City Council Agenda Packet 01-11-1988AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 11, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held December 14, 1987.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
4. Public Hearing on Downtown Streetscape Improvement.
5. Public Hearing on Improvements to County Road 118, County Road 39, and
Water Systems.
6. Consideration of Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans
and Specifications on Streetscape Project.
7. Consideration of Resolution Ordering Improvement to the Water System,
Oounty Road 116, and County Road 39, and Preparation of Plans and
Specifications.
i 8. Consideration of Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications on Phase I
of the Water System Improvement and Ordering Advertisement for Bids.
9. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment Regulating Snowmobile Operations.
10. Consideration of Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for Purchase of
Aerial Fire Truck.
11. Consideration of Entering a 1958 Maintenance Agreement with Wright County
Highway Department.
12. Consideration of Adopting a Revised Schedule of Fees for Services,
Licenses, and Permits.
13. Consideration of Making Annual Appointments.
14. Consideration of Application to Renew a Gambling License - Applicant,
American Legion Club.
15. Consideration of Report from PSG, Inc., on Odor Problems at WWTP.
17. Adjournment.
t
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 14, 1987 - 7:30.p.m.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan Blonigen,
Warren Smith
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held
November 23, and special meeting held December 7, 1987.
Consideration of Variance Appeal to Allow Construction of a Building
Addition within the Sideyard Setback Requirements. Applicant,
American Legion Post 0260.
The American Legion Club proposed constructing a 6 -foot addition onto
the westerly portion of their building facing Elm Street as part of a
remodeling project. This construction would be within the sideyard
setback requirement and required a variance to allow the encroachment
to be within 11 feet of the setback regulations.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request, as
a hardship had not been shown by the applicant. The Legion Club
appealed the variance decision to the City Council; and Club
representative, Floyd Markling, noted that it was his opinion that the
denial by the Planning Commission was primarily because the Legion
Club had previously polled all of the Council members ahead of time to
seek approval to start construction on the footings prior to the
public hearing by the Planning Commission. Mr. Markling and Attorney,
Jim Metcalf, noted that the public hearing held by the Planning
Commission did not result in any opposition from neighboring property
owners and that no specific reasons were given for denial by the
Planning Commission. In addition, they felt a hardship did exist for
the Legion Club in that they have no other method of constructing a
new entrance that would make their building accessible for the
handicapped, which was one of their primary goals during their
remodeling project.
Council members discussed the variance procedures, including the
applicant's responsibility of showing a non -economic hardship for a
variance: and Councilmember Smith indicated that it may have been
improper to allow the Legion Club to start the footings prior to
inclement weather before the Planning Commission had a chance to
review the request but didn't feel this was enough reason to deny the
request, as a handicapped accessibility requirement was justification
by itself for a hardship variance.
D
t
Council Minutes - 12/14/87
As a result, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Dan
Blonigen, and unanimously carried to grant the variance request
allowing the Legion Club to construct an entrance addition within the
sideyard setback to within 11 feet of the property line.
5. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Auction Sales in a
B-3 (highway business) Zone. Applicant, Martie's Farm Service.
Martie's Farm Service requested a conditional use permit to conduct
auction sales at their current facility for the purpose of selling
baled quantities of hay and straw seasonally. Auction sales are
allowed as a conditional use provided certain conditions are met by
the applicant. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at their
last meeting and recommended approval of the permit for a one-year
time period, at which time it would be reviewed by the Zoning
Administrator.
The City staff noted that as a condition of the conditional use
permit, the applicant should provide parking requirements off street
on his own property and that litter control should be of primary
importance. In addition, Councilmember Bill Fair requested an
additional condition be applied that would limit the auction to only
hay and straw.
Motion was then made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and
unanimously carried to approve the issuance of a conditional use
permit to allow auction sales for Martie's Farm Service for a one-year
time period, at which time it will be reviewed by the Zoning
Administrator, provided the following conditions are attached:
1) All parking shall be off-street, which includes Highway 25 and
Marvin Road.
2) Applicant will be required to control litter and debris from
accumulating.
3) Items on the auction shall be limited to hay and straw only.
6. Consideration of Feasibility Study on East County Road 39 Improvements
and Calling for a Public Hearing.
At the November 23 Council meeting, Consulting Engineer,
Orr-Schelen-tlayeron, was instructed to prepare a feasibility study for
utility extensions from I-94 along County Road 118 and County Road 39
to Mississippi Drive. Mr. Chuck Lepak of OSM reviewed with the
Council the feasibility report extending watermain from I-94 to
Mississippi Drive and sewer extensions along the frontage road near
MacArlund Plaza. The estimated cost of the improvements with indirect
costs for engineering, legal, and other fees was projected at
$216,000; and approximately $47,700 of the cost would be assessable to
benefiting property owners.
ID
Council Minutes - 12/14/87
Public Works Director, John Simola, also reviewed with the Oouncil the
results of a survey sent to property owners along County Road 39 from
Mississippi Drive to the easterly city limits asking for input as to
whether they would be interested in a feasibility report concerning
sewer and water extensions. Eighteen property owners were sent a
questionnaire, and approximately 50 percent of the property owners
responded favorably to the City conducting a feasibility study and
providing a cost estimate for the improvements. Some property owners
affected by the possible extension of sewer and water along East
County Road 39 questioned what the cost might be for individual
parcels and were informed that the revised feasibility study would
address these concerns. It was also noted that the revised
feasibility study would prepare estimates on the extension of sewer
and water facilities to only serve the present city limits and the
cost of enlarging the lift station and force main facilities to enable
further extensions into the OAA area.
After discussions on the merits of enlarging the feasibility study,
motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to accept the feasibility report as presented on the public
improvements from County Road 118 along County Road 39 to Mississippi
Drive and to have the City Engineer prepare an updated feasibility
report on continued extensions of sewer and water along County Road 39
from Mississippi Drive to the present city limits and to set a public
hearing on the proposed improvements for January 11, 1988. See
Resolution 87-32.
7. Consideration of Setting a Public Hearing on the Proposed Downtown
Streetscapes Improvement Project.
On October 8, 1987, the first informational meeting was held with
interested downtown business owners on a proposed streetscape
improvement project for a 10 -block downtown area. Mr. Geoff Martin,
Planner for Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., presented two designs
on possible atreetscape improvements and one concept was selected for
further evaluation. Since that initial informational meeting, a
volunteer committee has been established which has met a number of
times to refine the concept. City Oouncil on November 23 reviewed the
design proposal and indicated approval to assessing 20 percent of the
project cost.
Now that the design has been refined with the volunteer committee, the
project has reached the stage where a public hearing on the proposed
improvement will be required before the project can be ordered.
Councilmember Bionigen still had concerns over the assessment of only
20 percent of the project coat and felt that the 80 percent being
placed on ad valorem taxes did not seem appropriate for all other
taxpayers to be responsible for.
0
Council Minutes - 1-2/14/87
After further discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by
Warren Smith, to adopt a resolution setting a public hearing on the
proposed downtown streetscape improvement project for January 11,
1988. voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, warren
Smith. Voting in opposition was Dan Blonigen. See Resolution 87-33.
Consideration of Approving Change Order #2 and Authorizing Final
Payment on the 1986-7 PrO]ect - S 6 L Excavating.
Project 86-7 consisting of major improvements to the Lauring Lane/
Washington Street area has recently been completed by S 6 L
Excavating, and the City Engineer has recommended final payment be
approved.
Change Order 12 on the project involved some additional cost for tree
removal and disposal in the area of the City's new park and some
additional grading that was needed along Fallon Avenue near the
Construction 5 apartment complex. The total value of the change order
is $2,500, which would bring the total contract, including overruns,
to $295,837.70. As part of the final approval, the City Engineer
recommended that the City withhold $2,000 for corrective turf
restoration that will be completed in 1988.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, and
unanimously carried to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $2,500
and approve final' payment to S 6 L Excavating on the 86-7 Project in
the amount of $26,470.30 with $2,000 of this amount being retained
until compEetion of the turf restoration. The approval is contingent
upon all lien waivers and state tax forms being submitted prior to
payment.
Consideration of well and Purnphouse improvements for 1986 and Review
of Cost Estimates.
In July of 1985 when reviewing the water system study, the City
discussed the need for an additional well and pumphouse improvements
in the Oakwood Industrial Park area. In 1986, the City Council
authorized the consulting engineer to prepare plana and specifications
for the necessary water improvements. The consulting engineer
presented to the Council an updated cost estimate for a portion of the
water improvements previously discussed that would include a new well,
pumphouse, and related equipment with the project cost totaling
$287,500. Public works Director, John Simola, noted that the well and
pumphouse improvements should be considered by the Council for
completion during the summer of 1988 to ensure adequate capacity and
pumping facilities for the increased water demand the City has
encountered. If the project is not to commence soon, Mr. Simola noted
that the City would have to rebuild and inspect well number one at an
estimated cost of 511,000 during 1988.
9
Council Minutes - 12/14/87
In further discussion on the proposed water improvement project, it
was recommended by the City Engineer that the water improvements could
be performed in conjunction with the proposed improvements being
considered along East County Road 39. The well and pumphouse
improvements along with the water and sanitary sewer construction on
39 could be considered as one project if so desired.
As a result, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair,
and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution incorporating the
proposed water improvement project into the same project being
considered along East County Road 39 and to hold a public hearing on
the proposed improvements on January 11, 1988. See Resolution 87-34.
10. Consideration of Replacement Tractor, Mower, Snowblower for the Public
works Department.
As part of the 1987 budget, an amount of $6,500 was placed in the park
fund for the purchase of an additional rower. The Public Works
Department has been reviewing the many options available and
recommended that at the present time rather than replacing the Allis
Chalmers 4 -wheel drive tractor/mower combination with a new piece of
equipment, the John Deere tractor be modified with a snowblower and
cozy cab at a total cost of $4,325. This additional equipment for the
John Deere would allow this piece of equipment to be used more
frequently at the present time, and during 1988, the department would
re-evaluate whether the Allis Chalmers tractor and mower combination
should be replaced.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and
unanimously carried to authorize the purchase of a snowblower and cab
for the John Deere tractor at a cost of $4,325.
11. Consideration of Appointment of Operator/Mechanic Position.
Due to the pending retirement of Jerry Schmidt in the Public Works
Department, City staff members have been reviewing applications for
filling the position and have selected Mr. Allen Gapinski as its
recommendation to the City Council for the position. Mr. Gapinski has
previously worked for Bergstrom Brothers, Tnc., a farm tractor and
implement distributor in Buffalo and has had extensive mechanic
experience in the repair of light to heavy equipment. Mr. Gapinski
has operated a wide variety of equipment ranging from trucks and
loaders to backhoes and appeared to have the wide variety of skills
necessary for the city position.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, and
unanimously carried to hire Mr. Allen Gapinski as an operator/mechanic
to replace Jerry Schmidt contingent upon the passing of a physical in
relation to the job description.
9
Council Minutes - 12/14/87
12. Consideration of Ratifying 1988 Salary/Wages for Non -Union Employees.
At a special Council meeting held Monday, December 7, the Council
established a 5 percent cost of living increase that would be granted
to all city employees and an additional 1 percent was authorized for
distribution by the City Administrator as merit/performance
adjustments.
Administrator wolfsteller presented a listing of the salary
recommendations for all non-union employees which included the
5 percent cost of living adjustment and additional merit/performance
increases.
Councilmember Blonigen noted that he was still opposed to a 5 percent
cost of living adjustment for all employees, as he felt this
percentage may be higher than actual inflation index or compared to
similar private employment adjustments. Councilmember Bill Fair
indicated that in the future, salary increases for non-union employees
may have to be handled differently, as he still did not appear
comfortable with across the board increases, etc.
Motion was n ade by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to ratify the salaries for non-union employees as presented by
the Administrator.
Voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith.
Voting in opposition was Dan Blonigen.
13. Consideration of Approving Inter -Punct Transfers for 1987.
A list of three transfers was presented to the Council for approval
involving inter -fund transfers to correspond with the 1987 budget
and/or closing out of unneeded fund balances.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Bill Fair, and
unanimously carried to approve the fund transfers as recommended.
0
1987
Increase
1988
John Simola
$3=5
TT'_=0
S-37—,265
Roger Mack
27,830
1,670
29,500
011ie Koropehak
24,800
1,488
26,288
Gary Anderson
27,825
1,391
29,216
Walt Mack
27,355
1,368
28,723
Joe Hartman
26,570
1,461
28,031
Lynnea Gillham
20,800
1,165
21,965
Diane Jacobson
20,300
1,165
21,465
Marlene Hellman
19,885
1,165
21,050
Karen Doty
19,427
1,165
20,592
Voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith.
Voting in opposition was Dan Blonigen.
13. Consideration of Approving Inter -Punct Transfers for 1987.
A list of three transfers was presented to the Council for approval
involving inter -fund transfers to correspond with the 1987 budget
and/or closing out of unneeded fund balances.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Bill Fair, and
unanimously carried to approve the fund transfers as recommended.
0
C
7
a►
Council
Minutes - 12/14/87
`f
`y
Item -Purpose
Amount
Transfer From
Transfer To
Transfer to Capital
43,050
Liquor Fund
Cap. Outiay
Outlay Fund per 187
Budget for Expenditures
Tb close out surplus
$21,452.36
Rev. Sharing
Cap. Outlay
balance of Rev.
Sharing Fund
To cover deficit in
$57,014.49
Cap. Outlay
West County
const, fund - West
Rd. 39
Co. Rd. 39 Imp.
Const. Fund
#86
14. Approval of Bills.
Motion was made by Warren
Smith, seconded by Fran Fair,
and
unanimously carried to approve the bills
for the month
of December as
presented.
qcZllfs'teI
1.@r
City Administrator
C
7
a►
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
4. Public Hearing on Downtown Streetscape Improvement. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Over the past three years, a Monticello downtown rehabilitation program
or streetscape plan has been considered, and a streetscape design plan
was originally completed by Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban in August of 1985.
":he original proposal was presented to the affected property owners, who
basically rejected the density of the plan; and the project, in effect,
died at that time. The idea of a streetscape plan again emerged in
approximately March of 1987 when downtown business leaders gathered
signatures from affected property owners who indicated an interest in
pursuing the project on a lesser scale that would include some upgrading
of the pedestrian walkways, low level street lighting replacement, and
some plantings to soften the concrete and asphalt right-of-ways. The
consulting planner took the input from the business owners and on
October 8, 1987, the first informational meeting was held at City Hall at
which time Mr. Geoff Martin, Design Planner for Dahlgren, Shardlow 6
Uban, presented two new designs on the possible streetscape
improvements. The general consensus at that meeting was to go with
concept A design plan and a volunteer committee was established to
further define the design and cost. The committee has met a number of
times over the past Eew months and continued working on refining the
designs and the cost estimates, and a presentation was made to the
Council on November 23, 1987, on the recommended proposal at which time
the Council indicated an official public hearing would be held on the new
design and an indication was made that the City would assess
approximately 20 percent of the cost of the project to the affected
property owners, with the remaining 80 percent being placed on ad valorem
basis. The estimated project cost at this time is $640,000, which would
make approximately $130,688 as the assessable portion with the remainder
of $509,312 being picked up on ad valorem taxes.
