services dates back to April I. 1999. G & K Services provides unit<.mns to the Publ ic Works Department which i nel udes the Parks Department and Water & Sewer Department. "rhey also provide shop towels and shop rags. . During the past year we have had numerous problems with G & K Services in regard to maintenance of the uniflxms, return of cleaned uniforms, and appropriate insignia and name tags on the unifonlls. Our complaints were going unnoticed and uncorrected. After checking into our contract late last year we discovered inconsistencies in the billing practices by G & K Services and that they were billing us more for uniforms than the contract allowed. We still could not get any answers from G & K Services in regard to these issues so, consequently, we sent them notice of our intent to cancel our contract on January 31,200 I. Consequently. after receipt of our 90-day notice. they did come out and make some improvements with their unif'(mn services. We asked them to audit their books and find out exactly how much they were over charging us. Problems continued up until March 31. 2001, when our own audit for the period from April 1. 1999 to April 1, 2000 showed that they had billed us in excess of$500 more than allowed by contract. This did not even include the second year of the contract. We. therej(JI'e. again notified G & K Services of our intent to cancel our contract as they still had not fulfilled or corrected the deficiencies. This notice was send on March 31.200 I. G & K Services then did per1<.mn an audit and did reimburse us $917.92 within the last week. Since they did not complete the remedies to the contract within the 60 days allowed. and had dirticulty in auditing their own books. and still show inaccurate inventories of uniforms, City staff wishes to cancel our contract with G & K Services. G & K Services. however. feels that our contract runs until April I, 2004, and we cannot cancel the contract. The City Attorney has advised us through this procedure and we have followed the letter of the contract in giving proper notices upon this cancellation. Enclosed are copies of our letters back and f'()rth to G & K and the attorney's letter. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize cancellation of the uniform contract with Ci- & K Services and authorize the City Administrator to negotiate with another lirm and enter into a contract to provide uniform services to the Public Works Department. We expect no increase to come because of the change and may also see a decrease in our costs. 2. The second alternative would be to continue the contract with G & K Services. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: . It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works Director that the City Council authorize cancellation of our contract with G & K Services as outlined in Alternative If 1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of correspondence regarding this issue. MONTICELLO January 31, 2001 G & K SERVICES 1250 Kuhn Drive S1. Cloud, MN 56301 Re: Intent To Cancel Uniform Sen'ices Dear Sir or Madam: This is to inform you that due to various problems with correctly labeling our uniforms and differences in contracted prices versus billed prices, the City of Monticello hereby gives G & K Services notice of intent to cancel our contract dated April 1, 1999. Please consider this a 90-day notice while we look into other alternatives. . If you have any questions in this regard, please call me directly at (763) 295-3170. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, JES/beg cc: file . SK Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, MN 55362-8831' (763) 295-2711' Fax: (763) 295-4404 Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362' (763) 295~3 170, Fax: (763) 271-3272 @J COpt MONTICELLO March 31,2001 Mr. Mike Longtin G & K SERVICES 1250 Kuhn Drive St. Cloud, MN 56301 Re: Intent to Cancel Uniform Services Dear Mr. Longtin: . This is to inform you that the City of Monticello is still dissatisfied with the uniform services provided by G & K Services. Although some improvements have been made to the past problems, you have yet to resolve the over charges throughout the life of our contract. We had expected you to audit your services to inform us of the exact amount of over charges. We, therefore, performed an in-house audit, which is enclosed for your review, for the contract year from April 1, 1999 to April 1, 2000, and found you had over charged us an amount of $576.68. Although we did not complete an audit of the last year of our contract, it appears from our records that those over charges continued and we do not understand why you cannot internally audit your own books to find out how much you have over charged us. We will, therefore, consider this contract with your firm null and void on April 31, 2001. If you have any questions in this regard, please contact me directly at (763) 295-3170. Respectfully, CITY OF Mo;~/LO ~tt!j~ cZ.:.;imola " Public Works Director JES/beg Enclosure cc: . Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Dennis Dalen, City Attorney File CSt< Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 . (763) 295-2711 . Fax; (763) 295-4404 Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 . (763) 295-3170 . Fax; (763) 271-3272 s -- MONTICELLO April 1, 2001 Mr. Mike Longtin G & K SERVICES 1250 Kuhn Drive St. Cloud,:MN 56301 Re: Intent to Cancel Uniform Services - Amended Cancellation Date Dear Mr. Longtin: This is to inform you that the we had given you an incorrect cancellation date for our contract with G & K Services. Please correct your records to reflect that our contract with your firm will be null and void on May 1.2001. . If you have any questions in this regard, please contact me directly at (763) 295-3170. Respectfully, CITY OF MONTICELLO 1&:.....;' ~... .... c:&!~. Jo . Simola Public Works Director JES/beg cc: Rick W olfstelIer, City Administrator Dennis Dalen, City Attorney File . StL Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-8831' (763) 295-2711 . Fax: (763) 295-4404 Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 5.5362 . (763) 295-3170 . Fax: (763) 271-3272 G&K Services@ 1250 Kuhn Drive Sf. Cloud, MN 56301 320/252.9471 Fax 320/252-i+iOl Aprill7,2001 Mr. John E. Simola Public Works Director CITY OF MONTICELLO 909 Golf Course Rd. Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Simola: Thank you for meeting with me yesterday. I am responding to your most recent letter, dated Aprill, 2001, which I received only yesterday. In that letter, you make the statement that "our contract with your firm will be "null and void on Mav!. 2001." . John, as I stated yesterday, I sincerely regret that some service failures and billing mistakes have taken place. I also regret that you were put in the position of having to point those things out to us in order to get them corrected. The fact is, though, that we have corrected these deficiencies. In addition, we have insured that the City of Monticello has not suffered financially. Our Service Agreement both "requires" and "allows" us to make these corrections and improvements in the event you may be dissatisfied with any portion of our service. The fact that these mistakes were made does not make our Agreement "null and void". Our position is that the agreement exists in force until its expiration date of April 1, 2004. Between now and then, it will be our goal to meet your expectations, to build upon our relationship, and to continue that relationship for many years to come. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me with any questions. Sin~;Y, ~Pi GarY~son serviXt:ager cc: Dan Slade, General Manager Chris Sur, Maslon Offices . S \( DEDICATED To UNIFORM ExCELLENCE@ ~ fJ I' . ~ ~ MONTICELLO MEMORANDUM TO: John Simola, Public Works Director FROM: Beth Green, Public Works Secretary DATE: April 19,2001 RE: G & K Services, Uniform Issues . This is to inform you of continued service issues with G & K Services regarding the Public Works Department employee uniform program. It has been brought to my attention that on a regular basis employees are not receiving the inventory of uniforms that were turned in the prior week. For example, one employee turned in 5 complete uniforms one week (this includes shirts and pants), the next week that same employee was returned only 3 shirts and 1 pants. Another employee turned in 8 complete uniforms one week and the next week received on 3 uniforms in return. It has also been brought to my attention that there is a discrepancy in our billed inventory, some employees are stating that they do not have as many uniforms as G & K is claiming they have. Furthermore, there are two employees who are being billed for 2 jackets on a weekly basis when they only have two jackets total, so they should only be billed for 1 cleaning per week, not2! It is issues such as these that continue to plague our staff and they are finding it to be a rather frustrating issues when they run out of clean uniforms to wear because their inventory has not been returned. If you have any questions or need further clarification of these issues, please see me or each individual department head. Thank you. . s~ Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-8831' (763) 295-2711' Fax; (763) 295-4404 Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 . (763) 295-3170 . Fax; (763) 271-3272 APR,-20'Ol(PR1) 10:53 OLSON USSET & WEINGAR~EN P. L. L, P ! TEL:612 925 5879 P.002 . OLSON, USSET & WEINGARDEN P.L.L.P. i A ITORNEVS AT I.A W PAULA. WIINGARDIN" DA "tD ./. U8$ttT THOMA& U. OLSON"" DlNN1S E. DALEN DANfil. "t. V,SkUM SVITI 3D' 4!1llO PA.RK m.EN ROAn MINNIAPOLIS, MN S!lmi TELEPflQl;U. (DS2)1l1I.611. VAX r-BJ)tU4111ll LEGAL A881STANTS SHUll.." AUJtN PllRA IIA.Kln: KIM 'ORTIN CAIlRn: 0l.90'" BONNIIt TRONNES 'M~ltA l'..'ltRTlfIllW IUCAt I'aOI'ltR1Y 8'IlCIAW', .'MSlA Cllfnp/1;l! CIVIL Tl14"'I'ICI~U5'r ROCKFORD OFFICE TEJ..EI"IfONE (763)47'.5010 OUR ~X~B MO. 7975(152) April 20, 2001 Mr. Gary Gilbertson Sl!!rvice Manager G Ii; K Services 1250 Kuhn Drive St. Cloud, MN 56301 . I Rs; Monticello - cancella~ion of Contract , Dear Mr. Gilbertson: , I am writing in my c~pacitiv aa City Attorney for Monticello with reference to your letter or April 17, 2001. You are correct that the i serv-icl!! agreement "requires" and "allows" you to make correction~ when deficiencies in your service are brought to your attention. Specifically, you get a 60 day eure period when notice is given to you. You were aavieea within 10 day~ after the expiration of the 60-day period that the problema haa not been corrected. Therefore I Monticello ia ent.:i. tled to terminate the contract on 30 days notice, which Mr. Simola gave you. The specific basis for the termination was billing defieiencies. The deficiencies continued after the 60-day period. It therefore appears that you have not corrected the deficiency brought to your attention and that Monticello ilil entitled to terminate the contract, which i~ has done. Plea8e feel free to Contact me with any further concerns. Very 08 DEDrsa . s ~" Counci I Agenda - 4/23/0 I . 