Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda Packet 02-09-1981
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL February 9, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve Grimsmo Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White. Meeting to be taped. Citizens Comments I. Public Hearing on the Adoption of the Assessment Rolls for the 1980-1 (Macariund Plaza Area) and 1980-2 (Prairie Road Area) Improvement Projects. 2. Consideration of a Resolution to Order Repair or Removal of Buildings. 3. Consideration of the Award of a Contract on the Demolition of the Oakwood School Building. 4. Review of 1980 Liquor Store Financial Statements. 5. Consideration of the Adoption of a Resolution Approving Procedures for Authorizing Change Orders in the Construction Contract for Updating the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Consideration of Three Change Orders with Paul A. Laurence Company. 6. Consideration of Authorizing the Purchase and/or Solicitation of Bids or Quotes for Equipment in the Public Works Department. 7. Approval of Minutes - January 26, 1981 Meeting. Unfinished Business - � 1 New Business - (,(�►� ��� ,2 u �i `b Council Meeting - 2/9/81 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Public Hearinq on the Adoption of the Assessment Rolls for the 1980-1 (Macarlund Plaza Area) and 1980-2 (Prairie Road Areal Improvement Projects. PURPOSE: According to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, a public hearing is necessary to consider the adoption of a resolution for assessments. For your information, the 1980-1 improvement project included sewer, water and storm sewer improvements to the Macarlund Plaza area, and the 1980-2 improvement project included street improvements, water and sewer along Prairie Road to portions of The Meadows and The Brothers plats. Listed below is a comparison of the original estimates contained in the feasibility report which were the subject of a public hearing in 1980, and the proposed assessment against each specific area: ORIGINAL ESTIMATE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT 1980-1 Macarlund Plaza Area Macarlund Plaza S 75,189.00 $ 78,348.51 Curtis Hoglund 19,503.00 20,319.54 Maurice Hoglund 11,408.00 11,884.39 $106,100.00 $110,552.44 1980-2 Prairie Road Extension Mel Wolters - The Meadows - Lots 20 - 24, Block 4 $ 25,600.35 $ 25,471.72 Lot 11, Block 2 -0- 2,951.20 Quintin Lanners - The Brothers 19,881.60 17,339.52 $ 45,481.95 S 45,762.44 As you can see by the above, the proposed assessments very closely approxi- mate the original estimates. As you can see, there was no original estimate for the servicing of Lot 11, Block 2 in The Meadows Subdivision Plat, but since a sewer and water service were requested, it was decided to include this particular lot in the assessment roll. Additionally, the reason why the Quintin Lanners portion of The Brothers Plat is somewhat proportionately smaller than the original estimate, it is due to the fact that credit was granted for the road that ends up in a cul-de-sac in this property. In other words, when the estimated assessments were initially computed on this parcel, no credit was granted for public roadway, but since the feasibility report, this area has been platted and credit accordingly given. This is consistent with the City of Mon ticello's assessment policy. Council Agenda - 2/9/81 in accordance with Monticello Ordinances, the assessment is proposed to be assessed over ten years at a rate of 9.75%, which is 1�% greater rounded to the nearest ; of a %, than the interest paid by the City of Monticello on the Improvement Bonds to finance this project. POSSIBLE ACTION: A motion would be in order to adopt a resolution to certify the assessment rolls to the County Auditor as presented at the public hearing, with any revisions. REFERENCES: January 6, 1981 letter from OSM on this improvement project and the related assessments, along with a breakdown of the assessments on a parcel-by—parcel basis. t Q� 1 -a- Council Agenda - 2/9/81 2. Consideration of a Resolution to Order Repair or Removal of Buildings. At the time the Notice and Order was written on the Monticello Ford garage in downtown Monticello, the legal authority for writing that Notice and Order came from the Uniform Building Code under Section 205. However, since that time, the Building Code has adopted Minnesota Statute 463.15 through 463.261, which sets out a procedure for the removal or repair of hazardous and delapitated buildings. Under this statute, the City Council, upon a proper finding, may order the owner of a hazardous building to correct the hazardous condition or remove the structure. An Order to that effect is issued to the owner, and if it is not complied with, the municipality can apply to the District Court for enforcement. The owner may contest the Order and if he does, a trial is held as soon as possible at which the court upholds or dismisses the Order. If the Order is not contested, the court authorizes the municipality to proceed with the necessary repair or removal. There is, however, a provision which allows the owner of the property to sign a consent form giving the City the authority for removal or repair. The latter, dealing with consent, is the item for discussion in this supplement. rlike Rehrer, of Minnesota Growth