,his brings us to the public hearing tonight whereby the selected design
for improvements to the downtown area will be presented by Mr. Geoff
Martin. Naturally, the purpose of the public hearing is Lo receive input
from the affected property owners and business owners that will receive
Lhe improvements; and after the close of Lhe public hearing and review of
Lhe testimony received, the Council will have to make a decision on
whether to proceed with the improvement project as planned. Economic
Dovelopment Director, 011ie Koropchak, has prepared an estimated
assessment cost for all affected property owners based on the 20 percent
assessment ratio. This information has been supplied to all of the
properly owners with their public hearing notice to give them a better
idea of the cost. It has been recommended by the consulting planner that
if the projecL is to proceed and be completed early summer, 1988, plans
and specifications would have to begin soon in order to allow for
completion of the plans and advertising for bids and awarding of a
contract.
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
If the project proceeds, financing would have to be arranged through a
bond sale through Springsted, Inc. At this point, in discussions with
Jerry Shannon of Springsted, Inc., the possibility exists that this
project cost could be included in a bond sale for other improvements
scheduled for 1988 under one bond issue; or it can be a separate bond
issue by itself. It would appear that if other projects requiring bond
financing are scheduled for 1988, it may be feasible to combine all
projects into one bond issue, thus reducing the issuance cost associated
with each bond sale.
After the presentation has been made and all comments have been heard
from the public, the Council can close the public hearing on the
improvement project. At this point, it may be well to move on to the
agenda item concerning adoption of a resolution ordering the improvement
and preparation of plans and specs. Normally in the past, the Council
has held all the public hearings and closed each hearing separately and
then considered each action necessary afterwards; but there is no reason
that if the Council is ready to make a decision on the project, a
resolution could be adopted prior to the scheduled public hearing on the
improvements for County Road 39, etc.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of streetscape budget and estimated assessments for affected
property owners.
-2-
Elk RWw, Minnesota
Monticello, Minnesota
January 6, 1487
Mayor and City Council
City of Monticello
Monticello, Mn. 33362
I want to express my support for the downtown streetscape project.
Unfortunately, other responsibilities prevent me from personally attending the
meeting. This should in no way be interpreted as less of a commitment to the
absolute need for this project.
The city must project itself as a growing and progressive community that
offers an unsurpassed quality of life. This project represents one of the elements
of this intangible quality.
The mechanism now being considered by the city expresses fairness to all
concerned. Other methods of development have been used in other parts of the
city to their best advantage. Your current proposal represents the best method
for this area given the nature of the downtown area.
I encourage you to proceed with the project. You may also count on my
whole hearted support through the implementation of the project.
SJ:eb
Sincerely,
Steve johns
{8 121 2682498 • P. 0. Sort See • 121 W. emm& sy • ma+tlueo, Mt0 55362-066$
"',,,v i? -4 /?8S
C%a�•�� 7rlu..t�..
ej
�7 it!'Ut1t+ 3 % iJJ.C� O..V AN tiva.�9 y/ria. A/klJ
3sa-4 5�.
4 yMuL-
YaIAJ Ul"�
January 6, 1988
011ie Koropchak
City Hall - 250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear 011ie,
This is to advise you that I am strongly in favor of the proposed
street project. • I have discussed this with our Landlord, Brad Larson, .. _
and he assures me of his support for the project. - -
I do have a few concerns about some of the specifications, but
those are minor concerns.
Smce y,
GtJ/lg eorge E neon, President
THE COUNTRY TRAVEL STORE, INC.
Full Service Travel Agency
J' Alrl$ftn — Hotels i Reeorte — Tom
Fly -Drive — Crulen — Super Sever For" •
aim
+�:��•
I =.-:-124 W. Broadway, P. 0.80X177 -
--s:tEN
^- O' MONTICELLO. MINN. U.S.A. 55382WA
-
_•�a;
_
Mantles III: Metro: Minn. Watts:
(612) 2953350 (8t2) 339.1667 1.900.752.9152
III
January 6, 1988
011ie Koropchak
City Hall - 250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear 011ie,
This is to advise you that I am strongly in favor of the proposed
street project. • I have discussed this with our Landlord, Brad Larson, .. _
and he assures me of his support for the project. - -
I do have a few concerns about some of the specifications, but
those are minor concerns.
Smce y,
GtJ/lg eorge E neon, President
THE COUNTRY TRAVEL STORE, INC.
Full Service Travel Agency
J' Alrl$ftn — Hotels i Reeorte — Tom
Fly -Drive — Crulen — Super Sever For" •
G .
J
-a
Monti Mini Mall
Fred E. 8 Dorothy A. Topel
Monticello. Mn. 55.362
December 17. 1987
City of Monticello
Mayor B City Council
Subject: Monticello Streetecapes
Dear Kayor & Council members.
Ile cannot absorb a projected 85.850.,n
assessment. Our tenants are small marginal proprietnrphllns.
which cannot stand a rent increase.
0 short time ado we spent $1400.00 for new siaewn:r
replacement and we should continue to upgrade our facility
as in the past ---but if we are saddled with further assess-
-meats, we shall have to let our facility deteriorate.
Very eine ely.
�°✓ti `'fl�'�
Copies to; �J
,r Mayor R City Council
Econnmio Development, Director..
Selected affected property owners
fn�
U
G)
STREETSCAPE BUDGET
TOTAL ASSESSED .2042 $130,688. 00
BROADWAY STREET$
$109,233.00 (1,947 ft)
Blocks 51, 52,
53, 34,
35. 36 Original
Cost @ $56.1032 per linear front footage
Based at
9% interest
over 15 years $6.9602 per LFF
NAME LINEAR
ORIGINAL
ANNUAL
'OVER „ ,.. _....._....
'
FRONT
COST
COST
15
'... FOOTAGE
9%
YEARS
Block 51
Monticello
RRA
106.5
$5,974.99
$741.26
$11,118.92
O'Connor,
Joseph
31
1,739.20
215.77
3,236.49
Stelton,
Ervin
27.5
1,542.84
191.41
2,871.08
Topel,
Dorothy A
66
3,702.81
459.37
6,890.60
Taylor Land
Surveyors
33
1,851.41
229.69
3,445.30
Douglas.
Scott
33
1,851.41
229.69
3,445.30
Sandberg.
John
33
1,851.41
229,69
3,445.30
Block_ 52
Douglas,
Stan
59
3,310.09
410.65
6,159.78
Woodvard,
Michael J 4 J
20
1,122.06
139.20
2,088.06
Johnson.
Steven
67,9
3,809.41
472.60
7,088.96
Bloomdahl,
Carroll d V
S1.1
2,866.87
355.67
5,334.99
Fluth, Barry
6 Barbara
49.5
2,777.11
344.53
5,167.95
Johnson.
$coven
16,5
925.70
114,84
1,722.65
Johnson.
Steven
66
3,102.81
459,37
6,890.60
A
NAME
LINEAR
ORIGINAL
6,890.60
FRONT
COST
467.73
FOOTAGE
451.02
6,765.34
229.69
3,445.30
Block 53
3,445.30
229.69
Wright Ct7
State Bank
33
$1,851.41
Stokes.
... _ .. -6 Opal
"66`"-'-
3.702.81
Wright Cty
State Bank
33
1.851.41
Muller
Properties
67.2
3,770.14
Holker,
Paula
64.8
3.635.49
Ho lker ,
Paula
33
11851.41
Holker.
Paula
33
1,851.41
Block 4
8avocer,
Thomas
42
2,356.33
Rasmussen.
Robert d J
24
1,346.48
City of
Monticello
66
3,702.dl
Monticello
Liquor. Inc.
75
4.207.74
Lindberg 6
Sona. Inc.
24
1,346.48
Novak, John
33
1,851.41
Hildebrandt,
Marland 6 S
33
1.851.41
Hildebrandt.
Marland 6 S
33
1.851.41
1
page 2
A1r7UAL OVER
COST 15
92 YEARS
229.69
3,445.30
459.37
6,890.60
229.69
3,445.30
467.73
7,015.88
451.02
6,765.34
229.69
3,445.30
229.69
3,445.30
192.33
4,384.93
167.05
2,505.67
459.37
6.890.60
$22.02
7.830.23
167.05
2.505.67
229.69
3.445.30
229.69
3.445.30
229.69
3,445.30
0
0
page 3
NAME
LINEAR
ORIGINAL
ANNUAL
OVER
FRONT
COST
COST
15
FOOTAGE
9%
YEARS
Block 35
City of
Monticello
33.__._._
AD VALOREM -
--
Seitz,
Dennie 6 P
36
$2,019.72
$250.57
$3,758.51
Seitz,
Dennis 6 P
39
2,188.03
271.45
4,071.72
Larson,
Brad
40
2.244.13
278.41
4,176.12
Wright Cty
State Bank
43
2.4 12.44
299.29
4,489.33
Larson,
Brad
23
1.2 90.37
160.09
2.401.27
Schneider,
Thomas 6 Stella
20
1,122.06
139.20
2,088.06
Loch, Alan
Monica 6 Stephen
22
1,234.27
153.12
2.296.87
Loch, A
M 6 S
20.5
1.1 50.12
142.68
2.140.26
Monti Lodge
No.16 AF&A
29
1.626.99
201.85
3,027.69
Kruse, Floyd
6 1
24.5
1.374.53
170.53
2.557.87
Black 36
Foster, 3
83
4,65 6.57
577.70
8,665.45
Cossen.
John 6 M
21.7
1.217.44
1$1.04
2.265.55
City of
Monticello
27.3
1.531.62
190.01
2,850.20
Koppy.
John 6 B
33
1,851.41
229.69
3.445.30
Schopf, Lois
27
1,514.79
187.93
2.818.88
Lindell. R 6 N
39 •
2.188.03
271.45
4.071.72
Bjorklund.
Paul 6 K
33
1,851.41
229.69
3,445.30
Bjorklund.
66
3.702.81
459.37
6,890.60
Paul 6 K
0
A
201
page 4
NAME
LINEAR
ORIGINAL
ANNUAL
OVER
FRONT
COST
COST
15
FOOTAGE
9Z
YEARS
Block 51, 52, 53,
34, 35, 36
.TOTALS
1,947
$109,233.01
$13.551.58
5203,272.70
— ,' gg(7ADVAY STREETS
-
_
$11,818.00 (1.072.5 ft)
" Blocks 50, 37, B b
D Original
Cost @ $11.1091
per linear front
footage
Based at
9% interest over 15 years . $1.3670 per LFF
Block 50
Culp, Fredrick
99
1.090.89
135.33
2,030.00
CinCo Corp.
157
1,730.00
214.62
3,219.29
Metcalf b
Larson
29
319.55
39.64
594.65
Broadway
Partnersihp
45
495.86
61.52
922.73
BLcck 37
Ranger Oil
Inc.
99
1.090.89
135.33
2,030.00
Tripp Oil Co
50
550.96
68.35
1,025.25
Claussen,
Lawrence b L
49
539.94
66.98
1,004.75
Northwoods
Investments
66
727.26
90.22
1,353.33
8 6 C
Investments
66
727.26
90.22
1,353.33
Black A
Fair, Kevin P
297
3,272.67
406.00
6.089.99
Block D
Michaelis.
Ronald b A
115.5
1,272.71
157.89
2.368.33
Block 50, 37, B b
D
TOTALS
1,072.5
11,817.99
1,466.15
21,991.65
A
201
C
CU
page 5
NAME
LINEAR
ORIGINAL
ANNUAL
OVER
FRONT
COST
COST
15
j
FOOTAGE
91
YEARS
1� PINE STREET
$5,157.00
(771 ft)
Original
Cost @ $6.6887 per linear
front footage
Based at
92 interest over 15
years - $.8298 per LFP
' Northwest
Clinic
201
$1,344.43
$166.79
$2,501.85
Wright Cty
State Bank
165
1,10 3.64
136.92
2,053.76
A—V Room
165
1,103.64
136.92
2,053.76
Flicker, Marn
165
1,103.64
136.92
2,053.76
Fish, Dr.
Charles
75
501.65
62.24
933.53
Pine Street
TOTALS
771
5.157.00
639.79
9.596.66
OTHER
$4,480.00 (215 ft)
Original
Cost @ $20.8372 per
linear front footage
Based at
92 interest over 15
years * $2.5851 per LFF
Smith. Pringle
l & Hayes
40
$833.49
$103.40
$1,551.06
Kjellherg.
Keith
100
2,083.72
258.51
3,877.65
Brenny, A T
6 Alice
75
1.562.79
193.88
2.908.24
Other
TOTALS
215
4,480.00
555.79
8.336.95
C
CU
Johnson, Steven Properties
_Block 52 67.9 ft $3,809.41
16.5 925.70
66 3,702.81
TOTAL 150.4 8,437.92
— - Wright County State Bank
Block 53 33
33
Block 35 43
Pine Street 165
TOTAL 274
Holker, Paula Properties
Block 53 64.8
33
33
TOTAL 130.8
Larson, Brad
Block 35 40
23
SUBTOTAL 63
Metcalf 6 Larson
Block 50 29
Broadway Partnership
Block 50 45
TOTAL 137
$472.60 $7,088.96
114.84 1,722.65
459.37. 6,890.60
1,046.81 15,702.21
1,851.41
229.69
1,851.41
229.69
2,412.44
299.29
1,103.64
136.92
7,218.90
895.59
3,635.49
451.02
1,851.41
229.69
1,851.41
229.69
7,338.31
910.40
2,244.13
278.41
1,290.37
160.09
3.534.50
438.50
319.55
39.64
495.86
61.52
4,349.91
539.66
3,445.30
3,445.30
4,489.33
2,053.76
13,433.63
6,765.34
3.445.30
3,445.30
13,655.84
4,176.12
2,401.27
6.577.39
594.65
922.73
8,094.77
O
STREETSCAPE ESTIMATED BUDGET
TOTAL PROJECT COST $640,000.00
TOTAL ASSESSED .2042 130,688.00
- - - TOTAL AD VALORE14 .7958 509,312.00
EROA MAY STREETS
_ ,'•�-Blocks 51, 52, 53
$366,036.00 '
34,'35, 36
256,803.00 Ad Valorem
- -- -
109.233.00 Assessed
$6.9602 per linear foot (1,947 ft)
Blocks 50,37, 8 6 D
39,600.00
27,782.00 Ad Valorem
$1.3670 per linear foot (1,072.5 ft)
11,818.00 Assessed
PINE STREET
Northwest Clinic (201 ft)
17,283.00
Wright County State Bank (165 ft)
12,126.00 Ad Valorem
A-V Room (165 ft)
5.157.00 Assessed
Marn Flicker (165 ft)
Dr. Charles Fish (75 ft)
$.8298 per linear font (771 ft)
OTHER
Smith. Pringle. 4 Hayes (40 ft)
15,015.00
Part of East Side block 36
10,535.00 Ad Valorem
4,480.00 Assessed
Kjellberg (100 ft)
Part of Parking Lot 52
or. Branny (75 ft)
Part of Parking Lot 52
$2.5851 per linear foot (215 ft)
TOTAL ASSESSED .2042
$130,688.00
PARKING LOTS
Black 35 $ 48.730.00
Block 34 48,077.00
Block 52 20,663.00
BROADWAY STREETS
Blocks 51, 52, 53. 34. 35, 36 256.403.00
33 ft 6.204.00
Blocks 50, 37. B 4 D 27.762.00
0
PINE STREET
771 ft $ 12,126.00
d 549 ft 12,308.00
i OTHER
215 ft 10,535.00
East. Side Block 36 —9,000.00 `
m_West Side Block 35 11.880.00
FEES
Dahlgren, Shardlow, b Uban 45.204.00
TOTAL AD VALOREM .7958 $509.312.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST INCLUDES:
1OZ contingency by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban for cost cushion
102 contingency by City for engineer fees, bonding fees, etc.