7. Public Hearing-Considcration of a rcsolution adoptin2 proposed assessmcnt roll for delinquent utilitv hills and certification of assessmcnt roll to County Auditor. (R W) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council is again asked to adopt an assessment roll fl.lr utility billing accounts which arc delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the assessment roll to the County Auditor fl.)r collection on next year's real estate taxes. The delinquent utility accounts that are included with the agenda arc accounts that are at least 60 days past due and include all new delinquents from the last time we certified them. In addition to the delinquent amount the Council also previously approved the establishment of an administrative ICe of $50 per account that is added to each delinquent assessment. The amounts shown on the enclosed delinquent utilities list include the additional $50 administration fee for the preparation of the assessment roll. . It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment 1'011 fl.lr certification at an interest rate of8% as allowed by state statute. As in the past ifany accounts arc paid within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment rol L they can be paid without the additional interest. After 30 days, payments will be charged interest and can be accepted up to November 30.2000. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. Adopt the assessment roll fl.)!" the delinquent charges as presented. ) Based on public hearing input, adjust the assessment roll as required. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is staff recommendation that the Council adopt the assessment roll as presented. All of the accounts are at least 60 days past clue and have been given proper notice of this assessment hearing and ample opportunity to pay the accounts in full. All utility accounts were notified that there would be an additional $50 administrative ICe attached to each outstanding balance if the account was not paid by 4:30 p.m. on April 16,2001. D. SUPPORTING DATA: · Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll · C'omplete listing of delinquent accounts to be eertilied. . . . . . . . -1 ~ ['TJ :"j ~: ~ ~ ':1 0; 0; :1" :1" ct' ::IJ :1" :1-: ~ l;j t: ~ ~ t; .'. ~; .', .,', ~ .', ~,':" ~ ~M~ljrCf.~; C" ci U D ~j ....'~ (J c ;I~ :~':: ') ',) u: 1'.1 1'~ ~~ ,-, ~ i.~ :1" ?; ~ r 0 ~ ~ (~ i?; ? ~: ~ J:: r-l '-J :1.' \:1 :i~ t'J fi 0 ~ ~ ,', '-I :\' ~~! C'l ~ ':"J [TJ (~~ :,(j 1>" f.:' '0 >rc ~ ~; ~~ n rr:J :,j ....:; n '~ ~ ~ I~) 1'.1 1--' r,; ~ ,.1 ~..: ~ n :) ';} ;'~ f.- \.I; t'j t1 :-~ ;T.. ~.< ~ "' ~ ~ ~ '" tr: :r! tr;; ::~::'\ '-J' '. ~..~ "-. ~ .,', .. [j; ,~ :'J': :< ... ITJ t.rj " ,,) () ',I ';1 ~6 ~6 ~ r"- ;';; ~. ti ij [~ '.\J b '" I,,; ~\\ ~'J ., <'1~ ,I_ 13\ [.J I",) >+_ ", ~.1 ". ':! t' j r-' l~j ;:~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~i :1:' Ij) ~. -~ ~ :~- 1',1 f- " ~;; ~~ :.1.1 ;.U :\J ~; ~ ;~ G ~ ~ o o u ;j ;g ~: i:i i:i t: rl"i ~ ~ ~,1.:' ~,,', ~ ~ ~ ~. ~. C m ~",,' ~,.'::, ~ ~ ~,,;,) rr1 i~; ~ ~:~ ;j~ III II ~ b n t S ~ (J I 1 ~,. _ ~'. ..-, >-3 ~ ~. -, .. ~,. :~, 1""' c-< '....' 8 n1 lJ l'J 1'1 ~t~~~:;~~t~ ::<j ~~ ~_:.,~ ~ 8 T r,',., r-< ": ~1 : '-' ,_l ~" ct! tj m rrI ~ ~ ;';~ v) ~ W :1.; i'; :-; ~ u~ ,.'.~ L' 1 :~~ I" ~i i'; 'S', ;j~:j~j1~ .... r-- f....l r-- ~..' .1 ,_., '" '.' ~;:: C.I :i:; h: t~ ~ :1" ;r.' :r.< _n If; r.F! '1'1 '1 .J is, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ['.I '" ~I \~~ :~ '7\ ~ ;r, ;r; :r; :.c I' 1'.1 ~ ~~ :~J :J ~'J .1', "-'. l' ~ ~ ~~ ~.:; (IJ U"J ~~ U"J IF! U"J >) 'j '.I 11 I rn ,I ~ ..-, "". }-: ].1 ~., ..-, '-, (..~ 'I) ,<J III ~ :1.' ~2 ~~ 't< ~ \ I ~ ~~ b :~; ~~: ), :.: m f':: L1 ~;~ ~ >- ~"l' I~l ~ ~'1:j . - " . >-,; ~ trJ S~ ::.,: tri [1 c. [~.: 'TI 'U ,~ '::.) m ;<1 :,1 c~ ~~ ;~: :: ~~: IS, i'i'l ... !""! :~: .. ('j L'.: , ~! iJ i:~ ~ ~ UI ,I i~~ S ~ f, 01 ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,;,', ~,' ~ . . ]:. ^ f, ~~' ~~~ f~~ ~l,'j () CTJ'~ ~-J fiT.: c, ,. ,-, i~P::8~~; ?J ::D ~:; CJ t < 1-: [r 0 >, >-,. rTj rl t:I ~- ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ,.J, ;r~"Tl 8 ~ ~j ~ ~ ~1~~ ~ d r; J ;] ~ L' C, ~1 c... ',C,: ~ ~ l'j 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ :t' 0 1-:: III L't"" ...., C' t" ~.;1 U"J .. ~" II ~ .. ~ M rJI ~ tI: :; ,I; i;; :c' ,. >-:; co OJ [-0 o .;:. II c. r-- q (\ .\ l ~ >I- ,_ 0; 1".; ~ ::l~ i;~;J :i ~~; ~ ~~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-' ~'~ I~ 'I) l.n G f-l r-' 'I! ;.: c' (~'J ~ ~ ~.-.1 H ~~ f-' ~LJ ~ ~ >-' e' I"j Wi <J' f~ ~ r-- fo...l -'- ~ ) ~ "' 'lJ c) ~:~ ,-- ~ ~. '" :_: rr1 rT1 ::: "_. .. ~ :1: r' L' ~ ~,~ I" M :;1 >-3 ~ [) ~, ~ ~ ;:; .,. ,'~ g ~~'1l~ I-J (",j H ~ ~.' m ~ ~ (J ~ ~ ~ ~-~ '., .., ~. o ;~ ~ ~l ;~ ~ ).., C"J C"'l t~ t< :::,; l~; f~; ~ ~ ~:.~ ;~; 8 ~cJ ~:; ~ ',I) h ,:1,.. I)> \.n ,.- \)'1 ~':- I:; .... I:~ ~ .... C () () (. ~ '..' ..J C.! !; ; ~;.: ~!I ~ll C.I n ~ ,; l\l :~:' ~ ;-i " .0 " ':1; " " 4 o " ;~; "' ~,< '~ " "] K.., ~ " =, ill :~ g L' ,() ~ r II ~ OJ r I~J ;,! ';~ l '" ~ U -'< ~, ~ 'D I' i'~: t ~ ~J ,T! N ~ ~ '", ~ ~~ ~ fI; '1J 0 ill . 1)1 .~ '0 ,:j I" ~II fr I-'~ " I:J ~ ,i~1 ;:~ '-"I ,.f1,,1'i ,1' .1." !,) . . . .J <..., .. I'.' /..! ., " 1',-, r,. .J .j i. '" (,_.J ". ':l """ '.il ';-, \0 WI ~ " ':I', (-J S \~'i f :1: i':i U"; ~ , .::. 1.I ;....! ~' ~.'. "', :-,'.., c. :Jj ::~ m ...: r ~ ~! If, ::.: ~ 11:: ~~ [ ~~! ;~; ~~ C;-J :!' ~~ ;1"' :\1 L~] CTj :.'1 ':IJ 'l :3, ,"'I i~'i " , (! ;::1 C' () ,., ii ;:<:1", :.1..' :~j .':D C :-' (; n (~ () n ~ ~T~ ~ f~; ~'J' F;; L:, /i ~~ :~; ~ .~, ~; ~ t1 hl i~ lTj i-ri :~: i i ~~ ...... ...... G:; :;-J ;.\: , I S: i;" ,', ".'" g ::J ~ g' ~ ~; f.: r r: f.: r ~ ~ :;J r: ~ ~ r !;i ,c~.1 ~ ~:~ l'J 8 ~! ?:; J", -. t~~ ~ ~ ~ I'~ ~ e u ~j i-~ ~ 1d .~ ~1 r' t,-j . ,) n ~ (.~ !i:: G ~ ~'; f.:j,' "'-< :t' :r.. h '-i I: tJ '1 ~-3 ~ ~ H B ["'j t; Z:; (~ l~ ;=,] rii ;j:j r' l' r ;r. ~I ~\J :~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. t; :\1 0' ~5 U Ii LJ (J ;:u [ IIJ G ~ ~ [0' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,11 [lJ ~,~ ~ s ~': r" t"'J 0 ~ ~ 'II 1'1 l'J ,'':' 0.'; S _ ~.J ~~ \"1 ~ ~; ;.~; ~ :~:~~:~j ['; ;;j ~ ~.; ~ "., ::~ ~,; ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ :1:' (J ~ :J"' (~; 0 :1" ?:i :1"' 8 a :r; n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~.~ ~ i~; {~ ~~ ~ ,{2 :1'" (J () r.' if! (:) . ~: ,""'__; ~ ~, ~':.:, R :nt:!m~_j~ ~] Q B ~; 1 ~ lJ ~'i; II; ~;J ~ : II; ~ k.' ~ 'I if) ~." H fl. ~ ~;': S"1 n M ~ " (.) iJ.l 0 ;r.', IIJ . :r.' ~i I~ rJI ~ rrJ :1~ r:" ~ '" o '-" ~ i';; ,-~ n ~-) q ~~ ~ :I,J :-t;, ~ ? fi' 0, co :'<.) :J~ ~~~~~ :j~ fj;~ t;i n '1j ~ ~" M ~, ,.., ~ (;~ ,~ 6 :'t s:, -lJ R f,~ ~..I:,': ~ ~ ~Il ~ ~ :S ., m ~I . ~j ~j I ~ u....' '..I ~ d ~,' (S 1-:' (J ~ i~:; ,~ R [,;1 7: ~ ~~ ,-. co :1: n ...:.., t":' 'U ~ ~ ~ ,', c '" " .~; ~ ~ ;\! (' ~ ~.! fi.' ~ 1'1 :-2 :.,.. .:~ fU r: ~ 1.1...., ~ fJ) v! ~ :~ i~ ~ ~J 1'.) co , "' n c-; ~ r.." t'';; C'.< ~ (f! M ~~;;; () rrJ '" [Tj ~: ;.1] f'3 I.nb~~I)$ ;:; '., l: \1 ,-, ~ co ~ " '" l'i""J ~ ~ Co; :r. n :~: '" ~ :\'-' ~ :.,'j n ~; :1:: '" co " ~ J C) r,:j '" ~ r :1; 8 I:j '" ,', "'1 ~~: I!' In ,-p ':.: 11"1 t,) ..,. ,.. ~, '.8 f-" \0 I"~ ;-~ 'J' '"' ,.- ',,:, +- .j:,. ,1- '"' ,I. ':;', ~; ,;1 f-J '..J OJ ii.1 C t'j 1'1 t,j 0'\ ["'; ..J (;\ J1 C", - " " .-, \:' ,., L.J1 (' '-"'"1 (~\ ~ 1.l'D:l <.:> -I- e- e- <:1.! ~ UI (1 f-' () '. I" ';1 Gl I,'~, t' II ~ I~ I" t:'""",', C' r r' r ~ ~~ ~ ;~ fl ~1 ~(~ ~~~ 8 L:I ~;1 ~i ~j :l~ :r.' " ,.. ., .J r.t) ~.: :;i r.; o :c ::r; ~; C' r~ ~ :,l! i~J ;~ r'J'i '-; t: ~" ~ f~j is \3-' r ~ j ILl l;-J G '., en ~ >:.1 ~i'~ j :l:; ~ ~ ~.:..'.,', ~' ~ U "'-J :l" :c' ~, ::0 !:J II! M ill ~ ,,< 'T'] 'J) '. I' ~" 'I c~ ~< l' ,;:'~ .~~ n :~; ~ ~) v: ", ~ ~ ~i; .~~ @ ~~:; ~ [:; 2 [; i~; ~ u r ~ ~', I' C ~ ~ ;~; I" 'i ~J~ I.~j ~~ H, LI~: ~ri ::<J I I '" U I.; c.: ,'. ~~~[~~;~ ;1 ;~ i: ,:'. 7l t'"< .'" C l.l! ~ (;..' .', M CJ ;D (J) (\ 'I ~ ~ ~r,,! j; ~~ ;! '" ~ It~ ,- 0 1."1 8 I;,,, n ;;:I ,") ;-1'1 ::D ,.1 ,I '-! ~ r [,: ;r: ~~ !;:: ~ ~:1 :1' t.j I;] ~ r" " l'< :;.., .r. '~j 8 ;1~ ltj ~ " ~ I' ;:l' fn :lJ "~J ~:J l) !~ ~s ~ ~ b; ;.i ~ 'n ~ e- 'e- iJ\ ,I I',) 1.;1 IJl ,., ..1 in '.11 () (' :: ~j . ,,\ .... O:'.J t'.! f-' {., (~) >I- (', .1..... '.! .., -.11-- .:j ~.. ..J \..! ..J 1;1 L'\ '-.' 0'1 '..I J\ <Jl 0, ,. () C [ " ,';-J "J C' ~!, Ii,; n ", "- :~' ,'i! VI :(1 ;J:" .. " ~ ~ ('.J , :!! " Ii " S' " ,T' co t: :1 c' ,..] '" i~ ~;' '., .j d L': 'I ~~ I) 0' :, ~ .1 ':. '1J Ci t " ~. i r ~ ~ CJ (Ii ,::>; ~i ~ ~,j W 11:1.; '" p 'C.' ( ii; ~ co ~..: ~.1 .., '" ~~ i ~. ; ,,~ r'.. . ~J "1" "I ;: 't~ ';; " :.~,',,:, ~'.." . ~ i"'1 C.: :j! :..:.. 1 ,:~~ 3: :;~ ~;;~:jg2J:J1~ ,=~ I'J M ;1".1 lTj /Tl IIJ ~~ ~ ~,I.~, ~~_o:" ~,:~ ~ ~; :1" ::'; ,"", ;,\1;11 ",. t;j CTJ ,~ ),~m;B 'I '~ ::D " <c, 0:; .' '""" ", " ," If; ;; <.\; " '., r.., ,I; ~',' :r ,l~ I)'; . l'J " 'Tj ,. b ~ :t -~ ~ .7: ,., 'L' t-,1 :to :J' (~ !,:; \is :\1 >-<,. -" ,., . -.J C.' '""" '" " CJ t: (.1 ~-.\ ,II u = 1.I II! ,~,' ::"! ~' ~ .7 \~ '~ ',J ('J ;.l, " '" ','I '1,' Ll- ",1 'I ~/ -:"" ~J i~ " c " '" ~ (:1 " ,lj l' :el :.~ t'. ] " ~l '0 i.:; " r. ;',1 ,., ~I ;"' "j (~ ~: 'J:' ~) ~,i c . . . City Council Agenda - 04/23/01 8. Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of orderinQ improvement and prenaration of plans and specilieations ror Walnut Street corridor improvements. (.10) REFERI.:NCF AND BACKCiROlJND A few weeks ago the City Council reviewed the Walnut Street sidewalk and street light improvement project and authorized holding both an open house and a public hearing on the project. Last week the open house was conducted at which time three affected property owners attended. It was held on a rainy miserable day which tnight have affected attendance. The questions that were asked at the meeting and the associated answers can be found in the attached summary. Subsequent to the previous Council Meeting. staff met to review proposed placement of light fixtures and we reviewed concepts for developing an inexpensive landscaping plan for the railroad track area. The additional street or ornamental lighting proposed under the modified plan would place lights at 300' intervals along the pathway at an additional cost of $8.500. This cost would be paid hy the City. The landscaping plan proposed calls ft)r landscape edging and shruh plantings along the railroad side of the pathway. Over time the shrubs would form a hedge separating the pathway from the track. It is also proposed to till the track area with rock. On the Community Center side of the track a similar hedge planting is proposed. as well as installation of a short section of bituminous paving on the railroad track side of the curb adjacent to the City Ilall parking. This paving is necessary to provide more turning radius for vehicles moving in and out of the parking spaces. Currently vehicles arc driving over the curb into the mud in order to make the turn into the parking spaces. The total cost of the improvements in addition to the costs listed in the original feasihility study is $17.700. The costs would be distributed as f()l1ows: $7.400 Sunny Fresh: $8,700 City; and $1.600 Towne Centre. The plans have also been modified through input by Sunny Fresh Foods. Don Roberts and his stall have suggested that the sidewalk on 4th Street be located on the residential side of the block between Locust Street and Maple Street. Between Locust and Walnut Street the sidewalk would be shined to the Sunny Fresh side oCthe street. Crosswalks would be necded at Locust/Walnut. This plan makes sense because it directs pedestrians to the quiet side of the street and away from congested areas. Roberts also indicated that Sunny Fresh would consider paying for the local share of all of the sidewalk along 4th Street even though a portion of it under the plan above would be across the street. Everything was in place except for an approved landscaping plan so the recent closing on . City COLlncil Agcnda - 04/23/01 the sale of the land was postponed by City Staff. The delay was caused in part by a delay in getting planner input to the landscape architect. Rescheduling of the closing was then delayed due to Vaughn Veit being out of town. Presumably. a new closing date will be set this week. ^LTI.:RN^TIVE ^CI'ION I. Motion to authorize preparation of plans and specifications contingent on the sale of land for the Towne Center site. Motion to include a\l or a portion of the street lighting and landscaping improvements that are noted in addition to the original feasibility report. It is suggested that the authorization to proceed wait unti I the sale closes because much of the cost associated with this project is supported by the Towne Centre Project. In the event the sale is not consummated in the next two weeks. City statTwill bring the projeet back to Council asking if you would like to complete a scaled back version of the project. 2. Motion to deny authorization to proceed with preparation of plans and specifications. . ST ^FF RECOMMEND^ TION The City Administrator recommends alternative 1. SUPPORTING DAT ^ Notes from open house. Sketch . 2 . . . INFORMATIONAL MEETING WALNUT STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 2000-17C April 11,2001 - 4:30 p.m. C'ity Officials Present: Mayor Roger Bclsaas and Councilmcmber Roger Carlson Stall Present: Mike Nielson. City Engineer Mike Nielson briefly reviewed the location and scope or the proposed project. The following property mvners were present: Pam Campbell. Ellise Lamb and Tom Holthaus. Mike Nielson addressed questions raised about driveway approaches in the area where the sidewalk was being proposed noting that drivcway approaches would be adjusted so that they would be in line with the elevation of the sidewalk. He also indicatcd that whilc the preliminary iCasibility report indicated a cost of $7.31 1ft for sidewalk. the final cost would be determined by how the bids come in on the project. The City's current policy is that the City picks up 75% or the sidewalk cost and the property owner picks up 25%. The property owners had questions on who was responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk including snow removal and who was liable if someone was injured because the sidewalk was not maintained. Other questions included: 1) HOlI' is the cost oj'the street lights to he assessed! - Mike Nielson indicated that the street lighting cost would be picked up the City. 2) Would uny ofthe trees in the houlevard urea have to he removed! Mi~e Nielson indicated that they had not made that determination yet. However. if the trees do need to be removed. it could be done without injury to the trees, 3) rVhen H'ould the construction slUrt! Mike Nielson stated that construction would take place this year. likely in conjunction with the development of the 'fown Centre site. Those present \vere informed that the public hearing on this project would be held on ^pril 23. 200 I and irthere \verc any additional questions. they could be addressed at that time or they could contact the Citv En~ineer. . .... Ocu.;J'VI ~ Jv:; ">~ ~, -.....~._-,,-.. .~. 0 -~...._.. Recording Secretary , 6 . ~ "'-" ~ ~ ~ ~ <, ~ \> ..... -f , '\ :::::::;. '! '~ ;pr""'" f"\"\ ~7 '1'.J~ . 1 cY ~ \' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ '" ~ Cl' ~f C.,. -, . ~. T~ ~ r;:{' -,~ \~ ...., ') I \' :::1:::::::::::.::.::t .J ~illlll~i _, '''~, "\ .. __ '" I, \ \ ~t \ - .~~. L ) ) 1 '\ \ \ \ \ I i ) " o ':!\ ~ '\ ~ ~ t/\ U\" s: .... ^ ,) <:\' ~ ;\ """ c .l/,) cY I / I <1' . . . City COllncil Agenda - 04/23/0 I 9. Consideration of a re(]uest to allow National Guard to use Community Center tl)r sleeping facility during Guard weekends. (.10) REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND City Council is asked to review issues relating to National Guard overnight use of the facility and consider authorizing City staff to work with the National Guard in pursuing the potential further. Some months ago the local officers approached City Staff with the request to allow soldiers to stay in the facility overnight. Our response can be found in the attached letter from Fred Patch which basically stated that the Guard is free to use its own space fl.)r overnight stays, but we could not approve of use of joint space without a modification to the operation agreement and associated approval from the City Council. It has been our view (City Staff) that the original agreement did not intend to allow soldiers to use the general "shared" areas of the Community Center overnight. Our opinion regarding the intent of the original agreement was reinforced by Terry Palmer of the Armory Commission who stated that the design of the facil ity and operation agreement did not anticipate overnight stays by soldiers. At the same time, we have made it clear to the local officers that we would be happy to bring the topic to the City Council for further discussion as an agenda item. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. Motion to authorize staff to work with the National Guard in establishing agreements and expectations relating to National Guard overnight stays within the Community Center. Under this alternative, City Staff and the National Guard will inventory possible issues or problems that could result from Guard use of the facility, and a plan for addressing the issues will be developed for future review by the City Council. Such issues would include, but not be limited to. identifying building security and clean-up issues. 2. Motion to deny authorization to work with the National Guard in establishing agreements and expectations relating to National Guard overnight stays within the Community Center. r ~~ . ~ ~ \ r'I\\\ \. '/ y ;(~~ ;~,/ . City COLlncil ^genda - 04/23/01 ST ^FI" RECOMMENDArION City staff understands the dilemma for the National Guard. The cost of a motel room is high relative to the wages earned by the soldiers. On the other hand, I do not believe the agreement contelnplated overnight use of the l~lCility. We are hesitant to support negotiating or discussing overnight use orthe bcility due to the security issLles that arise. I I' Council would like us to pursue overnight use further. we will need to make sure that such use does not come at the expense of the City in terms of reduced security and increases in cost of operation. SUPPORTING DAIA Correspondence from Fred Patch . . 2 . . . December 4. 2000 From: Fredrick II. Patch, Building Official. Owner's Representative. Monticello Commuity Center Subject: Use of the Monticello Community Center Building For Sleeping Quarters To Whom It May Concern: It is my understanding that a request has been made by the Minnesota Army National Guard to use portions of the Monticello Community Center building for temporary sleeping quarters during drill weekends and possibly on other occasions. During the architectural programming for the COllllllunity Center it was understood that if there was a general emergency. the Comlllunity Center could be used as a temporary evacuation shelter ineluding sleeping in the building. Sleeping in the building by National Ciuard personnel was not considered when the original agreements and building plans were in development. The National Guard representatives did not represent at any time that sleeping would be within the expected activities orthe Guard in their usc of the building. Thl:' building was therefore not designed to accommodate sleeping quarters. The City is not cnthusiastic about the prospect of having people routinely sleep overnight in the building. The Comlllunity Center building is not prepared to Ineet the building codes of the State of Minnesota as related to sleeping quarters. In addition. the City has concerns about cleaning and security. Our custodial staff are responsible li)r having the entire facility clean and ready for public use by 6:()O a.m. daily. In addition. regardless of our confidence in the care and integrity of National Guard Personnel. there will inevitably be incidents when our building sl:'curity will be comprolnised by aner hours bu i Id ing occupants. It is illY understanding through past dealings with federal agencies. that on federally leased or owned lanel. federal agencies are not regulated by local government. Therefore. the City \villnot interfere with the National Ciuard if it chooses to accommodate sleeping within the confines of its properly. Ilowever. use ofbllilding areas outside of the boundaries of the propeliy owned by the National Ciuard \villnot be allowed by the City of Monticello. If the National Guard does allmv sleeping on its property. it \vill have to purchase and change out door hardware. subject to approval of the City. and at its own expense to restrict entry into the balance of the building aner hours. Ifyoll have questions or concerns relating to this subject. please contact me directly at (763) 271-3214. C\ . . . Council Meeting - 4/23/2001 JO. Consideration of proposals for gravity belt thickener for the wastewater treatment Illant. Citv Project No. 2001-03C. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City received two proposals for design build services f()r the new gravity belt thickener at the wastewater trcatment plant. The budget for the entire project prior to any design work had been estimated at $638,000. The actual construction cost was estimated at approximately $600.000. With the development of the request ft)r proposals and design standards. some changes were made that increascd the scope of the project. Those changes having to do with mostly pumping requirements and the need to change out additional pumps. The original construetion estimate was performed by PSG and U.S. Filter. The City received two design build proposals on April 10, 200 I. One proposal was received ii'om Rice I .ake Contracting Corporation who teamed with the engineering firm of Bolton & Mink. Their base proposal was fl1r $8 I 8JlOO. 'rhe second design build proposal was reeeived from SEI I Design/Build. Inc., an engineering firm who teamed with Gridor Construction. Their base proposal was f(n $1.017,955. 80th proposals werc similar in regard to supplying the exact same gravity belt thickener equipment and pumping equipment. The exterior shells of the building were identical. The Rice Lake Construction proposal. however, took a simpler approach to the reconfiguration of the existing primary clarifier tanks which were used 1"Jr the fl1LII1dation for the new gravity belt thickener building. The interior of the building icx the SEH proposal was much more complicated with additional filling in of tankage and construction of interior walls. etc. The Proposal Review Committee, consisting of representatives from I IDR, City Stan: PSG. Sunny Fresh foods, and the Mayor. reviewed the proposals in depth. checked references and prepared technical questions for the interview process. Only the Rice Lake Construction/Bolton & Mink team was interviewed in regard to their proposal. They were selected for an interview primarily due to their proposal having less detail in some areas than the proposal from SEH and the fact that their proposal was closer to our budget by $300.000. 'rhe interview process was held on Tuesday morning at which time the committec was able to have a thorough understanding of the Rice I .ake/Bolton & Mink proposal. The committee requested some additional inllll'll1ation and some possible alternatives to reduce costs. The committee met again on Friday morning. April 20. to make the final selection ftw the design build team and select the lin,-t! alternatives 1<:) reduee costs. After careful consideration. the committee awarded the Jc)llowing points based upon the criteria laid out in the design build selection process. For the capital investll1cnt and operating costs. Rice Lake was awarded all of the points available at 70. SEH was awarded a score of 56. due to the significantly higher cost of their project. For the technieal approach to the project. Rice Lake received I <) out of the available 20 points. While SEll received 16 out of the available 20 points. For the experience and qualifieations section of the selection criteria. the team of Rice Lake Construction and Bolton & Mink were awarded all . of the 10 available points. The team of SHI and Gridor Construction. however. were awarded 8 of the 10 available points. The total SCore for each was 99 points for Rice Lake and 80 points for SUI. Council Meeting - 4/23/2001 The selection cOlllmittee entered into some negotiations with Rice Lake Contracting Corp. in an effort to reduce the costs of the project and to make sure their proposal rellected the needs of the project. The committee selected the It)llowing changes It)!' the contract price: 1. Delete the perlt)rmance testing of the gravity belt thickencr from the contract and have it per/tmned by PSG. AlnlOst all of this work could be done in house by PSG with very few outside costs. This deduction would amount to a savings of $25.000. ? Delete the burnished block on the exterior of the gravity belt thickener building and paint the concrete block to match the adjacent buildings. This would result in a savings of $2.020. Since the closest burnished block building is 100' away and the gravity belt thickener building would be surrounded by painted buildings. it was telt that this deduct in savings was appropriate. " -, . The original proposal from Rice Lake Contracting included celnent lined pipe tt)r thc sludge lines. The committee tdt it was important to stick with the glass line pipes for all buried ductile iron pipes and for all thickened sludge suction pipes. This would increase the cost by $7.400. . The net eftCct of these three changes is a sav'ings of $19.620. lhis reduces the contract base price fiJr Rice Lake Contracting Corp. from $818.000 to $79X.3XO. Thereby. the committee's recommendation is It)!' the City Council to award the project to Rice Lake Contracting Corp. in the anlOunt of $7<)8.380 which would include two deducts and one add as listed above. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to award the gravity belt design build project to Rice Lake Contracting Corp. in the amount of $798.3XO which would include a deduct of $2J)20 It)r exterior burnished block versus paint. a deduct of $25,000 to have PSC; per/t)f"Jll the pertclrmanee testing. and an add of$7.400 to go to glass line pipe f(x all buried and suction pipe Jor all the thickened sludge lines. 2. The second alternative would be not to award the project but to continue drying and landfiJling sludge each time our tanks get near the fullmarlc This \vould cost approximately $36.000 per year. I f the City were to grow by its current growth patterns of approximately 200 homes per year. within the next two or three years we could see costs as high as $54.000 per year I()r drying and landfilling sludge. At the sallIe time, if Sunny Fresh I()ods were to use al/ of their permit increase. that cost could increase by another $68.000 per year or $122.000 per year. . I fyou bctor in an annual increase 01'4% in the total cost of the gravity belt thickener pn~ject. it can be easily seen that the cost 01" the project will grow by morc than $30.000 per year. . . Council Meeting - 4/23/2001 Therehy. the project could he delayed a year without significant impact but after that we would he throwing money away to not have the gravity belt thickener online. C. STAFF J~ECOMMENUATIOIY: The eomm i Itee '0 reeom mell da' ion is ftlf A Iterna ti ve III , tha' the C i t Y Co L1lle i I a ward 'he gra vi ty bel t th i ek ener desi go bu i I d pro; ee' to Rice Lake Co n tract in g Co rp, in the am OLIn t of $ 798.3 80, Denn is Darnell will be at 'he eOLloeil meetiog representing Sonny Fresh Foods. The differeoce being approximately $200.000 over budget as per our agreement with Sunny Fresh roods would nwke the C i t Y res pons i b Ie lor $50,000 or that and $1 50,000 to S onn y Fresh roods, I t has been sLlggested by sta IT and S L10 n y Fresh Foods that the City assi st S LI nn y r resh Foods wi th the i r port i on 0 f the 0 verag e of the project by using fine moneys received lrom Sunny Fresh Foods ten violations of their discharge permit. The total lines received from Suony Fresh Foods in the past 18 months are $ 128,700, A port i on 0 f t hi s may be used toward the proj eet if the eou nc i I so desi res, So me 0 r these lllIlds arc used to onset higher operational costs. U. SLJPPOJ~TJNG DATA: Copy of the proposals from Rice Lake Contracting and SEH, Copy ol'the letter from Chuck Keyes regarding processing and landfilling the sludge. us ~ l~" S r,.,J- C~ ~t;,. vY'" ') ~ ~ "?- f ?~,.t ( .~ 6 ()>< 1 . . . . 04/13/2001 05:26 6122954779 PSG, INC. USFllier 1<101 HART 6OULEV~D MON1lCEllO, MN 55362 I i MEMORANDUM TO; John Simola fROM: Chuck Keyes DATE; April 13. 2001 I 'I SUBJECT: Pressing and landfillin9 ~ic)Solid$ i PAGE 02 TELEPHONf 6120195.2225 fACSIMILE 612.295-4779 John; I As we discussed, I have put together' an estimated cost if we were to delay the GBTproject f9r 0 couple more years. I am assuming we would just press and landfill the 8i,0501ids we producepver and dbove the amount required to , meet the agronomic rote of the crop~ planted on the Citie.s land. , This pressing operation would need to take place twice 0 year in the spring , and fait. The cstimated cost to pre.fs and kanJtill @ current production would be Approximately $18,000 twice a year." If the City were to grow by 0. thousand people this numbe,r would be. opproximately $27,000. Domestic 5ewage does not hove a lot ,of 800 the more significant BOD is from Sunnyfresh food.f. These numbers are bC1!ed on SFPs fOddings to the WWTF remaining the Same, if SSF were to $tcirt di~(;hQrglng their full permitted amount to the WWTF it would produce approximately an addltiondl97!5,520 gallons of bio'ollds that would have to be pressed and landfltled. This would cost approximately an additional $68/000 anrwatly. <lvfVENDI water camP'l"Y 10 04/13/2001 05:26 6122954779 PSG, INC. Keep in mind that this just takes the ..dge off and aUowS us to m(lke it through the winter and till the cropS qome off in the fdll. We would stiU have to landc1pply <kpproximGtely 1.7 n1UUon gallons annually, and deal 'with the time constraints and compaction PfOblems attributed to hauling this amount of bio$Olids. I These estimated amounts moy fluctu~e up or down (l bit depending on how much decont we arc ,able to remove. d.....ing the year. If you need anything further. ptease contact me at 763-295-2225. Chuck Cc; Peg Becker, USFOS fUe PAGE 83 . . . . City of Monticello Price Proposal Form Sludge Thickening Facility Project City Project No. 2001-03C To: City of Monticello Proposal of: RICE LAKE CONTRACTING CORP. (Name) P.O.BOX 517, DEERWOOD, MN 56444 (Address) Proposal to, Design/Build (DB) . Monticello Sludge Thickening Facility City Project No. 2001-03C Pursuant to the City of Monticello (City) RFP for the Monticello Sludge Thickening Facility Project prepared under the direction of First. In submitting this Proposal, the undersigned Proposer understands and agrees to comply with all provisions of this RFP. Second. The undersigned Proposer acknowledges that it has received and examined the RFP including, but not limited to, the Sludge Thickening Facility Design Criteria and Requirements and has informed itself of the Addenda thereto and of the form of the Contract and Bonds to be furnished in the