Exchangers, Inc., St. Paul, is the owner of the Joe Culp property on the south edge of town, just east of the Monticello -Big Lake Pet Hospital and the Overhead Garage Door Company. As you may or may not be aware, those buildings have set vacant for a little over a year now, and have come into a bad state of disrepair. On the house, the windows have been broken out, some of the doors have been kicked in, and other acts of vandalism have caused a lot of damage to this property. Also, in the wind last spring, the barn was severely damaged and has since collapsed along with one other of the out buildings. A Notice and Order for the repair or removal of these delapitated buildings has been written, and Mr. Rohrer, now owner of the property, has indicated that he has no objection to removal of the buildings. However, he has asked if the Monticello Fire Department would be willing to burn the buildings. Paul Klein, of the Monticello Fire Department, was contacted regarding this request, and indicated that the Fire Department would be willing to burn the buildings, but that a burning permit must be secured from the PCA. That burning permit has been applied for and hopefully will be coming soon. In order for the City to receive consent from Mr. Rehrer to allow these buildings to be destroyed, or burned, it is necessary to obtain a resolution from the Council to do that. That resolution merely confirms the agreement with the owner giving the City consent to repair or remove those buildings. - 3 - Council Agenda - 2/9/81 Although the authorization to destroy these buildings has not yet been signed, Mr. Rehrer, who owns the property, has indicated that probably before the Council meeting on Monday night, he will be in Monticello to sign that authorization for destruction of those buildings. Upon his signature on a consent form to remove those buildings, it will. then be necessary for the Council to pass a resolution accepting his consent form and then giving the Fire Department an okay to burn those buildings. For your information, the owner's consent form is merely a document which gives the City the authority to make safe the property by destroying or repairing the buildings. A copy of the consent form is enclosed, although some of the wording could possibly change to fit the situation on each individual parcel of property. Should, for some reason, Mr. Rehrer not be able to come to Monticello and sign the necessary consent forms before the Council meeting, possibly the Council could discuss this item at this meeting and give some kind of an Indication as to what the reception would be for accepting a consent form for the removal or destruction of the buildings which have the Notice and Order written upon them. A sample copy of the consent form and also a sample copy of the resolution confirming agreement are included. However, the wording of these documents could change somewhat, as indicated above, so that the situation described herein could be more closely adhered to. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoptior, of Resolution to Order Repair or Removal of buildings. REFERENCES: Sample copies of consent form add resolution confirming agreement. 4� L . - 4 - Council Agenda - 2/9/81 3. Consideration of the Award of a Contract on the Demolition of the Oakwood School Building. PURPOSE: Bids are returnable Monday, February 9, 1981 at 2:00 P.M. on the demolition and removal of the Oakwood School Building. There has been quite a lot of interest in this project, and over 30 sets of plans and specifications have been taken out by prospective bidders. Estimated removal cost is $45,000. After the bids are opened at 2:00 P.M., John Simola and I will check the qualifications of the lowest bidder and have a recommendation to the Council at Monday night's meeting. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of the award of a contract on the demolition and removal of the Oakwood School Building. h'0 ( O� ,31 / 1 ULc - 5 - Council Agenda - 2/9/81 4. Review of 1980 Liquor Store Financial Statements., PURPOSE: To review the year end financial statements for 1980 with Liquor Store Manager, Mark Irmiter, who will be at Monday night's meeting. The following are a few significant areas of interest in the comparative statements : SALES — Increased $116,680 over 1979, or 17.1%. OPERATING INCOME - Increased $11,268 over 1979, or 13.8%. NET INCOME - Rose 35.8% over 1979 figures due largely to earnings from investments during 1980 and the reimbursement of a portion of salary expenses from CETA program. EXPENSES - Remained fairly stable as a percent to sales at 11.64%, down from i 1 .97% in 1979. Although salaries expense increased from $38,600 to $47,700, this was largely due to the addition of an Assistant Manager to the payroll. Even with the additional full-time employee, the total salary expenses as a percent to sales only increased from 5.66% in 1979 to 5.97% in 1980. POSSIBLE ACTION: No action necessary, other than review with Mark Irmiter. t REFERENCES: Enclosed copy of 1 980 Year End Financial Statements. A -6- Council Agenda - 2/9/81 5. Consideration of the Adoption of a Resolution Approving Procedures For Authorizinq_Chanoe Orders in the Construction Contract for Uodating the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Consideration of Three Change Orders