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban fees ($10.000-18,000 design development, Dec. 1987)
Dahlgren, Shardlow. and Uban fees ($21,576 bid documents. construction supervisio
etc.)
Based at 9% interest rate over 15 years.
•«i,c#Rrw**e+r*�s�t*�,rre*r►err:�R:��Rtqtr*,t�ee�*�k�tr.t*ta�rtwttwwt,tw:
$640.000.00 Bond divided by $1,000 x $124.06 - $79,398.40 Equal Annual Payments
(Principal and Interest)
Assessed .2042 • $16.213.15
$6.9602 x 1,947 ft $13,551.51
1. 3670x 1.072.5 ft 1,466.11
.8298 x 771 ft 639.78
2.5851 x 215 ft 555.80
$16.213.20
Ad Valorem .7928 - $63,185.27 divided by $106.722,013.00 (1987 Assessed Value)
• .00059
Creekside Terrace ENV $62.000.00
AV 11.160.00 x .00059 - $6.584
X 54% 3.556
3.028 Homestead Tax
Annual Increase
Original Plat EMV $49.300.00
AV 8,874.00 x .00059 - $5.235
x 54% 2.827
$2.406 Homestead Tax
Annual Increase
Hillcrest Addition EMV $91.900.00
AV 19,232.00 $7.62 Homestead Tax
Annual Increase
Oakwood Industrial Park DMV 192,500.00
AV 73.775.00 x .00059 $43.527 Annual Increase
C $79.398.0 x 15 years • $1.190.976.00
STORE BACKS {landscaping, parking, and alley}
- Block 35 $35,805.00 297 ft • $120.56
Block 34 $30,122.00 264 ft • 114.10
-Block 52'.-- -~� --340,321.00 330 ft 122.19
0
Em
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
Public Hearing on Improvements to County Road 118, County Road 39, and
Water Systems. W.S.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the December 14 meeting, the City Council enlarged the scope of the
original feasibility study for County Road 118 and County Road 39 East to
include extension of utilities east to the city limits with the
alternatives of serving portions of the OAA beyond. In addition, the new
well and pumphouse to be located near the underground reservoir was added
to the feasibility report. OSM expects to complete the feasibility study
late this week in time for incorporation into the agenda supplement.
We have discussed the proposed new well and pumphouse at the December
meeting. As you may recall, the staff's immediate concerns involve an
adequate supply of water for the community. We all know that we are in
desperate need of above ground storage to increase pressures within the
system, but we currently are in more danger from the loss of volume or
supply. During our peak periods of use, one well cannot keep up with the
need for water in this community. Our number one well near the water
tower is due for pump servicing. This work costs several thousand
dollars and will take the pump out of service for several weeks. We have
delayed doing this work because major modifications to the pump itself
will be needed when our new above ground storage tank is built.
In addition to the well and pumphouse, the proposed improvements will
include the replacement of the existing control system at the reservoir.
This system was outdated a few years after its installation and parts
have had to be custom made for at least the last seven or eight years.
The system has proved very troublesome and has often required thousands
of dollars worth of repairs annually. When the specifications are
prepared for the new control system, a great deal of attention will be
paid to obtaining controls which will be more durable with greater parts
availability.
The proposed utility improvements to County Roads 118 and 39 Fast are now
proposed to be built to the eastern city limits. The lift station is
proposed for the south side of 39 on a portion of the Krauthauer
property. It would be best to purchase a fifth of an acre or so to
provide adequate room for the lift station. The lift station itself (the
concrete structure) will remain about the same size no matter if we serve
the city limits or portions of the oAA beyond. The size of the gravity
sanitary sewer, the force main, and the pumps will change. OSM has
detailed some of the additional costs for oversizing beyond the city
limits. The difference in cost in the sanitary sewer sizing from minimum
to maximum is expected to be in the area of $27,000.
-3-
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
Although not built into the feasibility report, I have discussed the use
of the lift station pumps and controls which were salvaged during the
interceptor sewer project from Country Club. These pugs and controls
were in service less than seven years, are in good serviceable condition,
and may provide adequate capacity at the lift station for several years
in the future. This would allow us to reduce our overall costs to the
residents along County Road 39.
During the public hearing or the discussions that follow, the primary
reasons for extension of sewer and water services should be brought to
light. one of the overwhelming concerns at this time is the possible
contamination of ground water or surface waters from individual sewage
disposal systems along County Road 39. The City now has indications that
there have been problems in the past with some on—site systems in the
area. In addition, City staff has observed the high ground water
conditions in the area and only a few months ago required a drain field
to be entirely removed and relocated higher so that it would have less
effect on a high ground water table condition. I am convinced that a
thorough investigation of the ground water in this area would show some
contamination from these systems. Our ordinance requires that should any
contamination be found, those property owners will have 90 days to
install new systems. This can be costly, as most of those systems may
require pumping stations within the homes themselves.
The other point that should be brought out is that it is inevitable that
sewer and water services be extended to the eastern boundary, as sooner
or later the open property in this area will develop. It is expected
that this area will develop prior to the expiration of the design life of
the new County Road 39; and if annexation occurs, development out on the
east end of the city could occur at a quicker rate. It, therefore, seems
most prudent from an economic standpoint to install these utilities with
the County Road project to take advantage of the cost savings of not
having to build or repair the county road.
An additional item of concern or need for the project is the problem of
high ground water table in the area of some homes along County Road 39.
At certain times of the year, many homeowners experience wet basements
which often requires continuous pumping. The pumping is usually done
onto the nearby surface which in some cases can result in recirculation
as the surface water again seeps back down into the ground and affects
the ground water table. Although it to not totally known what effect the
drain system proposed for the south side of County Road 39 will have on
the properties, it will at least provide a conduit by which the property
owners can provide gravity underdraine for the ground water problems in
and about their homes.
-4-
C
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
Some property owners along East County Road 39 feel they do not have
problems with their drain fields or septic tanks at this time, but merely
wish to have the projects done at once so the inconvenience and
degradation of their yards is kept to a minimum; and there will be
significant inconveniences during the construction project. Due to road
configurations, a detour from the eastern end of the community may have
to go all the way back to County Road 19 at Albertville to I-94 to get
back into Monticello. There will be periods of time, although short,
during which the roadway will not be passible. If all of this work can
be done during one construction season, property owners could benefit.
In preparation for the public hearing, I have asked OSM to bring along an
expert in the area of gravel packed wells to discuss with staff and
Council the ramifications of a manually gravel packed well versus a
naturally gravel packed well, which we have in the downtown wells. In
addition, representatives of the Wright County Highway Department will be
on hand to discuss how our projects are expected to interact. Our
current timetable projections indicate that the well and pumphouse could
be completed by July or August when our heaviest water use is needed.
The utility work on County Road 39 East would be completed in phases.
'Me first phase to Mississippi Drive would be completed by June 1, the
second phase of utility construction completed by June 20 to
approximately the area near the south homes along County Road 39, and the
remaining portion to the eastern city limits would be completed by
June 24. Work would then be switched to the lift station construction
which would be conpleted and operational by September 1. Property owners
in the area would be advised to at least make portions of the hookups
during those periods of time when the construction project dewatering
operations are underway.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
There are alternatives which I know Rick Wolfsteller will address and
some have been addressed in the feasibility study.
1. The first alternative would be to do the well, pumphouse, and utility
Improvements to the city limits sizing only for those properties
within the city.
2. The second alternative could be for the well, punphouse, and utility
improvements to the city limits but to include two alternates for
overeizing the gravity sanitary sewer system to pick up Tyler East
and an additional alternate for overeizing to pick up the OAA area.
This would allow the actual decision of which pipe size or capacity
to be built to be delayed until the actual award of the contract, at
which time we hope the Municipal Board will have reached a decision.
This information could be presented to the Municipal Board on Priday,
January 15, and ask them for directiont
-5-
C
t
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
3. This alternative would include the well and pumphouse and the utility
improvements only as far as Mississippi Drive. At this time, it is
not known whether we could meet the minimum 20 percent assessment
feature of the Chapter 429 statute. We may come close, but closeness
counts only in horseshoes and hand grenades, not "Chapter 429."
4. The fourth alternative would be to just do the utility improvements
along County Road 39 to Mississippi Drive under the Chapter 429 and
do the well and pumphouse inprovements with a revenue bond type of
financing or a referendum.
C. STAFF FLEEM4 MATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the Council opt for alternative
number two, which would include options of serving portions of the OAA,
with the actual decision to be made at the time of award. City staff
believes that the bare minium to be done should be alternative number
four.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the preliminary cost estimate and the feasibility study from OSM.
—6.
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR
DEEP WELL, PUMPHOUSE, TRUNK WATERMAIN,
SANITARY SEWER, SANITARY LIFT STATION,
AND APPURTENANT WORK
PROJECT NO. 88-01
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 11, 1988
J. TYPE OF WORK
This report covers the installation of a deep well, pumphouse watermain,
sanitary sewer, sanitary lift station and appurtenant work in the City of
Monticello.
j,l. REASON FOR PROJECT
This report was requested by City staff to coincide with the Wright County
r
�. project to re -align County State Aid Highway (C.S.A.H.) 139 and County Road 0118
on the eastern side of the City. A water system analysis completed in 1985
suggested several system -wide improvements be made to the City's water
distribution system over a period of years. In the Summer of 1987, the City
experienced a water supply problem during high demand periods and requested
voluntary compliance of a lawn sprinkling program as a temporary solution. The
City Council, at the December 14, 1987 Council meeting, directed the City
Engineer to include the deep well and pumphouse as part of this report and
project. The replacement of the outdated and trouble -some control system for
the deep wells and high lift pumps at the ground storage reservoir will also be
a part of this project.
The Comprehensive Water Plan for the City has delineated the right-of-way of
County Road 0118 and C.S.A.H. 039 to be used for trunk watermain and it would
appear to be prudent to install the new watermain before the roadways are re-
constructed. The residents and commercial establishments in the area experience
low water pressure especially during high demand periods. The proposed trunk
.I-
0
ri watermain, although not providing any immediate relief for the flow and pressure
l problems, will -serve as an integral part of system -wide improvements. To improve
pressures and fire fighting capabilities, a new elevated storage reservoir will
be required along with the extension of the trunk watermain to the south of 1.94
on County Road 1118.
The City staff has also surveyed the residents living along C.S.A.H. 139 east of
Mississippi Drive who do not presently have municipal sewer and water. Several
residents, while not formally petitioning the City, have expressed an interest
in municipal services. More specifically, the high ground watertable of the area
causes water seepage problems in basements and septic tank effluent disposal
concerns. City sewer and water will enhance the development potential of the
area.
111, DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The proposed Deep Well and Pumphouse No. 3 would be located approximately 200
feet west of the ground storage reservoir on Chelsea Road and would pump
y directly into that facility. The four high -lift pumps at the reservoir would
l pump the water into the water distribution system. The additional well would
make the reservoir a more integral part of the distribution water system and
will provide the volume necessary to meet peak summer demands.
The proposed project will include 24 -inch and 16 -inch trunk watermain along
County Road 1118 beginning approximately 200 feet north of the i-94 bridge;
crossing the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and C.S.A.H. 175; and con-
tinuing along C.S.A.H. 039 to approximately 2,800 feet east of Mississippi Drive
to the City limits. The trunk watermain will connect to existing deadend
watermains on Mississippi Drive and near Macarlund Plaza. Water services will
be provided to the residences and other properties along C.S.A.H. 139 and County
Road 1118.
The low ground surface elevations and basement levels along C. S.A.H. 139 east of
Mississippi Drive preclude the use of gravity sanitary sewer to the treatment
plant and therefore a lift station is proposed which would pump into the sewer
on Mississippi Drive. As the area develops and the lift station is expanded, it
-2-
J
p will be necessary to reconstruct the sewer on Mississippi Drive to provide
` additional capacity. Presently, that sewer has the ability to handle a flow 1.7
cubic feet per second or sewage from approximately 2,750 persons. At this time,
the sewer provides local service and carries flow from the Meadow Oaks area.
See Section VI - ALTERNATIVES, for more discussion.
3
Relocation and deepening of some sanitary sewer facilities is necessary in the
vicinity of Mississippi Drive because C.S.A.H. 39 will be widened and lowered in
this area. A small extension of sanitary sewer will be done near Macarlund
Plaza in conjunction with the creation of the service road fronting C.S.A.H. 139
and C.S.A.H. 115.
The 1975 Comprehensive Sewer Drainage Plan for the City proposes a trunk storm
sewer pipe along a portion of C.S.A.H. 139 and within the construction zone of
the proposed sanitary sewer and watermain utilities. Several homes in the
Manhattan Lots First Addition presently experience groundwater seepage problems
and the proposed improvements to C.S.A.H. 139 could well stimulate development
in the area which might compound any existing surface and groundwater problems.
It is therefore proposed that approximately 400 feet of the trunk storm sewer be
installed as part of this project.
IV. TiMING
It is proposed that the proposed improvements be bid at the same time as the
Wright County project and that the underground work be completed before the
paving begins for the county project.
V. SLOPE OF PROJECT
Deep Well and Pumphouse No. 3 would have a minimum pumping capacity of 1,000
gallons per minute.
The proposed trunk watermain is approximately 5,000 feet long and connecting
laterals are about 1,000 feet in length. The sanitary sewer relocation and the
frontage road extension involves about 550 feet of sewer. The new gravity
sanitary sewer east of Mississippi Drive discharging to a new lift station would
be 2,800 feet long with a required forcemain length of approximately 650 feet.
51
VI. ALTERNATIVES
Existing water system pressures and calculated available water flow rates for
fire fighting purposes have shown a critical need for an interconnection to the
existing trunk watermain on County Road 118. It would appear that the alterna-
tive of delaying watermain construction until a later date would only escalate
the cost of the project and compound the problem of low water pressures and
substandard water flow for fire fighting purposes. Proposed roadway improvements
by Wright County would have high restoration costs which can be avoided by
scheduling this project in 1988.
The City officials have three basic alternatives for providing sanitary sewer
service in the area as detailed below.
(1) The 10' diameter option previously estimated in this report at a
project cost of $115,400 could provide service to all of the area
north of I-94 and cast Mississippi Drive up to and including the
Halliger tree farm area. It would have a capacity of 450 gallons per
r minute and serve a population of 1,600.
(2) If the service area was increased to include the Tyler east area,
then the larger pipe (12' diameter) would result in a cost increase
of about $12,300. This pipe has a capacity of 900 gpm and would
serve an effective population of 3,200.
(3) if the pipe size was increased (18' diameter) to allow servicing of
the entire orderly annexation area north of 1.94, then the cost would
increase by an additional $14,500 to a project cost of $142,200. This
pipe could serve about 8,900 people and has a flow capacity of 2,250
gpm.
The lift station and forcemain can be sized physically to accommodate the first
and second alternatives without any major complications. Initially, the pumps
would be sized to handle a flow from 1,600 persons and as the area developed
larger pumps and/or motors could be installed. The third alternative would
r/ require replacement of the forcemain and major changes to the lift station when
0. the contributing flow exceeded 900 gpm.
i
It should also be noted that the sewer which is being relayed at the inter-
section of Mississippi Drive because of the C.S.A.H. 039 realignment should also
be sized to accommodate flows as appropriate for alternative 1, 2, or 3.