event it is the successful Proposer and is awarded a Contract. Third. The undersigned Proposer agrees to negotiate its Proposal in good faith and if the successful Proposer, to furnish the required Bonds as specified in the Contract. Performance and Payment Bonds are to be provided within 14 days after Notice of Award. Fourth. The undersigned Proposer further agrees to begin the Work upon receipt of a Notice To Proceed and to prosecute said Work within the time specified. Fifth. The undersigned Proposer further agrees to guarantee performance of the Work to be in accordance with the Contract Documents contained in the RFP, and that the Work shall be constructed and installed in a good and worker-like manner. City of Monticello Sludge Thickening Facility IIl-8 08124-009.164 Request for Proposals (RFP) 10 Sixth. The undersigned Proposer certifies, and in the case of a joint Proposal each party thereto certifies ~ its own organization, that this Proposal has been arrived at independently, without consultation, . communication, or agreement as to any matter relating to this Proposal with any other proposer or with any competitor. Seventh. The undersigned Proposer further agrees to submit, if requested by the City, and prior to award of a Contract, the following: a. Such catalogs, drawings, specifications, descriptive information, and other details as to special equipment or materials Proposer proposes to use for the Facility, to permit evaluation of the merits thereof and a determination as to whether or not the materials or equipment comply with the requirements of this RFP. b. Statements of experience and a list of capital and equipment available to Proposer. c. Audited financial statements. d. 10K and 1 OQ' s (SEC filings), if any. e. Certification that there have been no material adverse changes or planned changes in the method of conducting business (bankruptcy, restructuring, mergers, acquisitions, litigation) since the most recent financial statements of the Proposer and affiliated parties. f. Certification of a list of off-balance sheet liabilities, including contingent liabilities and all major financial commitments, specifically including but not limited to: completion guarantees on construction projects operating guarantees parent company guarantees to owners or surety companies other contractual relationships which may affect guarantees for the project or financing for the project. . g. Descriptions of assets to be used to support the Proposer's guarantees and recourse the project will have to its balance sheets. h. Information on the Proposer's access to bank lines of credit, revolving credit agreements, and other sources of liquidity. Eighth. The undersigned Proposer further agrees to be bound by the prOVISions of Section 181.59 Minnesota Statutes, relating to discrimination. Ninth. The undersigned Proposer further agrees to be bound by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, sections 473.144 and 363.073, and the provisions of Minnesota Rules, parts 5000.3400 to 500.3600. Tenth. The undersigned Proposer will furnish all materials necessary to carry out and satisfactorily provide the services described in its Proposal in the manner and within the times specified in the applicable Contract Documents. Eleventh. The undersigned Proposer will be responsible to obtain permits, licenses, or authorizations as provided in the Contract Documents. - - City of Monticello Sludge Thickening Facility III-9 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) . Twelfth. The undersigned Proposer further agrees to provide services in a manner that will not interfere with the City's operation of its existing WWTP during the period of construction on a continuous level of treatment equal to the level that existed prior to the initiation of construction. Thirteenth. The undersigned Proposer understands that in addition to the forthcoming forms, the other information provided by the undersigned Proposer under the RFP as a part of its Proposal may be made a part of the Contract. Fourteenth. The undersigned Proposer understands that, recently enacted legislation revised Minnesota Statutes Section 471A.03, subdivision 3 to allow the following; "The municipality, at its discretion, may classify all or portions of any (1) proposals received from vendors, and (2) government data received from vendors or generated by the municipality relating to negotiations with the vendors, as nonpublic data under section 13.02, subdivision 9, or as protected nonpublic data under section 13.02, subdivision 13, until completion of negotiations with all the vendors and, if the municipality solicits a best and final offer from one or more vendors, until the offers are received from all vendors who are requested to submit such an offer" . Trade secret information may be classified as nonpublic data. "Trade secret information" is defined by Minnesota law to be data, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process (1) that was supplied by an affected individual or organization, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain it secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. Proposer shall mark any "Trade Secret Information" . contained in its proposal. The City will make reasonable efforts to maintain the nonpublic status of "trade secret information" submitted pursuant to this RFP provided that Proposer indicates that it considers any such information submitted to be "trade secret information" by clearly noting so on the face and on each page of such documents. This disclosure requirement shall not be deemed satisfied if Proposer indiscriminately designates the Proposal(s) in its entirety, or in some other wholesale manner as "trade secret information" . The undersigned Proposer further understands that the City is not responsible for unauthorized disclosures of "trade secret information" and agrees to defend, indemnity and hold harmless the City from any and all claims, causes of actions and costs arising from any claimed violation of this law, including all legal fees and other costs incurred by the City in any legal proceeding. Fifteenth. The undersigned Proposer agrees that aU taxes, fees, royalties and other charges related to the Sludge Thickening Facility, are included in this Proposal and costs set forth hereon. The undersigned Proposer agrees that it shall have no claim against the City because of any misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on its part as to liability for, or the amount of any taxes, fees, royalties or other charges which are required or accrue due to its performance thereunder. Sixteenth. The undersigned Proposer understands that Minnesota law makes certain Biosolids Processing facilities exempt from state sales tax. Proposer shall familiarize itself with applicable Minnesota law and be responsible for all tax liabilities. Seventeenth. The undersigned Proposer represents that it is a duly organized legal entity and is legally bound by the representations and covenants set forth in this Proposal. City of Monticello Sludge Thickening Facility lII-lD 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) jD . PROPOSAL CONDITIONS The undersigned has carefully checked the Proposal Documents before preparing this Proposal and accepts said documents as correctly describing the Work to be done. If this Proposal shall be accepted and the undersigned shall fail to contract as aforesaid, and to give the Bonds in faithful performance and for labor and materials required by Design/Build General Conditions, or other Contract Documents, or by law, and to provide all insurance as required by the Contract Documents within 14 calendar days after the date of the Notice Of Award of the Contract, the COUNCIL may, at its option, determine that the Proposer has abandoned its Contract and thereupon the award thereof shall be null and void, and the forfeiture of such security accompanying this Proposal shall operate and the same shall be the property of the City of Monticello as liquidated damages. 2 PRICE PROPOSAL Description Estimated of Item Units Price Amount eo Gravity Lump Sum $ \~O, OOb.- Belt Thickener . ~ Remainder of Lump Sum $ uLL ~ e>c:o ~ Work -==- Total Base Bid $ ~\~OCO.- Proposal Item Number ~~'\"i! D W.\ (Proposer fill in) Indicate specific approved brand of progressive cavity pump used in Base Bid. ~u.-~\U:::o L (Proposer fill in) Indicate specific approved brand of GBT used in Base Bid. - - City of Monticello Sludge Thickening Facility III-II 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) . Alternate Gravity Belt Thickeners Approved Alternate GBT Manufacturer Add/Deduct from Total Base Bid 1. ~ '3-v $ ---=::0 '25.-p 2. ~D \31::> $ ~~ 1:3,~ Proposer Alternates ~~rom Total Base Bid 1. Proposer Alternate 1 $ ~. See ,0:= . -... 2. Proposer Alternate 2 $ -ZS 000. - , ~ 3. Proposer Alternate 3 $ "Z/xo.- Progressive Cavity Pump Alternates Approved Alternate PC Pump Manufacturer ~from Total Base Bid . ~{~o $ = l8 . oc:::<:::> - . 1. 2. $ NOTES: 1. Each Proposer Alternate shall be considered a stand alone alternate, its AddlDeduct price independent of any other Proposer alternate price, unless specifically identified otherwise by Proposer. 2. The City reserves the right to make award on the basis of the Base Bid only or on any alternate or combination of alternates it deems in its best interest. City Of Monticello Thickening Facility IlI-12 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) \0 PROPOSER ALTERNATE NO. 1 Any number of Proposer Alternates may be submitted. Submit one copy of this page for each such . alternate which completely describes the alternate and the cost increase or decrease. Attach samples, catalog cuts, sketches, drawings, and narrative descriptions for clarity. Change in Base Bid Price $ 4,sC:Q~= ~~ or (decrease) (Also insert Change in Price on Bid Schedule) DESCRIPTION: DELETE BURNISHED BLOCK AND PROVIDE BLOCK TO MATCH BUILDINGS NEAR NEW STRUCTURE. . ATTACHMENTS: (list) City Of Monticello Thickening Facility III -13 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) . . . PROPOSER ALTERNATE NO. 2 Any number of Proposer Alternates may be submitted. Submit one copy of this page for each such alternate which completely describes the alternate and the cost increase or decrease. Attach samples, catalog cuts, sketches, drawings, and narrative descriptions for clarity. Change in Base Bid Price $ -Z~/COC>~ (~or (decrease) (Also insert Change in Price on Bid Schedule) DESCRIPTION: DELETE SPECIFICATION SECTION 01600 _ PERFORMANCE TESTING A TT ACHMENTS: (list) City Of Monticello Thickening Facility III. 13 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) \0 PROPOSER ALTERNATE NO. 3 Any number of Proposer Alternates may be submitted. Submit one copy of this page for each such alternate which completely describes the alternate and the cost increase or decrease. Attach samples, catalog cuts, sketches, drawiI!