For storm sewer, the only construction option might be to build only that por-
tion of the pipe proposed to be within the C.S.A.H. 039 right-of-way. The pipe
would not outlet to the river at this time and therefore would not provide any
benefit. Later construction would be needed to provide an outlet and make the
pipe functional.
VII. FEASIBILITY
From an engineering standpoint, the project is feasible and presents few prob-
lems. The City can realize a cost savings regarding pavement restoration if the
project is completed prior to the Wright County roadway project. A temporary
road surface, if required through the winter of 1988-89, and consisting of 3" of
gravel and 2" of bituminous would cost approximately $30,000.
VIII. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated project cost included construction cost and 27% indirect costs
(engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative).
Deep Well No. 3
f 89,400
Pumphouse No. 3
198,100
Trunk Watermain
272,100
Lateral Watermain
44,400
Sanitary Sewer
153,200
Sanitary Lift Station
97,800
Storm sewer and Drainage
70.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $925,000
-5�
IX. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
Properties to be assessed are within Auditor's Subdivision No. I, Lot 15; Lot
19, Block 3 of Hoglund Addition; Macarlund Plaza; Manhattan Lots First Addition;
the Northwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 121, Range 24; all within Wright
County, Minnesota; and Manhattan tate.
X. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
It is estimated that $123,500 of the sanitary sewer cost, $167,000 of the
watermain cost, and $16,800 of the drainage cost are assessable. A portion of
the lift station cost and storm sewer cost may also be assessed with the
remainder of the project funded through the City's general fund or ad valorem
taxes. A more detailed assessment plan will be presented at the public hearing.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered Pro-
fessional Engineer under the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Charles A. Lepak, P(J.
Date: January 11, 1988 Reg. No. 15138
-6-
0
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
6. Consideration of Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans
and Specifications on Streetscape Project. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item is related to the public hearing held previously at the
beginning of the meeting. As indicated in the public hearing agenda
item, the planner has indicated that if the Council determines the
project should proceed, this resolution ordering the improvement and
preparation of plans and specifications should be adopted so that
sufficient time is available for the planner to complete the plans and
advertise for bids and award a contract for early spring construction.
During the preparation of final plans and specifications, the volunteer
committee that has met previously to refine the design will again
possibly meet and confer with the planner on any details not yet
confirmed regarding the final designing of the project. In the near
future, the plans and specifications will be brought to the Council for
approval at which time authorization can be given for advertising for
bids for construction.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution ordering the streetscape improvement and
preparation of plans and specifications by Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban,
Inc.
2. If it's the Council's determination that the project should not
proceed, the resolution need not be adopted at this time.
C. STAFF RFF,NDATION:
After years of discussion, preliminary designs, and the recent
informational meetings regarding the proposed improvements, it appears
that if the project is ever going to be initiated, the project should be
ordered and the plans prepared so that construction can be completed
during spring and early summer of 1988. For the benefit of the general
appearance of the downtown area and the city as a whole, the staff
certainly supports a streetscape improvement project as recommended by
the volunteer committee and planner. The staff certainly understands if
there is overwhelming opposition from the affected property owners
against the project, the Council has to make a decision whether the
improvement is still best for the city or whether to forego any
improvements. It would appear that by the Oouncil's recent indication of
only assessing 20 percent of the approved cost to the property owners,
opposition to the project should be limitedl and it is shown that the
Council is concerned about the overall appearance of the city and its
efforts to help the downtown areA survive economically.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution ordering the improvement and preparation of plans and
epee's.
-7-
RESOLUTION 88-1
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
ON STREETSCAPE PROJECT
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 14th day of December,
1987, fixed a date for a public hearing on the proposed improvements of
Broadway, River, and Third Streets between Linn Street on the west to Palm
Street on the east with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and other
appurtenant work associated with a downtown streetscape improvement.
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly
publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon
on the Ilth day of January, 1988, at which all persons desiring to be heard
were given an opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY ^HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvements are hereby ordered as proposed.
2. Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban b Associates, the City's Consulting
Planner, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement
and shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such
improvements.
Adopted this 11th day of January, 1988.
City Administrator
I
Mayor
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
7. Consideration of Resolution Ordering Improvement to the Water System,
County Road 118, and County Road 39, and Preparation of Plans and
Specifications. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Again, this item is related to the public hearing held on the County
Road 39 improvements and water system improvements, including a new well,
pumphouse, and related equipment. After the close of the public hearing,
if it is determined by the Council that the project should proceed as
recommended by the engineer, this resolution should be adopted ordering
the improvement and authorizing the preparation of plans and
specifications. The proposed water system improvements consisting of a
new well, pumphouse, and related equipment is the portion of the project
that is of the greatest concern at this point in that if the new well is
to be operational during the summer of 1988, the engineer would have to
be advertising for bids almost immediately. As you will recall, the
water system improvements along with the extension of utilities to the
edge of the city limits on 39 were incorporated into one public hearing
in order to accommodate the financing of the improvement through a
Chapter 129 bond issue whereby at least 20 percent of the project is
assessed to the property owners benefiting. Basically, if it is
determined that the extension from Mississippi Drive to Ralliger's Tree
Farm is not authorized at this time, the water system improvements are
also in jeopardy and may have to be eliminated from consideration at this
time due to the inability of the project to meet the 20 percent
assessment factor. Certainly, the water system improvements can still be
done, but an alternate financing method would have to be considered such
as a revenue bond issue, which would require the water rates to increase
approximately 30+ percent, or a referendum would have to be held. As in
the streetscape project, if this entire improvement is authorized,
financing through a bond sale would be required: and it is possible that
this improvement project along with the streetscape project could be
combined into one bond issue to save issuance cost.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution ordering the improvement to the water system,
County Road 118, and County Road 39 utility extensions and authorize
preparation of plans and specifications.
2. Order the improvement of plane and spec's for only a portion of the
project area along 39 and/or water system improvements.
3. Stop the proposed improvements entirely whereby no resolution need be
adopted.
-e-
Council Agenda — 1/11/88
C. STAFF RHCDMKDOATION:
If the entire project is not ordered as proposed, the Council should be
aware that the water system improvements of a new well and pumphouse may
have to be tabled at this time unless the Council wishes to finance this
portion of the improvement through a revenue bond issue. If for some
reason it is determined not to extend utilities along 39 from Mississippi
Drive to Balliger's Tree Farm, the Council can still order preparation of
plans and spec's and order the improvement for utilities that would go
under the new 39 road alignment from 1-94 to Mississippi Drive. This
portion of the project can still be financed through a Chapter 429 bond
Issue, but the inclusion of the water system improvements with the first
segment of utility extensions would not allow the City to meet the
20 percent assessment requirement. It would appear that if the City is
ever going to extend utilities to the easterly end of the city limits and
possibly into the OAA area in the future, it would seem most feasible to
install these improvements now that County Road 39 will be upgraded by
the County. Of course, if there is strong opposition from all of the
property owners along 39 to the proposed improvements, the Council
certainly has to consider the testimony presented at the public hearing.
It should be noted that because the proposed improvements along 39 were
not petitioned for by the property owners, a 4/5ths vote of the Council
is necessary for the project to continue.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution ordering improvement and preparation of plans and
specifications.
-9-
RESOLUTION 88-2
C RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPRWEmENT AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 14th day of December,
1987, fixed a date for a public hearing on the proposed improvement of County
Road 118, and County Road 39 between I-94 and Mississippi Drive with watermains
and between Mississippi Drive and County Road 75 along frontage road with
sanitary sewer extensions and appurtenant work; and improvements to East county
Road 39 between Mississippi Drive and city limits with sanitary sewer,
watermain, and appurtenant work; and necessary water system improvements,
including a new well, punphouse, and appurtenant equipment.
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly
publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was held thereon
on the 11th day of January, 1988, at which all persons desiring to be heard
were given an opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvements are hereby ordered as proposed.
2. The City's Consulting Engineer, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron b Associates,
is hereby designated as the engineer for this inprovement and shall
prepare plans and specifications for the making of such
improvement.
Adopted by the Council this 11th day of January, 1988.
Mayor
City Administrator
G)
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
8. Consideration of Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications on Phase I
of the Water System Improvement and Ordering Advertisement for Bids.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BAQ(GRDUND:
This agenda item will need action by the Council if the Council has
ordered the entire improvement as presented for County Road 39 utility
extensions and the water system improvements. The engineer has
previously prepared plans and specifications for a new well which would
allow the engineer to advertise for bids immediately to enable the well
to be constructed and on line by this summer. This resolution approving
plans and specifications on Phase I only covers the well; and in the
future, plans and specifications will be presented to the ODuneil for
approval on the balance of the pumphouse and related equipment concerning
the water system improvements and the utility extensions along Oounty
Road 39 if previously ordered.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the plans and specifications on the
new well and authorize the advertisement for bids.
2. Do not adopt the resolution depending on the outcome of the previous
agenda items.
C. STAFF Rt11MMENDATION:
If the Council previously ordered the Improvement as recommended by the
engineer for Oounty Road 39 utility extensions and the water system
ixprovemente, this resolution should be adopted tonight which would allow
the engineer to advertise for bids immediately for the new well. If the
improvements to County Road 39 were not previously ordered to the end of
the city limits, this portion of the improvement for the new well could
Mill be authorized, but the Council has to be aware that financing for
the well improvement at this stage would require a revenue bond issue and
would result in at least a 30 percent increase in the water rates.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution approving plans and spec's on Phase I of the water
system and ordering the advertisement for bids.
- 10.
RESOLUTION 88-3
RESOLUTION APPROVING PIANS AMID SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, the City's Consulting Engineer, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, has
prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of a new well, pumphouse,
and appurtenant equipment and has presented such plans and specifications to
the Council for approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OP MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file at City
Hall, are hereby approved.
The City Administrator shall prepare and cause to be inserted in
the Monticello Times and in the Construction Bulletin an
advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under
such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be
published for 21 days, shall specify the work to be done, shall
state that bids will be received by the Administrator until
p.m. on , 1988, at which time
tey w be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall by the City Administrator and Engineer, will then be
tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 p.m, on
, 1988, in the Council Chambers. No
Did$ will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
Administrator and acccmpanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check,
bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Monticello for
58 of the amount of such bid.
3. Springsted, Inc., is hereby designated the financial consultant for
the financing of this public improvement.
Adopted this 11th day of January, 1988.
Mayor
City Administrator
W-5
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
g. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment Regulating Snowmobile Operations.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the onset of winter and the increased snow amounts over the past few
years, snowmobile operation within the city limits has increased
substantially over past years; and as a result, so has the complaint
factor regarding their operation. Most of the common complaints 1 have
heard regarding snowmobiles center on not only the noise factor, but the
operation of the snowmobile for recreational purposes on streets,
ditches, boulevards, and even private property. As a result, the staff
has been reviewing the current snowmobile ordinance and recommends that
some changes and additions be added to the ordinance to make it more
effective in enabling the law enforcement officials to enforce.
The first item noticed within our snowmobile ordinance is that we
currently restrict operation of the snowmobiles between the hours of
11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. within 300 feet of a residence, and we prohibit
operation on city sidewalks or public property except for city parks; but
we really do not prohibit the operation of a snowmobile on a typical city
street. As a result, this is the primary area that we feel an amendment
should be adopted which clearly states that a snowmobile can operate on
city streets and roadways only for the purpose of a direct route in and
out of town and that no operation shall occur on a boulevard or private
property unless a defined ditch is present. in addition, all public
property would be prohibited from snowmobile operation, including city
parks, unless so authorized by the City Cbunc il.
The addition of specific language that requires snowmobiles to operate on
the roadway surface only of a street with curb and gutter or on a street
without curb and gutter but, without a defined ditch would eliminate
problems of snowmobilers on boulevard property which usually encroaches
onto private property also. Clearly stating that no general recreational
use of city streets is allowed other than for the purpose of entering or
leaving town should eliminate those snowmobiles which are constantly
circling a block or creating a nuisance in this fashion. Naturally, the
ordinance would only be as effective as the law enforcement personnel who
monitor it; but it would provide a tool that the Sheriff's Department
could use if there is an obvious violation.
Enclosed with the agenda you will find a copy of. the present snowmobile
ordinance with the recommended additions or alterations underlined.
B. ALTFMNAT1W. ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the snowmobile ordinance as recommended with the additional
clarifications.
MM
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
2. Do not adopt an amendment but leave as is.
C. STAFF RECOMMIDATION:
As the snowfall increases, so does the use of snowmobiles; and although
the recommended ordinance may not curb all complaints regarding
snowmobiles, it should clearly state where operation is permissible and
provide the tool the law enforcement personnel can use to issue
citations. As a result, the City staff recommends that the ordinance
amendment be adopted and published in the Monticello Times.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Present ordinance regulating snowmobile operations, ordinance amendment
regulating snowmobile operations with changes underlined.
-12-
6-5-1 6-5-1
CHAPTER 5
SNOWMOBILES
SECTION:
6-5-1:
Definitions
6-5-2:
Restrictions
6-5-3:
Prohibited Areas
6-5-4:
Age Restriction
6-5-5:
Uncontrolled INtersections
6-5-6:
Equipment
6-5-7:
Compliance
6-5-8:
Violation
6-5-1: DEFINITIONS-
(A)
1FINITIONS:
(A) Snowmobiles: As used in this Ordinance, a snowmobile is defined
to mean a self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice
or a natural terrain starred by wheels, skis or runners.
(u) Commissioners As used in this Ordinance, Commissioner means
the Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources, State of Minn-
esota.
(C) Person: As used in this Ordinance, person includes an individual,
partnership, corporation, the State and its agencies and subdivision3, °
and any body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
(D) Owner: As used in this Ordinance, owner means a person, other
than a lion holder, having the property in or title to snowmobile,
entitled to use or possession thereof.
(E) operate: As used in this Ordinance, operate means to ride in or
on and physically or constructively control the operation of a snow-
mobile.
(F) Operator: As used in this Ordinance, operator means every person
who operates or is in actual physical or constructive control of a
snowmobile.
(G) Roadway: As used in this Ordinance, roadway moans that portion of
a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily usad for vehicular travel,
including the shoulder.
00 Street or Highwayi As used in this Ordinance, street or highway
m,:ans tho entire width between boundary lines of any way or place when
any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right,
for the purposes of vehicular traffic.
(I) Right of Way: As used in this Ordinance, right of way means Lho
entire strip of land traversed by a highway or street in which the
public owns Lha fee or an easement for roadway purposes.
6-5-1
6-5-3
(J) Safety or Dcadman Throttle: As used in this Ordinance, safety or
deadman throttle is defined as a device which, when pressure is removed
from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disen-
gaged from the driving track.
(K) Lake: Meandered lakes which are under the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources, State of Minnesota.
6-5-2: RESTRICTIONS: It is unlawful for any person to operate a
snowmobiles:
(A) Between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00) p.m. and seven o'clock
(7:00) a.m., within three hundred feet (300') of a residence except
that on Friday and Saturday nights and evenings preceding Thanksgiving,
Christmas, and New Years the hours shall be one o'clock (1:00) a.m. to
seven o'clock (7:00) a.m.
(B) At any place, while under the influence of. intoxicating (A) liquor,
(B) narcotics, or (C) habit-forming drugs.
(C) At a rate of speed greater than reasonable, prudent, or proper
under all the surrounding circumstances.
(D) At any place in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as
to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property or to
cause injury or damage thereto.
(E) It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over or kill any
animal, wild or domestic, with a snowmobile. 1
(F) On any sidewalks in the City of Monticello provided for pedestrian
travel.