-gs, and narrative descriptions for clarity. Change in Base Bid Price $ t"S 00 .""'? ~or (decrease) (Also insert Change in Price on Bid Schedule) DESCRIPTION: DELETE RETRACTABLE CURTAIN AT GBT ATTACHMENTS: (list) City Of Monticello Thickening Facility IlI-13 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) . . . . . ..... ..... - n'I'l::J":: "1:::Jl 1'(:07 FR HDR ENGINEERING INC 612 591 5413 TO 3673091218546701 P.04/05 Gravity Belt Thickener Guarantee Proposers must provide the below listed information. All information shall be based on the GBT design criteria. 1. Gravity belt thickener included in base bid:^ .. Manufacturer;~~'Loo\t- '-.b~. · Model number: ~G>"':>"~<'--L-\ 7. <=> ~-;-~ · Guar~teed m~imum polymer consumption: \+c..~~) ') 9 ("<-L'\..JlJPounds perton ofdl)' solids feed (input) · Manufacturer and specific name or other unique identifier of the pol)Tner proposed: ,,"?:> - LSoc;, . Name of the local supplier of the polymer identified above, and the telephone number for the supplier: Y 1.."5 "S t...o 9~ L - 9 ~\ - 7.(", ""fl · Guaranteed minimum solids capture: qs... % · Total minimum solid:! concentration of thickened sludge S .~ % 2. Gravity belt thickener included as alternate No.1: · Manufacturer: -':::>f;:,. ~ D II Model number: · Guaranteed maximum polymer consumption: Pounds per ton of dry solids feed (input) .. Manufacturer and specific name or other unique identifier of the polymer proposed: · Name ofth(~ local supplier of the polymer identified above, and the telephone number for the supplier: · Guaranreed minimum solids capture: % .. Total minimum solids concentration of thickened sludge % 3. GraVity belt thickener included as alternate No.2: .. Manufacturer: ~ ~D .. Model num ber: · Guaranteed maximum polymer consumption: Pounds per ton of dry solids feed (input) · Manufactur.er and specific name or other unique identifier of the polymer proposed: · Name of the local supplier of the pol)'mer identified above, and the telephone number for the supplier: _ .. Guaranteed minimum solids capture: % City Of Monticello Thieken1n~ Faciliry III-14R 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) 10 n. '"' t::.J~ "'.L .L (.t:j( r~ MU~ ~NU1N~C~lNu INC bl~ ~~l ~413 TO 3673091218546701 P.05/05 · Total minimum solids concentration of thickened sludge Solids capture is defined as: % ~pture = (C/FXF.E)/(C-E) xl 00 Where: c= Cake TS in rog/I and cake is defmed as the total dry solids concentration in the GET solids discharge. %. . F- F ced TS in mgll and feed is defined as the total chy solids concentration in the feed sludge excluding any dilution due to polymer solution addition. E= Filtrate TSS in mg/I and filtrate is defined as the dry suspended solids concentration in the GBT liquid discharge attributable only to the sludge feed, excluding any dilution due to pol>mer solution and GBT wash water. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDA The undersigned Proposer acknowledges receipt of the following Addenda: ~,2-, ~ 4- Failure to complete the foregoing Acknowledgment of the receipt of Addenda, by the insertion of the identifying numbers in the above blanks, may result in rejection of the Proposal. PROPOSAL SECURITY . Enclosed herewith is a Proposal Security in the fonn of a Certified Check, Cashier's Check, or Design-Build Proposal bond in the amount of~ef"~\'::> payable to thriltct. -1' _lL : ~ ....u~jl. The amount of the Proposal security is as required. ~ T'"'/. ~r;:- ,,-e,....Y'\"\ t... ~0-a FAn.:URE TO ENCLOSE A PROPOSAL SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED MAY RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL. . City Of Montic.ello Thickening Facility III~lS:R 08124.009.164 R.cquest for Proposals (RfP) ** TOTAL PAGE.05 ** . . . CERTIFICATION AND EXECUTION WITNESS our hands and seal this 3rd day of . Apri 1 ,2001 A (Corporation, By Lu j Title City Of Monticello Thickening Facility III~16 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) to CITY OF MONTICELLO SLUDGE TmCKENING FACILITY POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST INDICATE APPROPRlA TEL Y I am unaware of any potential conflicts of interest: I am aware of the following potential conflict(s) of interest Description of potential conflict( s): x I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge that the information above is true. Firm's epresentative City Of Monticello Thickening Facility III-17 4/3/01 Date 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) . . . -. . ~ ...,. - THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS I AlA Document A310 Bid Bond KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we RICE LAKE CONTRACTING CORP. lHere insert full n.mo .nd .dd,ess or log.l title of Contr.clorl COunty Road 12, P.O. Box 517, Deerwood, MN 56444 as Principal, hereinafter called the Principal, and FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 15 Mountain View Road, P.O. Box 1615 CHere inso't full n.me .nd .dd.o.. Or 10g.1 tille of Surely) Warren, NJ 07061-1615 a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Indiana as Surety, hereinafter called the Surety, are held and firmly bound unto (Here inse't full n.me .nd .ddren or leg.' lille of Owner) CITY OF MONTICELLO, MN as Obligee, hereinafter called the Obligee, in the sum of Five Percent (5% ) of Total Amount Bid Dollars ($ 5% _ ), for the payment of which sum well an,d truly to be made, the said Principal and the said Surety, bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, the Principal has submitted a bid for (Here insert full n.me. .dd'e.. .nd description of projecl) Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant - Sludge Thickening Facility Monticello, MN NOW, THEREFORE, if the Obligee shilll accept the bid of the Principill .tnd the Princip.tl sh.tll enter into iI Contract with the Obligee in accordance with the terms of such bid, .tnd give such bond or bonds as may be specified in the bidding or COntract DOCuments with good .tnd sufficient surety for the faithful performance of such Contract .tnd for the prompt payment of labor and material furnished in the prosecution thereof, or in the event of the failure of the Principal to enter such Contract and give such bond or bonds, if the -Principal shall pay to the Obligee the difference not to exceed the penalty hereof between the amount specified in said bid and such larger amount for which the Obligee may in good Iilith contract with another party to perform the Work covered by said bid, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. _ Signed and sealed this ,3rd day of April 2001 RICE I (Principal) (Sea/) Luke . Spa J (TiC/e) President (~:;SJ~PANY IS../) Nina . Werstein (Title) Attorney-in-Fact AlA DOCUMENT A310 . BID BONO. AlA ~ . FEBRUARY 1970 EO . THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 N.Y. AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 1 @ Primed on Recycled Paper 10 APR 19 '01 07:50AM CITY OF MONTICELLO ," P - 1/14 . City of Monticello Price Prop~al Farm Sludge ThickeninG Facility Project City Project No. 2001-03C J To: City of Monticello Proposal of: (Name) SEH Design/Build, Inc. 10901 Red Circle Drive. Hinnetonka. MN 55343 (Address) . Proposal to, ne:sienJBuild (DB) Monticello Sludge Thickening Facility City Project No. 2001-03C ' . PUrsuant to the City of Monticello (City) RFP for the ~onticel1o Sludse Thickening Facility Project prepared under the direction of : , I First. In submitting this Proposal, the undersigned Proposer understands and agrees to comply with all provisions of this RFP. Second. The undersigned Proposer acknowledges that it has received and examined the RFP including. but not limited to. the Sludge Thickening Facility Design Criteria and Requirements and has informed itself of the Addenda thereto and of the fonn of the Contract and Bonds to be furnished in the event it is the successful Proposer and is awarded a ContrAct. Third. The undersigned Proposer agrees to negotiate its Proposal in good faith and if the successful Proposer, to furnish the required Bonds as specified "in the Contract. Perfonnance and Payment Bonds are to be provided within 14 days after Notice of Aw~. Fourth. The undersigned Proposer further agrees to begin the Work upon receipt of 4 Notice To Proceed ~rosecute said Work within the time specified. Fifth The undersigned Proposer further agrees to iuJantee performance of the Work to be in accordance with the Contract Documents contained in the ~P, and that the Work shall be constructed and installed in a good and worker-like manner. City ofMonticellQ Sludge Thickenini Facility III-8 OSI14-009-l64 Request for Proponls (RFP) \0 APR 19 '01 07:50AM CITY OF MONTICELlO (f) Sixth. The undersigned Proposer certifies, and in tile (:as~ of a joint Proposal each patty thereto certifies as to its own organization, that this Proposal has been anived at independently, without consultation, communication, or agrl:ement as to any matter rel~ting to this Proposal with any other proposer or with any competitor. ' . Seventh. The undersigned Proposer further agrees to submit, if requested by the City, and prior to award of a Contract, the following: I a. Such catalogs, drawings, specifications, descriptive information, and other details as to special equipment or materials Proposer proposes to use for the Facility, to permit evaluation of the merits thereof and1a determination as to whether or not the materials or equipment compl)' with the require~ents of this RFP. \ b. Statements of experience and a list Of capital and equipment available to Proposer. c. Audited financial statements. I 10Kand IOQ's (SEe filings),'ifanYlr Certification that there have been ncl material adverse ehanges O\" planned ehanaes in the method of conducting business (ba~uptcy, restructuring, mergers, acquisitions, litigation) since the most recent financial statements of the Proposer and affiliated parties. Certification of a list of off-balance sheet liabilities, including contingent liabilities and all major financial commitments, specifically including but not limited to: I completion guarantees on construction projects operating guarantees parent company guarantees to owners or surety companies other contractual relationships which may affect guarantees for the project or imallcing for the projec.t. I I Descriptions of assets to be used to, support the Proposer's guarantees and recourse the project will have to iLS balance sheetS. I . d. e. f. g. h. Information on the Proposer's acces~ to bank lines of credit, revolving credit agreements, and other sources of liquidity. \ Eighth- The undersi&ned Proposer further agrees to be bound by the provisions of Section 181.59 Minnesota Statutes, relating to discrimination. Ninth. The undersigned Proposer further agrees to be boun.d by thc provisions of Minnesota Statutes, seGtiOras 473.144 and 363.073, and the provisi.ons of Minnesota Rules, parts 5000.3400 to 500.3600. ; Tenth. The undersigned Proposer will furnish all materials necessary to carry out and satisfactorily provide the services described in its Pl'oposal in fhe manner and within tbe times specified in the applicable Contract Documents. 