(C) All public property is closed to snowmobiling except for City Parks
(excluding west side or Riverside Park.)
(H) Snowmobiles should obey all city and state traffic la4a when operating
vehicles on city streets.
6-5-3. PROHIBITED AREAS: It shall be unlawful to operate snowmobiles
in the following areas;
No person shall operato a snowmobilo upon the roadway, shoulder or in-
side bank or slope of any City trunk, County state -aid, or County High-
way in this City, and, in the case of a divided trunk or County Highway,
on the right-of-way between the opposing lanes of traffic, except as
provided in this Ordinance, nor shall operatiun on any such highway be
permitted where the roadway directly abuts a public sidewalk or walkway.
6-5-1 6-5-6
No person shall operate a snowmobile within the right-of-way of any
trunkCity, County state -aid, or County highway between the hours
l of one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-half (1/2) hour before
sunrise, except on the right hand side of such right-of-way and in
the same direction as the highway traffic on the nearest land of
the roadway adjacent thereto. No snowmobile shall be operated at
any time within the right-of-way of any interstate highway or free-
way within this City. The provisions of this Section shall not
apply in the case of emergency when any street is impassible by other
motor vehicles.
6-5-4: AGE RESTRSCTION: Notwithstanding anything in this Ordinance
to the contrary, no person under fourteen (14) years of age
shall operate a snowmobile on City streets or make a direct crossing
of a City street, trunk County state -aid, or County highway as the op-
erator of a sn0wmosile. A person fourteen (14)years of age or older,
but less than eighteen (16) yeaz'y of aye may operate a snowmobile on
streets as provided by this Ordinance and may make a direct crossing
of a City street, trunk County state -aid, or County highway only if
he has in his immediate possession a valid sno�cnobile safety certi-
ficate issued by the Commissioner.
6-5-5: UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: No snowmobile shall enter any
uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop.
The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicle or pe-
destrian at the intersection or so close to the intersection so as
to constitute an immediate hazard.
6-5-6: EQUIPMENT: All snowmobiles shall have the following equip-
ment:
(A) Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant op-
eration, and which reduce the noise of -Dporation of the motor to the
minimum necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply with Regulations
CONS 55, which is hereby Adopted by reference as it exist -ed on September
1, 1970. No person shall use a mufflor cutout, by-pass. straight pipe,
or similar device on a snowmobile motor, end the exhaust system shall not
emit or produce a sharp popping or crackling sound.
(B) Brakes adequato to control the movement of and to stop and hold the
snowmobile under any conditions of operation.
(C) A safety or so-called "dun d man" throttle in operating condition,
so that when pressure is removed from the accelerator or throttle, the
motor is disengaged from the driving track.
(0) At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with sufficient in-
tensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least one
hundred feet (100') ahead during the hours of darkness under normal
atmospheric conditions. Such hmad lamp shall be so aimed that glaring
rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator.
01
6-5-6
6-5-8
It shall also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a
minimum candlepower of sufficient intensity to exhibit a read light
plainly visible from a distance of five hundred feet (500') to the
rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions.
The equipment to be in operating condition when the vehicle is op-
erated between the hours of one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-
half (1/2) hour before sunrise or at time of reduced visibility.
(E) Reflective material at least sixteen (16) square inches on each
side, forward of the handlebars, so as to reflect a beam of light at
a ninety degree (900) angle.
6-5-7: COMPLIANCE: It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile
to permit the snowmobile to be operated contrary to the
provisions of the Ordinance.
6-5-8: VIOLATION: Any person violating the terms of this Ordinance
shall, upon conviction be guilty of misdemeanor.
C4
6-5-2 6-5-3
L PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
TO CHAPTER 5, SNOWMOBILES
C
6-5-2: RESTRICTIONS: It is unlawful for any person to operate a
snowmobile:
(A) Between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00) p.m. and seven o'clock
(7:00) a.m., within three hundred feet (300') of a residence except that on
Friday and Saturday nights and evenings preceding Thanksgiving, Christmas, and
New Years the hours shall be one o'clock (1:00) a.m. to seven o'clock
(7:00) a.m.
(B) At any place, while under the influence of intoxicating (a) liquor, (b)
narcotics, or (c) habit-forming drugs.
(C) At a rate of speed greater than reasonable, prudent, or proper under all
the surrounding circumstances.
(D) At any place in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to
endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property or to cause injury or
damage thereto.
(E) It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over, or kill any
animal, wild or domestic, with a snowmobile.
(F) On any sidewalks in the city of Monticello provided for pedestrian
travel.
(G) All public property, including city arks, is closed to snow obiling
unless specifically designated by the City Council. Any area so designated
shall be publis hed in the official newspaper of the City in a conspicuous place
after sucf� approval.
lH) Snowmob13es shall obey all city and state traffic laws when operating
vehicles on city streets.
6-5-3: PROHIBITED AREAS: It shall be unlawful to operate snowmobiles in
the following areas]
No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway, shoulder, or inside bank
or slope of any City trunk, County state -aid, or County Highway in this city,
and, in the case of a divided trunk or County Highway, on the right-of-way
between the opposing lanes of traffic, except as provided in this Ordinance,
nor shall opera tion on any such highway be permitted where the roadway directly
abuts a public sidewalk or walkway.
8
C
6-5-3
6-5-3
No person shall operate a snowmobile on other city streets or roadways within
the city limits for the purpose of general recreational use, except as a direct
route for access to and krom the operator's residence for the purpose of
entering or leaving the city.
When 4ermitted by this ordinance, all snowmobiles shall be operated onlyon the
roadway surface of streets with curb and gutter, or streets without defned
ditches, and within the ditch bottoms or backslopes of streets with defined
ditches. operation of snowmobiles on or across private property is prohibited
without express permission of the owner.
No person shall operate a snowmobile within the right-of-way of any trunk City,
County state -aid, or County highway between the hours of one-half (1/2) hour
after sunset to one-half (1/2) hour before sunrise, except on the right hand
aide of such right -of -ray and in the same direction as the highway traffic on
the nearest land of the roadway adjacent thereto. No snowmobile shall be
operated at any time within the right-of-way of any interstate highway or
freeway within this city. The provisions of this Section shall not apply in
the case of emergency when any street is impassible by other motor vehicles.
L67A,
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
10. Consideration of Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for Purchase of
Aerial Fire Truck. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the October 13 Council meeting, approval was given to the Fire
Department representatives to prepare final plans and specifications for
the purchase of a new 75 -foot aerial ladder fire truck and authorization
for advertising for bids. Since that time, a Fire Department committee
has been working on and completed the specification documents and bids
were opened on December 28 at 2:00 p.m. Three bids were received ranging
in price from $279,500 to $282,203 for the outright purchase of a new
truck. The apparent low bidder was Minnesota Conway Fire Equipment,
which also indicated a trade-in allowance of $7,500 for the current 1962
Chev Pumper, making the net total $272,000 even.
The Fire Department Truck Committee has since December 28 been reviewing
the bids to see how they comply with the specifications in that this type
of fire apparatus is not immediately available, and each manufacturer has
different equipment and specifications they use to manufacture this type
of truck. A truck of this nature takes anywhere from seven months to a
year to build and receive; and if a contract is awarded by the Council,
delivery would not be expected for at least six months or longer.
As it turns out, the Fire Department, after reviewing the specs, found
that the low bid for an emergency one vehicle from Minnesota Conway Fire
Equipment appears to be the best at meeting the specifications and the
needs of the Fire Department. One of the concerns of the Fire Department
was that the second low bidder, Sutphen Corporation, utilizes a steel
ladder system which may result in more maintenance in the future. The
emergency one vehicle from Minnesota Conway uses an aluminum structure
for their ladder system, which is preferred by the Fire Department.
Overall, the department felt the emergency one vehicle provided the heat
package with the fastest delivery. it should be pointed out that the
only item that was not included in the specifications for the new truck
would be radio equipment, as typically this item is purchased separately
by a department to match its existing equipment. The Fire Department
estimates that new radio equipment for this truck would cost
approximately $2,500 and recommends that this item be a separate purchase
by the department when the truck is available. The 1962 Chev truck can
be traded in for a $7,500 allowance, but all bidders would allow the City
the opportunity to Bell the truck outright prior to delivery if they felt
they could receive more money for it through this method.
it is the Fire Department's recommendation that the low bid from
Minnesota Conway be accepted and that a contract be entered into for the
new truck. The low bidder also provided, as an alternate, the option to
enter into a lease/purchase arrangement at an interest cost of
7.3 percent to 7.5 percent depending on whether the term was three years
or five years. The specifications had requested this option in light of
WIM
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
the fact that the Fire Hall Construction Fund would not have the total
funds available to meet the anticipated cost of the new truck. Although
a decision would not have to be made immediately on how the truck would
be financed, if the department was authorized to purchase the equipment,
a lease/purchase arrangement could be established before delivery on any
balance the City would desire to be financed. The Fire Hall Construction
Fund has currently approximately $215,000 available that can be used for
the purchase of a new truck. As a result, approximately $60,000 would be
needed from other sources within seven to ten months when delivery is
made. The options are numerous in that if it is decided later to use the
lease/purchase arrangement, this would give the department a number of
years to acquire the balance through tax levies. Naturally, another
option would he to transfer monies from the Capital Outlay Fund to make
up the balance if so desired. During 1988, the budget included in
Capital Outlay $125,000 for the renovation of the Mississippi River
Bridge; and since that item is no longer being considered, technically
the City does have the funds available if it wishes to use a portion of
the bridge money for a new fire truck. At the present time, an interest
rate of 7.3 percent almost makes it beneficial for the City to go through
a lease program on the balance rather than using its cash reserve, as
typically the City can earn more interest on its investments than the
cost of financing.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to accept the recommendation of the
Fire Department and award a bid for a new aerial ladder truck to
Minnesota Conway Fire Equipment in the amount of $279,500 with the
option to trade in the 1962 Chev for $7,500.
2. Reject all bids and not authorize the purchase.
3. Require the Fire Department to prepare specifications for a different
type of pumper and rP-advertise.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although I have reviewed the bid specifications, it has been the Fire
Department's Truck Committee that has researched the type of vehicle it
is seeking by visiting other communities and talking to manufacturers in
general. The City staff does not have a specific recommendation on
whether this type of vehicle should be purchased by the Fire Department.
The only recommendation the staff can make is if the Council is unwilling
to spend this kind of money for a new fire truck, specifications would
have to be prepared for an alternate pumper truck and be rebid to lower
the cost.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of bid tabulation sheet; bid forms from the three bidders; the
specification documents are quite lengthy and refer mainly to specific
items on the truck from cabinets to pump equipment nozzles, etc., and
have not been included with the supplement.
-14-
NEW PYRE TRUCK 6 LADDER APPARATUS
Bid Opening 2:00 p.m.
December 28, 1987
Total
Total Price Outright Delivery
with Trade-in Bid Time
$273,703 $282,203 10-12 mos.
$261,000 $288,500 280 days
$272.000 $274,500 210 days
EM
Trade-in
Bidder
Bid Bond
Allowance
Sutphen Corp.
Yea
$8,500
Garay -s Safety Equip.
Yes
57,500
MN Conway Fire
Yea
$7,500
Total
Total Price Outright Delivery
with Trade-in Bid Time
$273,703 $282,203 10-12 mos.
$261,000 $288,500 280 days
$272.000 $274,500 210 days
EM
„ CITY OF MONTICE=
PROPOSAL FORM
FOR
ONE (1) CUSTCM CLASS "A- QUINT OMWINATION 1500 MW75 FT.
AERIAL PUMPING ENGINE
1. Outright purchase price of equipment being bid as.specified-
S 279,500.00
2. Trade-in Value: _.,_..
1962 Chev 750 GPM Pumper S 7,500.00
3. Item $i Less Item f2 (Trade-in purchase price.
S 272,000.00
4. Simple interest annual rate for lease
purchase or purchase (3 to 5 yr. program)
and yearly payment. (Attach schedule of
down payment options, annual payments,
or other terms available,) see attached 9
5. Approximate delivery date: 210 days
6. Model year of,chassis/cab bid 1989 Hurricane 4 door
Name of Bidder: Minnesota Conway Fire 6 Safety
Address: 4565 N. 77th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Signed By:
308
FEDERAL SIGNAL CREDIT CORPORATION
City of Monticello Lease - Purchase Payment Schedule
Three (3) Annual Payments $83,371.71
Pavment Number Payment Amount Interest Principal Purchase Price
Remaining Balance
Sales Price
Down Payment
54,400.00
272,000.00
1
83,371.71
15.884.80
67,486.91
150,113.09
2
83,371.71
10,958.26
72,413.45
77,699.64
3
83,371.71
5,672.07
77,699.64
0
Five (5) Annual
Payments $53,783.04
1
53,783.04
16,320.00
37,463.04
180,136.96
2
53,784.04
13,510.27
40,272.77
139,864.19
3
53,784.04
10,489.81
43,293.23
96,570.96
4
53,783.04
7,242.82
46,540.22
50,030.74
5
53,783.04
3,752.30
50.030.74
0
FEDERAL SIGNAL CREDIT CORPORATION
rrunlcipa• Lease eurcnase riwycau,
August 15, 1987
Downpayments of 206 OR A -Rated Municipalities With No Downpayment
Fayment Factors (Advance Basis)
Term
Rate
Mo.
Payment
Factors
(Arrears
Basis)
Term
Rate
Mo.
Ctrly.
S/A
Ann.
3
years
7.306
.0310
.0935
.18e6
.3831
4
years
7.406
.0241
.0726
.1467
.2979
5
years
7.506
.0200
.0604
.1218
.2472
6
years
7.756
.0174
.0525
.1056
.2147
7
years
8.25".
.0157
.0474
.0955
.1937
Fayment Factors (Advance Basis)
Term
Rate
Mo.
Ctrly.
S/A
Ann.
3 years
7.306
.0306
.0919
.1820
.3571
4 years
7.4C€
.0240
.0715
.1415
.2774
5 years
7.506
.0199
.0593
.1174
.2299
6 years
7.756
.0173
.0515
.1018
.1592
7 years
6.256
C156
.0464
.0917
.1790
Downpayments
of Less Than 206
Payment
Factors
(Arrears
Basis)
Term
Rate
No.
Ctrly.
S/A
Ann.
3 years
7-4-M
.6311
.0938
.1891
.3642
4 years
7.658
.0242
.0731
.1475
.2996
5 years
7.958
.0203
.0611
.1231
.2501
6 years
8.158
.0176
.0531
.1070
.2173
7 years
6.G58
.0159
.C -46C
.0967
.1964
Payment
Factors
(Advance
Basis)
Term
Rate
Mo.
Ctrly.
S/A
Ann.
3 years
7.47%-
309
.0920
. 823
----
4 years
7.656
.0240
.071e
.1420
----
5 years
7.956
.0201
.0595
.1164
----
6 years
0.158
.0175
.0520
.1026
----
7 years
8.656
.0158
.0470
.0927
ieO7
Conditions:
1. Interest paid by Lessee under lease agreement must be exempt fro
Federal Income Taxes.
2. Subject to credit approval and to documentation drafted or approved
by Federal Signal Credit Corporation.
3. Rates and payment factors, while expected firm, are for indication
purposes only and are subject to change without notice unless
confirmed. In bid situations where a firm payment amount is required,
please contact Federal Signal Credit Corporation at 312/954-2014.
4. If a municipality is unsure of their bond rating, please call Federal
.signal Credit Corporation.
ederal Siqnal Credit Corp. Elgin Sweeper Company Emergency One, Inc.
312/954-2014 312/741-5370 904/237-1122
T
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PROPOSAL FORM
FOR
ONE (1) CUSTOM C* SS "A" QUINT COMBINATION 1500 GPM175 FT.
AERIAL PUKPING ENGINE
1. Outright purchase price of equipment being bid as specified.
5282,203.00
2. Trade-in Value:
1962 Chev 750 GPM Pumper 5 8.500.00
3. Item $1 Less Item @2 (Trade-in purchase price.
$27-.7n7.On
4. Simple interest annual rate for lease
purchase or purchase (3 to 5 yr. program)
and yearly payment. (Attach schedule of
down payment options, annual payments,
or other terms available.) �.� o
5. Approximate delivery date: LD -32 2 ,",,,,..r,,, �^' lowing
6. Model year of chassis/cab bid signning of purcgeRement
Name of Bidder: SUTPHEN CORPORATION
Address: 7000 Columbus-Marvsville Road
Amain. Ohio 43002
Signed By:
16
Phomas C. (Tom) S tphen,Pre 'dent
(• )There are many companies offering leasing plans. we are
providing a sample of only one. Should Sutphen Corporation
be awarded the contract to manufacture apparatus for City
of Monticello, research will be done to find the best/lowest
percentage available.
0
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PROPOSAL FOR!!
FOR
ONE (1) CUSTOM CLASS "A" QIIINP COMBINATION 1500 GFM/75 FT. ;
AERIAL POMPING ENGINE
Outright purchase price of equipment being bid as specified.
$288.500.00
2. Trade-in value:
1962 Chev 750 GPM Pumper
3. Item 11 Less Item 12 (Trade-in purchase price.
5.
6.
$ 7.500.00
$281.000.00
Simple interest annual rate for lease
purchase or purchase D to 5 yr. program)
and yearly payment. (Attach schedule of
down payment options, annual payments,
or other tests available.) 7.58% t0 7.80% 9
Approximate delivery date: 280 WORKING DAYS ARO
Model year of chassis/cab bid, 1988 PIERCE ARROW CHASSIS
Name of Bidder: CLAREY'S SAFETY EOUIPNIFNT. INC.
Address: NORTHGATE SHOPPING CENTER
ROCHESTER. NPI 55903
Signed By:
6)
Clareq's Safety Equipment, Inc.
Nape 6rypppp,o Center a Rochester, MN 55801
4r1 MONEY • DEC IS IONS ss
all -pro aeries
MODEL CALCLL.ATION/OUTPUT
a4,ipp�A1B: AMaRTIIATIOi TABLE XONTIM A n 73' AERIAL
� - o-•,, • M. 800.00 2. NO. OF YEARS n
3.00 a
:TM 4.00 4. INTEREST RATE a
S
T. 58 $
PAYMENT B0. 880.30 6. a PAYI¢NTS/YEAR +
1.00Daj
.;START YR . 1.00 8. SST PAYMENT KL •
12.00
Fvn...
PLEASE NOTE:
PRINCIPLE PAmNT REFLECTS A DOWN PAYMENT OF 20%
OF THE CONTRACT IN THE MOUNT OF $57,700.00.
• TASiA.13Ti OUTPUT EXPECTED
pp11EIfThMD. --`INTEREST AMORTIZED SALAAM
ACCUM INT
..•--
`may°'" 17, 494.64 71, 385.66 1$9, 414.40
17,4S4.64
17,494.64b 71. 383.66
12,08L61 76.796.69 82, 617.66
29. 378.23
IE.083.6 i 76. 796.69
l: 6,262.42 82,617.66 0.00
35.840.67
3 6,262.4-- 82, 617.66
LAST PAYMENT .
88, 800.08
Vtow 1' 1S OUR BUSAiW
=' >=Clareq'sSafety Equipment, Inc.
_ N-Pv% a Shopping C8MW a RocheSW. MN 55901
lk
+i
t
$6 MON E Y• DEC I S I ON S ss
all -pro series
" —ORYS
LOANS MODES CALCULATION/OUTPUT.
IONS MORTGAGE AMORTIZATION TABLE MONTICEl10 751 AERIAL
. a PRINCIPAL o 230, 800.00 2. NO. OF YEARS a 4.00
-3. 1" OF MOWHS a 0.00 4. INTEREST RATE a 7.80
.� REGULAR PAYMENT - 69,373.43 6. 0 PAYMENTS/YEAR o 1.00
T, OUTPUT START YR a 1.00 B. IST PAYMENT NO. a 1.00
PLEASE NOTE:
PRINCIPLE PAYMENT REFLECTS A DOWN PAYMENT OF 20%
OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF 557,700.00.
i
TABULAR OUTPUT EXPECTED
PAYMENT NO INTEREST AMORTIZED BALANCE ACCUM INT
1 18, 002.40 51, 371.03 179, 429. 00 l a, 002. 40
1 18, 002.40 51, 371.03
1 13. 995.46 55. 377.97 124, 071.00 31, 997. 86
2 13,995.46 55,377.97
1 9,675.98 59. 697.45 64, 353. 55 41. 673. 64
3 9,675.9a 59,697.45
1 5.019.58 6A,333.54 0.00 46, 693. 42
l
4 5.019.50 64,353.54
LAST PAYMENT . 69.373. 12
1
1
( s
l
SAFE" Is OUR SUSDAW
Clare �afely-Equipmeaf,Jnr_
3�.: NorVq- SBoppuq Carmw • p4ww3 , MN 55901
- $0 M 0 N E V 4 D E C I S IONS •s
-+.
all -pro series
MODEL CALCULATION/OUTPUT
ION:LOANS
IONS MORTGAGE APIORTIZATION TABLE MOMTICELIO 75' AERIAL
PRINCIPAL
Q 230,800.00
2. N0. OF YEARS •
5.00 a
3, No. OF NONT14S
o 0.00
4. INTEREST RATE •
7.80
I .y REGULAR PAYMENT a 57.501.01
6. 1 PAYMENTS/YEAR •
1.00
OUTPUT START VA - 1.00
8. IST PAYMENT NO. •
1.00
PLEASE NOTE:
PRINCIPLE PAYMENT REFLECTS A DOWN PAYMENT OF 20%
OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF S57,700.00.
TABULAR OUTPUT EXPECTED
1
i
PAYMENT NO
INTEREST AMORTIZED BALANCE
ACCUN INT
1
18, 002.40 39, 498.61 191, 301.40
18, 002. 40
1
18. 002.40 39,498.61
1
`T
14. 921.31 4E, 379.50 148, 721.90
32. 923. 95
2
14, 921.31 42, 579.50
1
11. 600.31 45, 900.71 102, 821.20
44, 324. 22
3
1 ! , 600.31 43, 900. 71
1
_ -
8.020.05 49, 480. 96 33, 340.22
Ma
52, 344. 27
0,020.05 49, 480.96
1
4. 160.54 53, 340.23 0.00
56. 704.81
i s
4,160.54 53, 340.23
LAST PAYMENT •
57, 500. 76
�. - dAifTY f3 OUA 9IILS0IO!i! %
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
11. Consideration of Entering a 1988 Maintenance Agreement with Wright County
Highway Department. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello performs routine maintenance such as snow and ice
removal on certain portions of County state -aid highways within the city
limits. These maintenance tasks are performed by the City of Monticello
in order to maintain a higher level of service. In most cases, our crews
travel these sections of road during maintenance of other city streets
and often have the roadways cleared before County crews begin. 'he
County recognizes that the cities often wish to perform maintenance on
County state -aid highways within their own city limits. Therefore, they
reimburse cities based upon typical County costs for each mile of roadway
the cities maintain.
The reimbursement comes to us in the form of a check each December.
Costs for any given year are based upon the County's actual cost the year
before and are computed in each agreement. For example, in 1987 we
received a check for $4,810 based upon the County's 1986 average annual
cost.
A copy of the proposed agreement is enclosed for your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the maintenance agreement as
enclosed.
2. The second alternative would be not to approve the agreement and to
revert to having the County maintain those portions of the County
state -aid roads within the City of Monticello. It is the staff's
opinion that this would result in a lower level of service to our
residents.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council opt for alternative
number one and approve the maintenance agreement with Wright County.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the 1988 agreement and letter from Wright County.
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright Courtry Public works Building
Route No. 1 • Box 97.8
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
* Jct. T. N. 25 and C. R. 138 WAYNE a FlNGAtaoN, P.E.
Telephone (C) 12) 68R3WO COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
December 22, 1987
Arve Grimsmo, Mayor
City of Monticello
250 Fast Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: 1988 Maintenance Agreement
Dear Mayor and Honorable Councilpersons:
It is once again time to renew our annual municipal maintenance
agreement for the maintenance activities and the roads listed on the
enclosed agreement.
You may remember that the coats used in computing the reimbursement
for the maintenance agreements is the highest average annual cost per mile
for either the rural or municipal roadway segmenta in the previous year.
This is consistent with state -aid procedures. In most cases maintenance
activities are more costly is municipal areas therefore these are the
routine maintenance costa that are used in computing the cost per mile for
reimbursement. To give you an idea of the coat for each maintenance
activity we have shown the 1986 average cost per mile for each activity to
the 1988 maintenance agreement.
I have enclosed two copies of the 1988 agreemaat for your review and
approval. Please return one copy of the signed agreement and retain the
other copy for your files.
Lastly, I have enclosed a check reimbursing your eity for the
maintenance activities covered under our 1987 agreement.
If you have any Questions concerning this please don't hesitate to
contact our office.
Sincorely,
Wayne A. Fingalson
Wright County Highway/Engineer
by, Dave Montebello
Project Engineer
Enclosure: (2) 1988 Municipal Maintenance Agreements
(1) Chock for 1987 Maintenance Work
0//
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered Into by end between the City of Monticello
heralmfter referred to as the "City' and the County of Wright hereinafter rofartsd
to ,the "County-.
WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes,
permits the County to designate car tufa roads
sad streets within the City as County State Aid Highways, mad
WHEREAS, the City hes concurred In the designation of the County S tato Aid
Nlghvay
vl thin Its limits es identified In County Board's resolution• of August 28, Oe [ober 8,
er 5
Novemb, Deeembec 3, December 27, 1957 Mad Jannary 7, 1958, sad
WHEREAS, it is deemed to the bast Interest of ell parties that the duties and
res possibilities of both the City end the County as to ma loteasoce on said County State
Aid Highways to to clearly def load,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard to sold County State Aid Highway maintenance:
That the City will be responsible for routine malotemaca on the following highways.
MINT.
PLAN ROAD SEGMENT MILLS COST/MI. e TOTAL COST-
A. CSAH 75 From Willow St. to L. Jct. CSAR 39 3.76 786.04 2,941.29
(Includes four lens port ton.)
C. CSAR 39 From City Puh. Works Bldg. to 0.32 196.61 62.92
W. Jct. Of CSAII 75
D. CSAR 58From T.N. 25 to CSAR 75 0.465 2,583.39 1,201.78
D. CSAH 59 From Walnut $treat to CSAII 15 0.234 2,583.39 604.51
TOTAL T-7-5; 'alo.00
That the routine MA latenancm shall consist of the following: (Mslnt. Plan)
A. (CSAII 75) - Snow and Ice removal
C. (CSAH 39) - 251 of the snow and Ice removal
D. .(CSAH 58 6 59) - Patching, Crock-seelfng. drainage Maintenance, snow and Ice
removal, and tree trimming 6 brush removal.
-Based o0 1986 average mnawl cos u.
That when the City does& It desirable to remove snow by haul lag, It shell do so at its
own expense.
That the County will be tasponsible for all other malotamoce .
That to December of 1988 the City shall Car -tve payment from the County for their
work. Thl& amount the . sad oo the 19 87 Moorage annual cost par mile for routine
as Iotausoc0 oo Munlctpol County Stats Aid Highways. The we
rag. manual cost per mile will
reflect only those costs associated with the areas of routine aMlmtemoCs for which the
City Is responslbla.
ADOPTEDt
19
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clatk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby cattily that the above 1& s true and correct copy of s resolution duly passed,
adop Led and approved by the City Council of sold City on . 19
City Clerk
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED.
COIINTI OF 4h,1rN7- Nacos of City
CChatted.a t( hs lgib
ATTEST.
.7
"T s•�
C Ynly COordl L r
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
12. Consideration of Adopting a Revised Schedule of Fees for Services,
Licenses, and Permits. (R.w.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the beginning of each year, the City staff normally reviews the
license and fee schedules for all activities that require licenses,
permits, and other fees and recommends adjustments where applicable.
Enclosed with the supplement you will find a listing of the most common
licenses issued and fee schedules for such activities as conditional
uses, variances, subdivision fees, licenses, along with sewer and water
permits and hookups, etc. Generally speaking, no major changes are being
proposed for most categories of fees during 1988, as many of the fees
were changed at the beginning of 1987 to more appropriate cover expenses,
etc.
The following briefly describes the general categories or fees that are
recommended for increases. Under the first category of Liquor and Beer
Licenses, the only change proposed at this time would be to increase the
Sunday Liquor Sales License fee from $100 to $200, which is the statutory
limit. Although the on -sale regular liquor licenses have not been
increased for a long time, I have no current recommendation on increasing
this fee at the present time.
Another category of fees that have not increased for a number of years
relate to animal impoundment charges. During a recent survey of
surrounding communities, it was apparent that the City of Monticello had
one of the lowest fees for dog igv.)undment charges. As a result of our
survey and the fact that the fees have not changed for a number of years,
it is recommended that the fine for the first occurrence be increased to
$25, second occurrence $35, and third or more at $50, plus $6.75 per day
for each day Lhe animal is housed at the dog pound facility. The $6.75
charge coincides with what is currently charged to surrounding
communities and townships that house animals in our facility.
Although no changes are recommended at the present time for the balance
of the fees in the schedule, the City staff has been reviewing the
possibility of some type of eliding scale that could be used on sewer
hookup charges that would pertain to large users. Currently, the City
uses $700 as a unit charge, which Is then applied to the type of business
or facility hooking onto our system, and concerns have been raised by the.
Business and Industrial Development Committee that in the case of a large
user such as a bottling company, for exarnple, the hookup fee could be
enormous in the 650,000 to $100,000 range. The Committee's concerns are
well warranted; and as a result, a recommendation on a revised water
and/or sewer hookup charge may be forthcoming for Council aetion. It is
also anticipated from preliminary review that Lhe sewer and water rates
for 1988 will also remain unchanged; but again, the staff is reviewing
these items, and if an increase or decrease is necessary, this would be
on the agenda in the near future.
-16-
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be a single motion to adopt the fee
schedule for 1988 as recommended.
2. If the Council feels that a particular license, fee, or permit should
be adjusted, this could be noted and then the fee schedule adopted.
3. A third alternative could be to not adjust any of the fees as
recommended but leave at the 1987 level.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since considerable time was spent in reviewing and adjusting fees last
year, the only increases recommended at this time relate to animal
impoundment fees and the Sunday Liquor License fee. Additionally in the
future, it may be necessary to readjust the sewer and water charges
and/or the sever hookup fees; but at the present time, it is recommended
the present schedule be adopted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed license and fee schedule with comparisons to 1987
schedule.
CITY OF 11?NTICELL4
LICENSE AND FEE SCHEDULE
Nine, On-oalo
Nino/3.2 Beer Combination, On-oalo
3.2 Beer, on -sale
3.2 Deer, off -sale
Liquor, On -sale
Liquor, Sunday Sales
Liquor, Set-ups
Liquor, Club Iv4termn-e erg.)