'I Eleventh. The undersigned Proposer will be responsible to obtain pennits, licenses, or authorizations as provided in the Contract Documents.' . City of MOlnieeUo Sludie Thickening Facility m~9 08124-009-164 Req\lcst for Proposals (lU'P) . . . APR 19 '01 07:51AM CITY OF MONTICELLO (~~:r ; Twelfth. The undersigned Proposer further agre:~to provide servlces in a manner that will not imerfere with the City's operation of its existing WWTP dUring the period of construction on a continuous level or rreatment equal to the level that existed prior to the initiation of eonstruction. I Thirteenth. The undersigned Proposer understandsjthat in addition to the forthcoming fonns, the other information provided by the nndersigned :Proposet'under the RFP as a part of its PropOSal may be made a Part of the Contract. Fourteen~ The undersigned Proposer understands that, recently enacted legislation revised Minnesota Statutes Section 471A.03, subdivision 3 to aHow the follOWing; "The municipality, at its discretion, may classify all or portions of any (1) proposals received from vendors, and (2) government data received from vendors or generatecf by the municipality relating to negotiations with the vendors, as nonpublic data under section 13.02, subdivision 9, 'or as protected nonpublic data under section 13.02, subdivision 13, until completion of negotiations with aU the vendors and, if the municipality solicits a best and tinal offer from One or more Vendors, until the offers are received from all vendors who are requested to submit SUch an offer". Trade seCret information may be classified as nonpublic data. "Trade secret inforrnalion" is defIned by Minnesota law to be data, inCluding a formula, pa.ttem, compilation, program, device, method, technique, Or process (1) that was supplied by an affected individual or organi:l;a[ion, (2) that is the subject of efforts by the individual or organization ~at are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain it secrecy, and (3) tbat derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being known to, and not being readily ascenainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure Or use. Propos~ shall mark a.ny .. Trade Seeret Information-' contained in its proposal. The City'will md>e reasonable efforts to maintain the nonpublic status of "trade secret information" submitted PursUlUlt to thi$ RFP prOvided that Proposer indicates that it considers any such infonnation submitted to be "trade seCret information" by clearly notil1g so on the face and on each page of suell dOcl.lments. This disclosure requirement shall not be: deemed satisfied if Proposer indiscriminately designates the Proposat(s) in its entirety, Ot in some other wholesale manner as "trade secret iotormation". The undersigned Proposer further understands that the City is not fesponsible for unauthorized disclosures of "trade secret information" and agrees to defend, indemnity and hold harmless the City from any and all claims,.causes of actions and costs arising from any claimed violation of this law, includina all legal fees and other costs incurred by the City in 8J'\y legal proceeding. Fifteenth. The undersigned Proposer aarees that all taxes, fees, royalties and other cbarges related to the Sludge Thickening Facility, are inclUded in this 'roposal and Costs Set forth hereon. the undersigned Proposer agrees that it shall have no claim against the City because of any misunderstanding or lack of knOWledge on its part as to IiabiHty for, or the amOUnt of any taxes, fees, royalties or ocher charges which are reqUired or accrpe due to its performance thereunc1er. .:1i.x:ree~. The undersigned Proposer understands that Minnesota law makes certain Biosolids ProceSSing facilities exempt from state sales tax. PrOposer shall familiarize itself with applicable MinneSi."lta lAW and be reliponsible for all taX liabilities. Seventeenth. The Undersigned Proposer represems that it is a duly organized legal emity and is legally bound by The representations and Covenants set forth .in this Proposal. City ofMomicello Sludge Thickenin,i Facility Ill-lO 08124-009-164 Request (or Proposals (RFP) \0 APR 19 '01 07:51AM CITY OF MONTICELLO @ PROPOSAL CONDITIONS \ I The undersigned has carefully checked the Proposal ,Documents before preparing this Proposal and accepts said documents as correctly describing the ~ork to bo done. If this Proposal sha.ll be accepted and the undersigqed shall fail to contract as aforesaid, and to give the Bonds in faithful perfonnance and for labor and materials required by DesignIBuild General Conditions, or other Contract Documents, or by law, and to ,provide all insurance as required by the Contract Documents within 14 calendar days after the date o~the Notice Of Award of the Contract, the COUNCIL may, at its option, detem\ine that the l'roposer has abandoned its Contract and thereupon. the award thereof shall be null and void, and the forfeiture '9f such security accompanying this Proposal shall operate and the same shall be the property of the City of Monticello as liquidated damages. . PRICE PROPOSAL Proposal I Item Description Estimated Number ofltem !I!ill! I ~ Amount Gravity Lump Sum $ 180.000.00 Belt \ Thickener Z Rema.inder of Lump S~m $ 837.955.00 . Work \ Total Base Sid ~ S 1.017 ,955.00 ~etzsch (Propo$er fill in) Ashbrook Corp. (Proposer fill in) Indicate specific approved brand ofprogressiv~ ca.vity pump used in Base Bid. Indicate specific approved brand ofGBT used in Base Bid. I City of Monticello Sludge Thickening P'alOUity III-ll 08124.009-164 ltequest for Proposab (Ili'P) . . . - - RPR 19 '01 07:52AM CITY OF MONTICELLO P.5/14 Alternate Gravity :Belt Thickeners o 1. Approved Alternate GBT Manufacturer Komline-Sanderson Addlmll~KIW~J<lW~m. $ 21.000.00 :2. $ Proposer Alternates ~educt from. Total Base Bid L Proposer Alternate 1 $ 6,500.00 2. Proposer Alternate 2 $ 2,500.00 J. 4. 4tOOO.OO Proposer Alterna.te 3 Proposer Alternate 4 Progressive Cavity Pump A,lternates $ $ 3.000.00 (manufacturer not used in Bas@ Bid) Approved Alternate PC Pump Manufacturer Addllt~iO(~i(lVIXUtMXWt:BfIl 1. Moyno $ 10.000.00 ~ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ~xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx NOTES: 1. Each Proposer Alternate shaH be considered 11 stand alone alternate, its AddlDeduct price independent of any other Proposer alternate price, unless specifically identified otherwise by Proposcr. ! 2_ Thc City reserves the right to make award on the basis of the Base Bid only or on any alternate or combination of alternates it deems in its best interest. City Of Monticello Thickening Facility m.12 08124.009-164 Request fOr Proposals (ltFP) )D .APR 19 '01 07:52AM CITY OF MONTICELLO ~14 ~ PR.OPOSl;R ALTERNATE NO, 1 . Any number of Proposer Alternates may be suomitted. Submit one copy of this page for each such alternate which completely describes the alternate and the cost increase Or decrease. Attach samples, catalog cut5, sketches, drawings, and narrative descriptions for clarity. Change in Bass Bid Price (W.U'cij or (decrease) $ 6.500,00 (Also in$ert Cbanee in Price on Bid Schedule) DESCRfP110N: Change interior and exterior burnished block to regular concrete block with sealer on the interior and paint on the exterior. . A TT ACHMENTS: (list) None City Of Monticello Thickening Facility 111-13 08124-009-164 Request for Proposals (RFP) . APR 19 '01 07:52~1 CITY OF MONTICELLO . Ii I PROPOSER ALTERNAT.E NO. 2 1 Any number of Proposer Alternates may be sub itted. Submit one copy of dtis page for each such alternate whicb completely dCiScribes the a1terna~ and the cost increase or decrease_ Attach samples. catalog CUtS, sketches, drawings,'and inative descriptions for claril)'. ChancE' in Base Bid Price (~~ or (decrease) $ 2,500.00 (Also in~ert Chqe in Price on Bid Schedule) i @/14 DESCRlPTlON: Delete VFD on slUdge loadout pump in basement of blower bUilding (our pump no. SLP-l). . A TTACBMENTS: (list) None - City or Monticello Thickening Facility , Ill-I 3 08124-009-lti4 Rcqull$t tor Proposals (RFP) - G ~ .APR 19 '01 07:52AM CITY OF Ma~TICELLO P.8/14 @ . PROPOSER ALTERNATE NO. 3 , Any number of proposer AlternateS may be submitted. Submit one copy of this page for each such alternate which completely describes the altc~ and the COSt increase or decrease. Anach samples. catalog cuts, sketches, drawings, and narrative descriptions for clari[j'. . Chanie in Base Bid Price ~ut or (detrease) S 4,000.00 (Also ~rt Change in Price on Bid. Schedule) DESCRIPTION; Contract dOl;uments require start/stop and speed l;Or'Itrol of the GBT feed pumps from the GBT control panel. To implement this ~ontrol, per the specifications, a direct connection from the feed pump VFDs to the GBT control panel (consisting of two, Il@W conduits buried between the new . GBT building and the Digester Control building) has been included. This ;1 buried connection could be e1iminateij by connecting the feed pumo VFDs I to the PLC in the Sludge Processing puilding. Remote start/stop and speed contra 1 of these pumps cou1 d then be' imp' emented through the PLC networ~ when that connection is made by.Auto~at1c Systems for the City. . ATIACHME."lTS: (list) None Ciry Of Monticello Thickening FacUiry tIl~ 13 08 t 24"()()9-164 Request for proposals (RFP) . . . . APR 19 '01 07:53AM CITY OF MONTICELLO P.9/14 PROPOSER Al.TERNAl'E NO. 4 @ Any number of Proposer Alternates may be submitted. Submit one copy of this pa&e fOr each such alternate which completely describes the, alternate and the cost inc.rease or decrease. Attach samples, catalog cuts, sketches, drawings, and,ruu:ra.