Membership
200
or loss
201
- 500
501
- 1000
1001
- 2000
2001
- 4000
over
4000
roving Buildings
Building Inspection (non-pormit related)
Conditional Use Permit
setback Variances
All Other Variances
Rezoning Request (all necessary consulti.ng oxpensos)
Simple Subdivision
Plat Subdivisions 6 PUD'a
Previous
S 245 per year
400 per year
245 per year
50 par year
3,300 par year
t00 per year
250 per year
S 300
500
650
800
1,000
2,000
$ 75 4 expanaoo
25 for let 2 hours
15 per hour thoreaftor
75 - expenses
25 4 expenses
75 4 expenses
75 4 expenses
75 4 ex penooe
200 4 510/acre
4 expenses
1988
Recommended
S 250 per year
450 per year
250 per year
75 Por year
3,300 par year
200 (statutory limit)
250 per year
S 300 (statutory limit)
500 Istatutory limit)
650 (statutory limit)
800 (statutory limit)
#,000 (statutory limit)
2,000 (statutory limit)
$ 100 4 expenses
30 for lot hour
15 per hour thereafter
125 4 expenses
50 4 OX13e11800
125 4 expanses
250 4 expenses
125 4 expenses
(bane) 300 4 100/acre up to 10 acres.
25 par acre after 10 acres
expenses if it excaodo
what collected --if under,
City will refund the
excess of the per acro
deposit.
city 4 f 'icello
„%
•�
LicensC-and Fee Schedule
Page 2
1488
Recommended
Previous
5 50 per device
Gambling, Annual
$ 50 per device
24 per dories
Gambling, Single Occasion
20 per device
75/yr. for more then
Bingo
75/yr. for more
5 events
than 5 events
20/yr. for S or lase
20/yr. for 5 or leas
1 da
/first y;
Traveling Shows
100/fat day;
50/day thereafter
SO
50/day thereafter
$ 10one time charge
Pot License
S 10 one time charge
fat occurrence 25.00 4 6.75/day
Dog impoundment
12.50 + 4.00/day
2nd occurrence 35.00 4 6.75/day
25.00 4 4.00/day
35.00 + 4.00/day
3rd occurrence 50.00 4 6.75/day
$ 25 permit
Excavation Permit
S 10 permit
150 • es
Street vacation
50 4 expenses
50 License roe
Scavenger (septic tank pumping)
50 License Fee
5 Dumping Charge
Transient Merchant
S 50/day + 3.50 app. fee
Daily fees, independent transient merchant
5 50/day 4 3.50 app. foe
75/yr. + 3.50 app. foo
Annual fees, private promise
75/yr. 4 3.50 app. foe
10/day + ].50 app. !so
Deily face, transient merchant oporati.dg under
10/day + 3.50 app. foe
authority of annual permit
$ 20 + delinquency
water shut-off. then turned on
S 15 4 delinquency
20
water Connection Permit
Previously combined
with sower
300 4 material coat
Water Nookup Charge - 1" lino
$0 4 material coat
425 4 material coat
W.
00 4 material cost
14"
150 4 material coot
550 4 motorial coat
• 2"
300 4 material cost
700 4 material coat
900 4 materiacoat
3"
500 4 material cost
4"
750 4 material coat
1,200 4 materiall cost
1,500 4 material coot
6"
1,000 4 material coat
2,000 + materiel coat
8"
1,500 4 material coat
City of Monticello
License and Fee Schedule
Page 3
Nater Rates, 1988 - 0 - 500 cu ft
501 - 4000 cu ft
4001 - 75,000 cu ft
over 75,000 cu ft
Sever Connection Permit
Saver and Nater Combination Permit
Sower (lookup Charge - Residential - Single Family
- All others per unit equivalent
Sower Rates, 1960
Building Permit Fees 1988
ON
Previous
1 $ 6.00 minimum
.35 par 100 cu it
.18 per 100 cu it
.105 per 100 cu ft
$ 10
Previously not available
100
100
510/firet 500 cu ft
1.29 par 100 cu it
thereafter
1988
Recommended
$ 6.00 minimum
.50 per 100 cu it
.30 per 100 cu it
.20 par 100 cu it
5 20
30
300
300
$10/first 500 cu ft
1.33 per 100 cu it
thereafter
"Sea attached Schedule"
(1985 Rates)
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
13. Consideration of Making Annual Appointments. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Minnesota Statutes require that at the first meeting of the new year
certain appointments be made. Past practice has been to pass a single
motion adopting all appointments at the end of the discussion. Attached
you will find a list of the required appointments, and I request that
after the completion of the discussion, a single motion be passed making
the appointments.
a. City Depositories. During the past year, three official
depositories were named, including Wright Oounty State Bank,
Security Federal Savings 6 loan, and First National Bank of
Monticello. In addition, under Minnesota Statutes 239, the Chief
Financial Officer has also been designated the authority to name
other official depositories for the purpose of investments.
Since financial institutions not within the city are depositories
for investment purposes only, the official depositories are
usually just the three mentioned above and the motion includes
the authorization for the Chief Financial Officer to designate
other depositories when necessary for investment purposes only.
b. Official Newspaper - Monticello Times.
C. Health Officer. Historically, Dr. Maus has served as the City
Health Officer, and it is suggested that this appointment simply
be renewed annually.
d. Acting Mayor. Annually, one person on the Council must be
stipule ted to act as Mayor in the absence of the elected Mayor.
For the past few years, Fran Fair has been filling this role.
e. Representatives to Other Multi -Jurisdictional Bodies. Three
appointments are necessary for selecting the City representative
to serve on each of the following bodies: Community Education
Advisory Board, Joint Fire Board, and the OAA Board. Currently,
Warren Smith has served on the Community Education Board, Rick
Wolfsteller on the Fire Board, and the Mayor on the OAA Board.
f. Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Annually, one appointment
is requirea for the Housing ana Redevelopment Authority. The HRA
appointments are made by the Mayor with formal ratification by
the City Council. The current five-year term that is expiring
has been filled by Everette Ellison, who has agreed to continue
In this capacity and has been approved by the HRA Committee in
general.
-18-
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
g. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is made up of five
members serving one-year appointments. For the year 1988, all
current members have been asked to respond whether they are
willing to accept re -appointment for another year; and at the
time this item is being prepared, I am not aware of any of the
current members who have declined to be re -appointed. Possibly
by Monday night Gary Anderson will know whether everybody is
willing to accept re -appointment.
Library Board. The Library Board, by ordinance, requires a
Mayoral appointment with Council ratification. Currently, two
terms expire this year, one being held by Warren Smith and the
other by Dr. Joel Erickson. Both individuals have decided to
decline re -appointment to the Library Board, and the Library
Board is currently considering eight applications to fill the two
expired terms. The Board Members are being polled for two or
three reconxnendations that can be submitted to the Mayor for
approval and Council ratification. Again, on Monday evening,
Warren may be able to provide more information on the selection
process and recommendations of the Board to fill the two
vacancies.
The following appointments are not required to be made annually by
Statute, but each of them performs services on an as -needed basis for the
City. In the past, the Council has made a practice of making these
appointments along with the required appointments at the annual meeting.
1. City Attorney. Mr. Tom Hayes from Smith, Pringle, and Hayes, has
been tilling this position for the past few months and has
indicated a desire to continue in this position. I believe I
speak for the City staff in supporting the continued appointment
of Mr. Hayes as City Attorney.
2. Consulting Planner. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban has been the
City's Planning Firm for a number of years, and while this not
need to be a formal appointment, such appointments can be made at
this time.
3. City Auditor. This, also, is not a required annual appointment
but can oe anne on an as -needed basis or by specification.
Historically, we have used Gruys Johnson 6 Aasoeiates to do our
audit and recommend re -appointment at this time.
1. Consulting Engineer. For the past number of years, the Council
has not mace the annual appointment for Consulting Engineer
within the context of this agenda item, but rather has analyzed
and evaluated the contract services with OSM as a separate and
distinct item on the agenda, usually at a later meeting. Since
we have not yet met with OSM on any of the terms and conditions
C
C
council Agenda - 1/11/88
in the engineering contract, no official appointment is really
necessary at this time and possibly the matter would come before
the Oouncil at a later meeting if staff feels the terms and
conditions of the engineering contract need review.
The attached sheet, as supporting data, lists all the members of the
various commissions and the appropriate appointments, both required and
discretionary, for this year's meeting. The underlined names are the
ones needing appointment this year.
-20-
ANNUAL APPOINT"ENTS
Official Depositories:
Newspaper:
Rousing and Redevelopment Authority:
(5 -year staggered terms)
Planning Commission:
(1 -year term)
Health Officer:
11 year)
Acting Mayor:
(1 year)
Joint Commissions:
Community Education
Fire Board
OAA
Library Board
(3 -year staggered)
Attorney:
Planner:
Auditor:
C
Wright County State Bank
Security Federal Savings 6 Loan
First National Bank of Monticello
Monticello Times
1.
Ren Maus
12/91
2.
Ben Smith
12/90
3.
Bud Schrupp
12/89
4.
Al Larson
12/88
5.
Everette Ellison
12/92
1.
Richard Carlson
2.
Joke Dow] ing
3.
Cindx Lem
4.
Richard Martie
5.
Jim Ridgeway
Dr. Donald Maus
Fran Fair -
Warren Smith 'I
Rick Wolfsteller
Arve Grimsmo i
I. Z -d 12/90
2. Dr. Donald Maus 12/88
3. AW-ey Io4 i F -ra[ . 4, 12/90
4. Pat Schwarz 12/88
5. Marguerite Pringle 12/89
Smith, Pringle 6 Hayes
Dahlgren, Shardlw 6 Oban
Gruys Johnson
MONTICELLO PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
Warren Smith, Chairman
Joel Erickson, Vice Chairman
Marguerite Pringle, Secretary
Pat Schwarz
Donald Maus
Marge Bauer, Librarian.
11 January 1988
To the Mayor and City Council,
As you knew, the mayor will be appointing two new
members to the library board tonight, and he has asked
for recommendations from the current board anal
librarian for qualified candsadates.
The beard's selection process was this: We solicited
names of local people who were interested in the
position by word of mouth and by advertising in the
Monticello Times. All candidates were informally
interviewed by either the chairman or the librarian.. A
^ poll was taken of board members and the librarian and
V the two people with the most votes are being suggested
as the two new board members. They ares
Cd Solberg, 1204 Sandy Lane
Mary Jane Puncochae, 700 East 3rd Street.
A total of eight citizens volunteered for the two
Openings on the library beard.
One final note ---The library is steadily running out of
library space because of continuous growth in use and
in circulation materials. It won't be long before the
city will be locking at a requeat for an addition on to
the present structure. I mention this as a point of
information to make city council members and city staff
aware of the situation; no action is needed at this
time; However, the library board would appreciate some
direction it should be taking to prepare for the day,
i.e., should a reserve building fund be established for
future construction'
I will answer any other questions about thea• things at
the Council meeting.
Marren Smith
Chairman
Monticello Library Pd
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
J 14. Consideration of Application to Renew a Gambling License - Applicant,
American Legion Cub. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you are aware, the State of Minnesota now issues Charitable Gambling
Licenses. Before any new license or renewal is granted, a copy of the
application must be submitted to the City and 30 days granted for
objection by the local government. This request is an application from
the American Legion who currently sells pull tabs at the Monticello
Liquors. Original approval was granted approximately two years ago. No
complaints have been received by the City for this gambling activity.
Providing all information complies with state law, the State will grant
the license unless it receives a statement from the City objecting to it
within 30 days of filing. If you have no objection to the renewal of
this license, then no action is required.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Take no action; State will renew the license.
2. Pile an objection with the State of Minnesota.
1
C. STAFF RBCOr M2MTION :
Staff recomnends that no action be taken.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-21-
C
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
15. Consideration of Report from PSG, Inc., on Odor Problems at WWTP. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Odor problems at the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant have become
more severe and frequent in the past months. PSG, as part of their
contract with the City, has agreed to make best efforts towards reducing
odors at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. They have been slow in
responding to the original odor control problems we have experienced in
the past and I believe have in recent months compounded odor problems at
the Wastewater Treatment Plant by their own operations.
We received the results of an odor control study conducted earlier this
year. I have sent this to the City Council earlier this week under
separate cover. At Monday evening's meeting, representatives of PSC will
be on hand to discuss the odor reduction report to indicate that they
will operate the plant in the future with a higher priority on odor
reduction and in the near future will make further recommendations to
deal with the original odor control problems. I feel it is important to
stress to PSG that the City will not tolerate increases in odor at the
Treatment Plant resulting from PSG's operations and that we insist that
they reduce odors to an acceptable level at the Treatment Plant. To
achieve that end we will work together with them as a team, both giving
best efforts toward odor reduction.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
At this time, there really are no alternative actions. We must move
ahead with odor control measures at the Treatment Plant.
C. STAFF RECOMMF,NDATION:
Staff recommendation is that we impress upon PSG the importance of odor
control and the importance of continuing to work as a team.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
odor reduction evaluation and letter drafted to PSG (only those
individuals who have not previously received this information will
receive it in the agenda packet).
-22-
city o/ Monticello
MONTICELLO, MN 55362-9245
December 15, 1987
-0 (612) 295.2711
Ivo (612) 333.5739
Professional Services Group, Inc.
1 Jenkintown Station
115 West Avenue
Suite 101
srva Gnmamo
ry Coumu: Jenkintown, PA 19046-2025
JM $bn,gan
°pan Fau Attn: Mr. Doug Horton
Ntmiam fav
Warren Smah vice President of operations
Early in 1987, odor problems at Monticello's Wastewater Treatment
Plant became more frequent and more severe. In the spring of 1987,
we were assured that your firm would send an expert in the area of
odor control to the Monticello Wastewater Treatment plant to evaluate
the increasing odor control problems. It took several months of
reminding your staff of this promise before in August of 1987
Mr. Dennis oierrill of your Oklahoma City project visited our
wastewater treatment plant. Since August, odor problems have at
times been unbearable. During the month of November, odors eminating
from the treatment plant encompassed not only new major housing
developments but also found their way into the Monticello Nursing
Home and 80spitai and beyond.
We have discussed this with your managers at the wastewater treatment
plant and asked both Steve Sunt and Kelsey McGuire to place
informational items in the local paper that the problem is being
studied and that there are people who will address their problems.
n Ems Msewer
7ntedo, MnneaoYa
55362.9245
Re: Contract Operations - Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant
an+11sUAW
Monticello, MN
p.th W01121e0e1
'01C W*`U
jonn Simons
Dear Mr. Horton:
,an; -1 a Zoning:
Gary 4naersan
The City of Monticello takes great pride in its award winning
_o„e,,,,a gym:
wastewater treatment plant. I, as well as many others, believe that
0*0Kor0mch4"
contract operations with Professional Services Group which began in
September of 1986 would benefit the City of Monticello. We still
believe in the long run contract operations of such facilities will
be the wavo of the future. Recently, however, we have been given
reason to doubt your firm's commitment to the operation of this
wastewater treatment plant.
During al l of our preparation for contract operations and our
negotiations with your firm, we pointed out that the City of
Monticello had periodic problems with odors eminating from its
wastewater treatment plant in the past. Representatives of your firm
such as Mike Nelson and Mike Robbins assured us that PSG had the
necessary expertise and was capable of reducing odor problems to a
minimum at our facility. We were assured that PSG would "make best
efforts to minimize odor at the facility."
Early in 1987, odor problems at Monticello's Wastewater Treatment
Plant became more frequent and more severe. In the spring of 1987,
we were assured that your firm would send an expert in the area of
odor control to the Monticello Wastewater Treatment plant to evaluate
the increasing odor control problems. It took several months of
reminding your staff of this promise before in August of 1987
Mr. Dennis oierrill of your Oklahoma City project visited our
wastewater treatment plant. Since August, odor problems have at
times been unbearable. During the month of November, odors eminating
from the treatment plant encompassed not only new major housing
developments but also found their way into the Monticello Nursing
Home and 80spitai and beyond.
We have discussed this with your managers at the wastewater treatment
plant and asked both Steve Sunt and Kelsey McGuire to place
informational items in the local paper that the problem is being
studied and that there are people who will address their problems.
n Ems Msewer
7ntedo, MnneaoYa
55362.9245
Professional Services Group, Inc.
December 15, 1987
Page 2
So far, nothing has been done to let the general public know that
this problem is being addressed. We have not officially received any
word of any kind from Mr. Dennis Merrill about his inspection. I
have spoken about these problems to Mr. Bill Luther, Mr. Bob
Danhauser, and Mr. Larry Breimhurst, all representatives of your
firm. At a recent Planning Commission meeting, much of the Planning
Commission's discussion centered around the ever growing complaints
about odors eminating from the treatment plant. It is time for your
firm to get a handle on the situation. Certainly, "best efforts" are
not being applied to this problem.
We ask that you or your representatives address the City Council at
7:30 p.m., Monday, January 11, 1988, about this problem and bring
forth a proposal to minimize odors at the facility. If I can be of
any assistance in the meantime, please feel free to contact me at
work during the day or at home during the evening or weekends.
Please feel free to contact me at any hour, as most residents near
the treatment plant often do. _
Rea ctfully,
John E. Simola
Public Works Director
JESAd
cc: Rick Wolfsteller, City Admin.
Arve Grimsmo, Mayor
William C. Luther, Jr., PSG
Bob Danhauser, PSG
Kelsey McGuire, PSG, Monticello WWTP Mgr.
JS
File
� 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP
LETTER
OF
TRANSMITTAL
City of Monticello
WE 101. r0
12/16/87 John Sim ola
,oe....rE
Monticello Public Works Director
A!
Odor Control Reoort 2SO E_ Rroadwav
Montirplln_ Minnpcora 553A2
We are sending you ❑ Attached 0 Under Separate cover vie
the following items: ❑ Prints 0 Mylars 0 Copyof Letter
0 Specifications 0 Shop Drawings 0 Report Information
0
No 01 TITLE/DESCRIPTION
COPIES
1 Odor Reduction Evaluation
1
These are transmitted as checked below:
0 For Your Information
0 For Approval
0 For Comment
0 For your Use
0 As Per your Request
(I For Review and Comment
Remarks
0
0 Prints Returned After Loaned To Us
Copies To: —Ulaey 1lcGui r4—.F i Inc—
Signed: �
/•. J, !/f/mow JCS
CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
ODOR REDUCTION EVALUATION
j TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
page
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-1
2
INTRODUCTION
2-1
Background
2-1
Odor Control Philosophy
2-1
Purpose
2-1
3
ODOR SOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING
3-1
Gravity Thickeners
3-1
Flow Equalization
3-2
Preliminary Treatment
3-2
Primary Clarifiers
3-3
Trickling Filters
3-3
Activated Sludge Clarifiers
3-3
Anaerobic Digesters
3-4
4
ODOR CONTROL PROGRAM
4-1
Odor Control Investigations
4-1
Odor Complaint Record
4-1
Odor Scrubbing Systema
4-2
Hydraulic Loading
4-2
Commercial Contributors
4-2
5
RECO144ENDED ODOR MANAGEMENT PLAN
5-1
Odor Management Forms
5-1
Program Administration
5-1
Public Relations
5-1
wui0000e
Section 2
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The wastewater treatment facility was constructed in close
proximity to residential and commercial property. In the
past, odor complaints tended to be fairly infrequent:
however, a recent rash of odor complaints prompted a review
of odor containment requirements. Investigations conducted
by Professional Services Group's (PSG) staff indicated that
the trickling filters were the single largest contributor to
odors. They began immediately to chlorinate the trickling
filter effluent. Odor complaints were significantly reduced
when the chlorination was implemented.
ODOR CONTROL PHILOSOPHY
The emission of odorous compounds to the atmosphere causes a
severe, negative public reaction to the treatment facility,
the facility's staff, and the municipality it serves. It is
the duty of all personnel associated with the treatment
system to optimize all available odor abatement procedures.
Although the odor control and containment can be difficult,
the present technology can provide significant odor
reductions provided there is an appropriate commitment of
personnel and capital investment.
PURPOSE
Our investigations conducted at the Monticello facility
suggest a variety of readily available odor containment
options as well as problems requiring additional
investigation. This report begins a logical sequence of
events and procedures to ensure compliance with odor
emission standards.
5M/W03 2-1
Section 3
ODOR SOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING
The collection of data required to implement an accurate and
detailed odor control plan requires considerable investment
of time, labor, and capital; however, our initial
investigations suggest the following list of odor sources
in descending order of odor intensity.
o Gravity Thickeners
o Flow Equalization Structure
o Preliminary Treatment Structure
o Primary Clarifiers
o Trickling Filters
d Activated Sludge Clarifiers
o Anaerobic Digesters
GRAVITY THICKENERS
Gravity thickeners by nature are notorious sources of
hydrogen sulfide odor. Hydrogen sulfide gas concentrations
in excess of 100 ppm are not uncommon. Although during our
investigation we did not observe any inappropriate
operational procedures that could facilitate the release of
odors, we are suggesting the following actions to improve
efficiency:
o Optimize scrubber efficiency_. Presently, our
staff is oxidizing odorous compounds generated in
the gravity thickener with potassium permangan ata,
in accordance with the scrubber manufacturer's
recommendations: however, it has been widely
demonstrated that sodium hypochlorite will achieve
higher levels of hydrogen sulfide removal at a
lower cost than potassium permanganate.
o Optimize air turnover rate. Valving on scrubber
intake points appeared to be adequately balanced.
However, we may realize improved performance via
increased air turnover rate. We will monitor the
scrubber motor amperage with and without the
thickener entry door open. If a considerable
amperage change is noted, air intake volume will
be modified to permit higher air turnover rates.
0 oxidize aulfides in sludgo. Should efforts
described above fail to achieve desired results,
we will investigate dosing sludge entering the
thickener with potassium per mangenate. We have
requested that Carus Chemical, Inc. investigate
this option and provide recommendations.
awur0003 3-1
FLOW EQUALIZATION �• ,
No significant odors were noticed during our inspection;
however, a significant potential for odor exists. The
following precautions will be observed:
o If aeration is desired to oxygenate sewage, we
will not aerate sewage when the tank contents are
at or below pH 6.5.
o if tank contents do not require oxygenation, pumps
will be operated without the addition of
compressed air.
o If oxygenation of tank contents is required and
odors are persistently stripped to the atmosphere,
we will seed tank contents with activated sludge.
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
During our investigation, we did not observe significant
odor problems in this area; however, there are existing
conditions that could easily make this a transient odor
source. Therefore, we will monitor the following
conditions:
o Acidic discharges to the collection system should
be discouraged. Not only do acids attack
structures in the collection system, they promote
significant releasee of hydrogen sulfide.
Conversely, caustic discharges, provided they are
within the flow equalization tank capacity, should
be encouraged. If possible, staff should
coordinate a weekly caustic dosing (pH > 12) of
the collection system.
o Scrubber intake balance ane chemical optimization
will be performed per Gravity Thickener
discussion.
o We will consider modifying scrubber intake system
to permit evacuation of grit elevator discharge
room.
o Digester supernatant will be continuously and/or
gradually introduced to headworks and will not be
returned during periods of acidic inflow.
o Release of acidic materials from Plow Equalization
Basin will be carefully metered into flow stream.
91
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
Minor operational problems on the primary clarifiers were
observed during our visit: however, the problems sighted are
of minor consequence to the odors generated at this
facility.
a Grease will be removed from the primary clarifier
with greater frequency.
a Primary sludge withdrawal rate will be closely
monitored to prevent rising of septic sludge.
TRICKLING FILTERS
The trickling filters are the single largest contributor to
odor problems. During our investigation, chlorination of
the filters was discontinued and the ensuing odors were of a
musty/earthy nature typical of -trickling filter_ It is
possible, due to unbalanced hydraulic distribution to each
filter, that septic conditions could develop on the east
trickling filter. Therefore, we will consider the following
corrective action:
o Check the elevation on east and west trickling
filters. They should be identical.
I
a A "pan test` will be conducted to verify hydraulic
distribution.
o East trickling filter unit distribution arms are
not plumb to media surface and will be adjusted.
o If musty/earthy odors indigenous to trickling
filters are perceived to be a significant odor
problem, we will consider the installation of
chemical odor scrubbers.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE CLARIFIERS
Minor operational problems, having insignificant odor
impact, were noted on the final clarifiers. We will observe
the following guidelines:
o Adjust sludge age and/or return rato.to prevent
sludge nitrification.
a Clean weirs and submerged support structures on a
regular basis.
a Assist scum removal system as needed to keep
clarifier surface clear of floating material.
5wn10003 3-3
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
No adverse odor conditions were apparent during our
investigation. We did detect an oxidized sulfur odor
emitted by the boiler; however, we are skeptical that this
odor would offend adjacent property owners. The boiler
fumes present a corrosion threat to equipment and air
quality hazard to employees and should be corrected. The
potential for adverse odors in this system may be reduced by
adherence to the following guidelines.
o Maintain digester temperature at 95 degrees.
o Monitor digester volatile acids and alkalinity
weekly.
o Modify digester supernatant withdrawal system.
o Check sulfide removal efficiency of iron sponge
filter.
U
SM,0003 3•4
11
Section 4
ODOR CONTROL PROGRAM
ODOR CONTROL INVESTIGATIONS
ODOR COMPLAINT RECORD
Instrumentation'capable of monitoring the vast variety of
odors typically generated at a wastewater treatment plant
are commercially available; however, purchasing odor
monitoring equipment is cost prohibitive for all but the
largest munioipalities. The human nose on the other hand is
considerably Tore accurate than most instrumentation and
should, therefore, be considered your single most valuable
analytical tool. Unfortunately, treatment plant staff
members become desensitized to plant odors and should,
therefore, rely heavily on public input when assessing odor
management plan effectiveness.
We must consider, the following questions:
i o What is a tolerable odor?
o At what intensity does a tolerable odor become
offensive?
o Now valuable is an "odor free" treatment facility?
o Now costly is each citizen's odor complaint?
c Now 0o offensive plant odors impact your
city's image?
We alone canlept, answer those Questions. We must rely on
information prirovided from odor complaints.
ODOR COMPLAIN' RECORD
Odor Complailsi ( Form V)
Odor complalAta should be directed to PSG personnel who are
familiar witta`the accompanying form. Data collected for
odor complail3t records provides our most valuable odor
management t*I . The only gauge of odor control
effoctivanes%'to the absence of odor complaints.
Odor Control Survev (Form IV)
Staff should •1nvestigate odor missions at facility and
C facilityle mrimeter twice daily and record observations on
' the accompa* ,ng form.
awafoea 4-1
ODOR SCRUBBING SYSTEMS
Thb-facility. design engineer has made provisions for
offensive odor removal at this facility via the use of odor
scrubbers. Typically, e1r turnover rates and choice of
chemical oxidant is setdom considered. The investigation,
further -detailed on the following forms,,should define the
optTintm-odor removal cspabilitiea of the 8 fisting equipment.
-r -Sdiubbee Efficiency Report (Form VIII)
-In addition to the manufacturer's routine m4tntenance
schedule, routine maintenance requiremenis,-scrubber
performance should*be tested monthly and rpsults recorded.
Scrubber Efficiency Tests
Scrubber hydrogen sulfide removal efficiency should be
conducted as detailed on the accompanying foga.
HYDRAULIC LOADING
Visual observation suggests that the west trickling filter
was not installed correctly. Trickling filtgrs may develop
offensive odors during periods of low hydraulib loading.
The test described on the accompanying forms should provide
information that will predict hydraulic loading
characteristics,
COMMERCIAL CONTRIBUTORS
We will continue monitoring industrial compliance with
pretreatment guidelines. As previously disc sad, acidic
discharges will gonsrsts offensive odors; tWelore, we will
be especially aware of pH fluctuations. Thi 011owing
report provides s method of recording and evalusting pH
impact on the treatment facility.
pH Variance Log: All raw sewage pH variancet greater than
or less than one standard unit from mean pH vllues should be
recorded on the attached log.
e
Section S - =_ -
RECOMMENDED ODOR MANAGEMENT PLAN.-:
ODOR MANAGEMENT FORMS r • ;
Informption generated via 'use of the Odiir,,,Compleint Record,
Odor Syrvey Form, Scrubber 'Efficiency 'Report, and pH'•
VariariCe Log only provide a starting. point,.,;el+t-must,be
emphasized that odor management- doe snot -Gaal' with static
conditions. Changes in operating procedures, ambient
temps ature, commercial contributors, and weather requite
reviglons in the odor management'. plan. _ ... . I .
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Odor complaints must be thoroughly investigated. and
evaluated. The cause and effect for all -odors observed
during the odor survey should be critically evaluated. We
will not tolerate operating procedures or commercial
discharges that are conducive to offensive odors.
It is .our Project Manager's responsibility to review all
odor Complaints immediately and all status reports in a
timely fashion.
Odoi"management requires tedious attention to detail.
Unlike effluent quality, odor control performance is not an
average, each day stands on ita own merit.
PUBLIC RELATIONS
Periodically, all wastewater treatment plante.will generate
eom%cod . These will be detected-by.,the publ1(r.vnd must
be t.- J led by our staff. c
A21 ompleinfo ,will be, answered,
promptly and courteously. The public pays._for.our services
and indirectly is our boss,
Beginning a conversation with a negatibe.ettitude will
quickly, upset the public. Even if we. cannot detect an odor
when'we answer a complaint, that does not mean that the odor
was not there or is not there now. Your nose may not be as
sensitive as the nose of the person filing the complaint.
Also, your noes may be accustomed to the smell and no longer
be able to -detect the offensive odor.
The greatest complication develops if you do not properly
handle the problem. If the public unites against the plant
and becomes very odor conscious, even the slightest odor can
cause an uproar. Remember that the person filing the
complaint called because of a problem. You must be a
diplomatic listener. Invite those who complained to visit
awuioosa 5-1
the plant.SnG offer Nem a tour. While you are showing t
around,. they, may -indicate••to you where the -odor that is
bothering. them is strongest. This information may help you `
identify slA control the cause of the odor,problem:.
Whenever'. an odes Cospiaint is investigated, a record will be
made of the.v:LgAt;sod the important facts recorded...
Investigatlpp I& -the nelghborhood=near the location'of an
odor: I&Agf;ai'e:vs�tq-helpful. Odors can be coming from a
nearby egrsr, Rtosf drain,-trash'pile, home plumbing
problem, or.:a do" animal. If an. odor complaint -is repeated
and.,the source 'Cbnnot. be located, we will send personnel to
thw site during the time'of. day when odors are a problem to
determine thesouurce.
ew /ows 5-2