[ive descriptions for clarity. . I Change in Base Bid Price ~~ or (decrease) $ 3,000.00 1 ~AJso irt Change in Price on Bid Schedule) DESCRIPT10N: Delete three bui1din'g windows. A'M'ACRMENTS: (list) None City or Monticello Thickening l"aciJity 111.13 08124-009-164 Reql,lest for Proposals (RF'P) \D ...........' VI.... ''''., I , ~ I-K' !':l!J.... t:.l'l''' Nt-I-t<, I'll> I......' 0.1.'::: ;)':l.1 :><O+l~ I U ':l';:7:l":'::ll.~~J. .APR 19 '01 07:~~AM CIIY Or ~~NTICELLO i r-."'<l"'~ P.10/14 cf) Gravity Belt ThicuDer Gurantee Proposers must provide the below listed information. All information Ib:a.ll be based on the GST desji11 criterla.. . 1. Gravity bel't thickener included in but bid: . Manufacturer: Ashbrook Corpordtion . Mod;1 number. 2.0 meter . Qu!ranteed max.imum polymer consumption: Pounds per ton or dry solids feed (input) ! 9#/ton active I7#/ton neat I Manufe.eturer and spcc:ific name or other llnique identifier of the polymer proposed: V$-2508 I, . Name oftbe local supplier of me polymer identified above, and the telephone number for the supplier: Vessco, Inc. 952.941.2671 . Guaranteed minimum solids ca'PtUre: 95+ % . Tote.1 minimum solids concentration ofthi~kencd sludac 2. Gravity belt thickener iD~ludtd as alternate No. l,; . ~anu~: Koml;ne-Sanderson . Model number: G~-2 Series III . GuiU'allteed maximum polymer cdMumption: 8#/ton active Pounds per ton ofchy .oUds fe&d (input) 19.6#/ton neat I Manufat;tw't{ and specifie name or other ~niquc identjfier of the pol)'mer proposed: Cytex SD 20el emulsion 5.5 % . . Name oftht local supplier ofthe polymif identified. above, and the ti:lephon. num'ber for the 5Upp'j~t': Cytex I ndu s tr i ~s, I nc . ~OO.451.41l1 · Guaranteed minimwn solids capture: 98 % . Total minimum solids concenrrati?n of thickened Sllud@e 5.5 % 3. Gravity belt thickene.r in~lu4ed as 'ltefna.u. No.2: . Manufa~tuIer: N I A · Model number: '- . Guaranteed maximum polymer ~sumption: Pounds per ton o~ dry solids 'feed (input) . ManufactUrer and s~i:fic name or other Wlique identifier of the polymer proposed: , . Name of the local supplier of the ~olymer identified above. and tbe telephone number for the supplier: . Guaranteed. minimum solids capnire: % city Of Monnl:eUo rhi~bnin: facility m.14R 081 :Z4..1)09~ 164 R.eque$t for Proposals (IU'P) . . :. APR19 -; 01 ~. 07; 5:3AM' CrTY"OF' 'MoNTIcELLo" ,.../ -I I L.J",,-,,- a...ol'''''''' ......,........... J U .J..J..H::...J.J..C,.c::.......t.J. r . ~.P ~...;> P.1V14 @ · Total minimum solids concentratiOh of thickened Sludge I Solids capture is definlld 8S: % captu~ = (C/f)(F-E)J(C-E) XIOO Where: ' c== Cake TS in mill Md lPake is defmed a.s the total dry .solids concentration in the GBT solids discharge. N/A 'Yo. F= Feed 15 in mill and feed IS defined: as the\otal dry solids concentration in the feed slud~e excluding M)' dilution due to polymer solution addition. E""" Filtrate TSS in mg/I and filtrate is defmed .as the dry Suspended solids concentration in the Osr liquid discharge attributable only to the SIuda, feed. ex.cluding any dilution due to polYmer solUtion and GBT wash Water. " - I ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDA j The undersigned Proposer acknowledges receipt of the following Addenda: ~ ~ --L, 4 Failure to complete the foregoing Acknowledgment of the receipt of Addenda, by the insertion of the identi1)ting numbers in the above blanks. may result in rejection of the ProposaL . PROPOSAL SECURrry Enclosed herewith is a }'roposal Security in thJ fOIJ1l of a Certified Check, Cashier's Check, or Design-Build Proposal bond in the 3mount of 5% payable to the ~~~ The amount of the PrOpl;tsal security is as required. Clty of Montlcel 0, I . ~1N . FAILURE TO ENCLOSE A PROPOSAl SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED MAy RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL City Of Monticli!l1o T11.ickening Fa~IHry IlI-15R 08124~009.164 Requast for :Proposals (RFP) \0 APR 19 '01 07:54AM CITY OF MONTICELLO ! I CERTIFICATION!AND EXECUTION WITNESS our hands and seal this 10th, day Of Apri 1 1 .2001 . ' A (CorpOration, ~~ of the State ot Mi nnosot. By J~~. ~ Sam L. Claassen Title President. SEH Desigo/aui1d~ Inc. (An office]' of the Proposer) City OfMontic~Uo Thickening Facility 1II-16 P. 12/14 cf) I-J,O ~f?:AL 08124-009~164 Request for Proposals (RFP) . . . .. APR 19 '01 07:54AM CITY OF MONTICELlO P.13/14 THE Arv1ERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS @ . ,. A/A Document A370 Bid JJond KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that we SEH Design/Build. Inc. as Principal, hereinafter called the Principal and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Maryland as Surety, hereinafter called the Surety, are held and firmly bound unto t;ity of Monticello as Obligee, hereinafter called the Obligee in the sum of Dollars Five percent of amount bid ($~%), for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, the said Principal and the silid Surety bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, finnly by these presents. WHEREAS, the Principal has submitted a bid for Wafewater Treatment Plant Sludlle Tbickenimz Facilitv. City Proiect Number 2001-03C I . NOW, THEREFORE, iftbe Obligee shan accept the bid of the Principal and the Principal shall enter into a contract with the Obligee in accordanC$ with the terms of such bid, and give ruth lOM or bonds as may be specified in the bidding or contract documents with good and sufficient surety for the faithful perfor.rpance of 5uch cOntract and for the prompt payment of labor and material fumished in the prosec\ltion thereof, or in the event oft~e failure oithe :E>dncipal to en~r such contraot lllld ~ve such bond or bonds, if the Principal ,hall pay tD the Ob1isee the differenCE ~ot to exceed the penalty hereof between the amO\1nt specified in said bid and S\lch luger amount for which the O\lHgec may in g~d faith contract with another patty to perroJlll the work covered by said bid, then this obligation shall be null and 'Void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Signed and sealed this 3rd day of April A.D. 2001 , SEH DESIGNIBUILD, INC. { j~. i;:tiJ " '$<<, :;~s.s..(Title) I ~ ;\- , UNITED STATES FIDELITY ~~~). ~~)GUARAN7s.?~)MPANY ~tf- cWi~ ~<o ~\ (Seal) . AlA ()OCUMENT All0. BID 80ND . AlA @. J'~aRU^RY 1970 EO . THE AMfll.lO\N INSTITUTE OF ARCHITEctS, 1135 N.Y. AVE., N.W., W^St-lINCTON. O. C. 1000<> ......... '- ( Joan C. Armstroni '-... '. 1 ~. II!lO REV.-9-ro \0 APR 19 '01 07:54AM CITY OF MONTICELLO ,r- P.14/14 5elb08l'd Surety Cl)IIlpllllY St. Paul Fire lUIIl MIlrlnelJlslU'anCf: Compa.y SI. Pool Guarlli/lD lIl'lU'aIIce Company St. Pool M.el'eOlry In.~Dr'8JIce Cclmp&ny '(h.il"d S'*"'" Fidelity lIBd Guanuty COf\lp"'Y Fidelity iIIId GcIVPlty JnaunllC'e C.....plmJ' fidelity .~ GUllranl)' Inliun:lIl(lc Undenwriten, IDC- 1heSlRlul POWER OF A'ITORNEY . PIlW'erIlCAttorneyNo. 21955 Ccrtll1cllle No. 474()95 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Sc;aboard SurelY Cllmpilny i~ a cOJ1)ol'alion oo!y Ol1anl1.cd under t~ law~ of lite Slate ot New York, and that Sl. Palll Fir~ aOO MJriue Iusu,'&ncc Comp>ll1Y, St, Paul Ouardi:m LtSlIl'nl\ct Comnany !Iud SI. Paul Mereu!}' In$tltall\,'ll Compall}' aN COIPoratlon~ duJy orJOllni~e<J under' the I""'J of the SUll<' at' Minne.uta. and Ihm United SlateS Pidclily llnd GUll1'.mly 4:omP;ll)} is a COfj)oralion doly Ql'S:ini7.cd untk:t"!he lil"'~ of ~ Sl\\l~ ot Maryland. nnd thaI FiuIlIiI)' ood Gual'llnlY l/lSlIrallCC Company i~ a corpo..,Liun <It)ly otll~nh:4d under the Ill.ws or Lbe Slille III Io>Wa. arid 11131 Fi(j(:llly and OUl\Illnty 1n.~ulUlIc~ Urlderlllriters, Inc. is u eorpllllllillO uuly orllill1iud \trl(le.c the laws of the 51l11C o~ Wi$4;OJU;in (/u:rvin ('ollctli~ely coiled The "C(lWlpanie,v"). and lhat [h~ Companies (10 hereby make;, con.;lhlll~ and Itllpoim DQUgl.as C. Baesler, Joan C- Annstrong, Kimberly D. Iobnaon and Ht:m'y C. Higginbottom, m of me City of _ . Stale. ,It!eirt/UC llnd lawful Allllmey(;<}in.Fi1.Ct. each in lheir ~lIJl;ua~ (:,,1pllCity if 1l10rt tI'I,,\ one l.~ Dllmcl1l1bavc, IU sign'its name as SlltelY roo l\lld to exc.cum, seW IInd ucknowledg~ aoy nao all bonds, undcrtakin"s, conlt1\Cts i\Ild odlCr wlitren in.mumcnu; In the nature \holreof on bcMlt:of dlc Cc;>mpllni"" in Ihnit bWlineu of gllatMl..illg tflc tiQclity of per_i. gllllnlnl""ing Ihe perf.,117lanCC lIt conmtCIS ami Ilxeclltiog or g\ll\l'..n1ccing bomb and undert..t.ing. ~jred or .~lJlitlcd illl'1'Y Il:lil)n~ or F'ccadinlJll allO\lled by lalll. -<.,\\.~" \,,' - t'~ ' " .:;.. \, -;-. _,\:,1."" ' . \':-,.'>./ th J IN WITNESS WJ:l.t:~E09, the Companies hnvll eauu.d dlis mS\nl~,~6e ~i~L.,:\l,'F"'",!!.ll:t;~J~J' Lo5 day of uly .:: ,t~..'" _~\-i.~i~\).. 4.~:1, \~ ' ..;';":~~ ."~'~. ~...~ \,. ~ \\'\. '"'" .'~ '('.. ........' SellbUlUd Surtty CODlp..'~ ',"~' ~ ".' . "',' ~') '\, ., ~ '~d Slatu FldeUiy llJId Gu.rallly Clllllp8ay St. Paul Fit-e MId l'darlllE I~nnt.~Com~ \." ,-:;,'~ I .1delity and CURrant)' IlISllnIIct COIIlpllny St. l'3ul GuardlllD lnsucue€ ~~ll.,^ \'. \ I' . ,-' -;, ~ ',\. '-.... Fidelity ud GlIlInlIlt)' tmur._ UOr*'II'ritU's, Inc. SI.PaulMel'evyllls~C!~"Y" ~)"~ . <.:,~\~,.. t-~' ,.,.( ~\.. i" (' ,,1'<: ~I ". ,\~ :' .'''' ~ 1""'\" ..to ~). ....,..'.,...... ,~~ ,~ -i'I,... ",,;, \, oil ,~,.~~t i:\. 1/.: ~~~.'\., ) , , ~',..,: ~..... ~~ f("....""... " ~ t.~~, toi}yi e ~ ~ .,HN 'f1RNNBY ",,-- <t;l,-.-.;.<" ,.. . ...'" DI U ~ ~ R. \Ac.~ Denver Colomdo 2000 '-' . e SmlC of Mal)'lnnd City ofBIIllimure M1CHAEI. R, MC1<IIIBI!N.^,..lMan' Se<:tcWy On this 25th __ dill' of July , ~900 ' before .ne. the \,lndcrsl~ncd officer, penonally appeared JoIul F. Phinney :me! Michael R. McKibben, ~h() <leknowledgt.d tbem'Ql"e~ 10 be tho ViLlI Pre$id~nl arid Ass1stallt Sl;Crctary. respccthely, of Seaboud S\l1'ety Company, St. ?nuI Fire !lnd ~>ltine In'lIlance Company, Sr, Paul GlIanlillllln~lIt111lce CamparlY. Sl. Palll M~\,lry to,",I1I!l1X: CompllnY, United Slates FidelilY ami O\lllTlll1IY CompllJlY, Fidelity and Gnannll)' Insui'llnl;e Compan}', und l1dc!ily anti Gullr3.rlly InSlII'al1C1l U,,(lQrwrIWli. Inc.; anJ \hilL Iile seals MfiKed 10 the foregoing in.trumcnt life the cOrpoml~ 50.115 of said Companies; ami thllllhey. as .ucb. bein& autlloriz.>d Sll to dQ, llxcclllcd lhe! (OrtilOing inSllUlllenl for the putpO'IC~ Ihercl.n COnUl.intd by SitttUli the nameS of the enrplll\luon. by LbemSelvtl$ (IS duly IIl,llborl1.cd ameen;. " In wtlJless Wbenof, 1 hcreuntu set 1'l\.y hOl\d Md oWcla! '!aal. My CommiS$1on expimlh.e 13th day of July, 2002. ---s ,.. rI" ~ .....~,... \,I~ . .". ~~ \;..:' ~....... .... _, '.,.I ~ ~~... ~~ .~~_:&...~~.:..~ ~_::.\~._-~;."~ "' ~. '=1 ~.:. -. ~ ~. ;:-= '"": ~ -- ~::# .....' i, '"' , - I ~,t~~~ RJ!BBCCA J5.,t.$L,I!.VoOlol'O):ALA. Nawy PubliAl ,.... ..:: . ""J " . . 86203 Fl~. 11'~~ Printed in U,S,A.