with Paul A. Laurence Company. PURPOSE: To consider adoption of a resolution to implement change orders on the Wastewater Treatment Plant contract, and to consider three change orders with Paul A. Laurence Company. Currently, there are three change orders that our engineering firm, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron A Assoc., has worked out with the Paul A. Laurence Company of Minneapolis, and they are as follows: Change Order #1 - amount of $1,467.00 - Purpose: provide a new exterior door in the north exterior wall of the existing control building, which is required for access to the basement pump room from the outside. Change Order #2 - amount of $5,200.00 - Purpose: temporary office/trailer for the engineer's field personnel. Change Order k3 - amount of $3,039.75 - Purpose: new residential domestic well for Bob and Marion Jameson. it should be noted that Change Order 01 is made as a result of John Simola, our Public Works Director, indicating that a better access was necessary to the basement pump room. In the case of Change Order q2, the engineer did not include a temporary office/trailer in the original contract docu- ments, and according to John Badalich, this is normally provided at the expense of the owner, whether in the original contract with either the engineer, or the contractor itself. As a result, apparently in both cases, if these items were included in the original contract, they would have increased the amount approximately the same amount as these change orders currently are proposed for. In the case of Change Order R3 for the restoration of water to the Bob and Marion Jameson residence, the way the contract was written with Paul A. Laurence Company by our engineers, it did not hold the contractor liable for restoring domestic water. As a result of dewatering, this residence had its well go dry, and the City of Monticello ordered a new well to be put in. For your information, the reason why this is being requested through the Paul A. Laurence Company is to simplify the funding process through the EPA and PCA. The other choice is for the City to pay the bill directly since it is not the responsibility of the contractor himself. Additionally, 1 did talk to Orr-Schelen-llayeron A Associates as to why the restoration of a domestic water supply was not included in the original contract documents. At the time there was an indication that there may have been some specific regulation. within the EPA or PGA guidelines which would not make this type of item fundable, but this has not yet been verified. - 7 - Council Agenda - 2/9/81 As a result of these Change Orders, I did talk with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates and expressed concern about the fact that Change Orders #1 and R2 had already been implemented prior to City Council approval. After reviewing this matter with them, it was decided that change orders of this nature may occur in the future, and it is pretty hard to stop the entire project for the City Council to meet and approve a change order so that work can again commence. It was decided that one possible way to proceed would be to have the City Council approve all change orders in excess of $5,000 prior to commencing the actual work itself, and that change orders of less than $5,000 could be approved by the City's authorized representative on this project, Arve Grimsmo, along with the Engineer's approval. In this fashion, minor change orders could be implemented immediately without delaying the work, with larger change orders being approved by the Council prior to work starting. In all cases, the change orders would be reviewed and ratified by the City Council, even those less than $5,000. 1 reviewed this arrangement with Tom Gilbertson, Legal Counsel for the State Auditor's Office, and in his opinion, he felt that the City of Monticello could implement such a process. He indicated that the minutes should contain the reasons for the implementation of the procedure and to insure that any change orders were within the scope of the intended project itself. Based on the information that I gave him and his recom- mendations, I have enclosed a copy of a proposed resolution. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of the approval of the three change orders in the amount of $9,706.75, and adoption of a resolution approving procedures for future change orders. REFERENCES: Copies of change orders kl, 2 and 3 enclosed, and resolution adopting procedures for authorizing change orders on the construction con- tract for the updating of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. .B- C Council Agenda - 2/9/81 6. Consideration of Authorizing the Purchase and/or Solicitation of Bids or Quotes for Equipment in the Public Works Department. PURPOSE: As a result of previous discussion with the Council and a tour of the Public Works area, John Simola would like to have the City Council consider the authorization of equipment for 1981 for the Public Works Department. A list of the items is as follows: Jet Machine - $22,000 (includes utilizing existing chassis on 1972 International Truck) Dump Truck - $16,000 (plow and wing from 1972 International would be used) Pickup Iruck - $7,000 + Hoist - $4,000 Picnic Shelter - Hillcrest Park - $2,600 F Landscapee Rake - $1,500.0 Water Vatve Exerciser - $2,200 n it should be noted that for all items in excess of $10,000, bids would be necessary, and in the case of all items above $5,000, quotations would be necessary. In the case of both quotations and bids, Council approval is necessary before awarding the contract on these items. All the items indicated above were budgeted for in 1981 with the exception of the Hoist. In order to give you some background on these items, John Simola has pre- pared a short narrative summary on each piece of equipment. Additionally, you will find enclosed a worksheet comparing ownership cost of a jet machine with contracting this service out. As you can see by the comparison, it would cost us approximately $22,500 per year vs. $12,360 per year if the City of lionticello purchased its own jet machine. One very important aspect of any sanitary sewer program is a good maintenance program, regardless of whether the City of Monticello purchases the equip- ment or contracts this out. As a result, our Public Works Director is pre- paring an annual maintenance schedule whereby the maintenance and cleaning of the sanitary sewer system is done at regular periodic intervals. This type of cost. whether the City purchases the equipment or contracts it out, will be budgeted for on an annual basis. Reasoning for recommendation of purchasing our own equipment is due to the cost effectiveness as can be seen by the computation enclosed. Following are some additional advantages and disadvantages of the City of Monticello owning its own equipment: Advantages Control Bids not necessary every year Familiarity with system Certain amount of labor involved in setting up a contractor if the City of Monticelio does not do its own cleaning Z;Z CDisadvantages C, Council Agends - 219!81 Storage Training Time Tendency may be to hire additional labor Since City crews will not be involved, there would be ease in scheduling this type of maintenance if it was contracted out POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of authorizing John Simola to obtain bids and/or quotations for those items necessary and authorization to purchase the other items. REFERENCES: Summary by John Simola on each item, and computation on Jet Machine cost of ownership cost vs. contracting this service out. . 10 . ORR•SCHEIEN• MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc. Consulting Engineers Lent/ Surveyors January 6, 1981 Honorable Mayor 6 City Council City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Assessments for Project 80-1 4 80-2 Gentlemen: At the request of the City Council, we have arrived at the following coats based on the contract price and indirect costs which were used in the preparation of the assessment rolls for the above referenced project. Project Project 80-1 80-2 Estimated Final Construction Cost $ 82,548.25 $34,710.40 Change Order No. 1 2,960.00 600.0 Supplemental Agreement No. 1 650.00 Totnl Estimated Construction Cost $ 85,408.25 $35,960.40 Total Combined Construction Coat $121,368.65 INDIRECT COSTS Engtneering Fee (7-1/22 of Construction Cost $ 6,405.62 $ 2,472.03 Inspection 6 Survey, Etc. as of 12/31/80 10,831.97 4,181.15 ";L rA F.np,lneering Fees (Easements, etc.) 421.49 Legal Fee (Estimated) 3,997.00 1,811.00 MieC. 71.78 19.43 City Adminlatration 6 inspection Costs (22 of Construction Cost) 1,708.17 659.21 Asu4Rament Roll (I2 of Construction Coot) 854.ng 329.61 Contingency (12 of Construction Cost) 854.08 329.61 Total indirect Coat $ 25,144.19 S 9,802.04 For 80-1, 25,144.19 t P,5,408.25 - 29.442 Indirect Costs For 80-2, 9,802.04 - 35,960.40 - 27.262 indirect Costs Total Project Coat $110,552.44 $45,762.44 Total Combined Indirect Coot $ 34,946.23 Total Combined Project Cost $156,314.88 qq PROJECT 80-1 The total original estimated coat for Project 80-1 was $106,100.On as per the Council minutes of 5/27/80. The following was a breakdown of the total coat: 2021 East Honnepin Avonuo • Suito 238 • Minnoapolis, Minnosot© 55413 rt�t��t_arrn 7 -FI FX: 99•n94A / January 6, 1981 Page 2 $75,189.00 - 70.871 Macarlund Plaza Townhouse Development 11,408.00 - 10.75% Maurice Hoglund Property (West of Macarlund Plaza) 19,503.00 - 18.381 Curtis Hoglund Property (South of Macarlund Plaza) $106,000.00 - 100.001 The total cost to be assessed to $110,552.44 for Project AO -l. Using the same percentages as above. The following is a tabulation of total cost to be assessed. $78,348.51 - 70.871 Macarlund Plaza Townhouse Development 11,984.39 - 10.751 Maurice Hoglund Property (West of Macarlund Plata) 20,319.54 - 18.381 Curtis Hoglund Property (South of Macarlund Plaza) $110,552.44 10— 0.00% The same percentage will be used in a breakdown of each phase of the project, which is as follows: SANITARY SEWER Sanitary Sever Construction Coat $24,333.25 Plus 29.442 Indirect Cost 7,163.71 Sanitary Sever Assessment $31,496.96 (Including, Service Assessment) Sanitary Sever Service Construction Cost $ 6,290.00 7` Plus 29.44% Indirect Cost 1,851.78 Sanitary Sewer Service Assessment $ R,141.78 531,494.96 x 70.87% - $22,321 .90 - 8,141.78 $14,180.12 (unit assessment) $31,496.96 x 10.751 - S 3,385.92 $31,496.96 x 18.381 - S 5,789.14 $31,496.96 MACARLUND PLAZA DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY ^'4,180.12 - 30 Apartment Units • $471.67/Apt. Unit A,141.78 t 30 Services - $271.39/4" Service MAURICE 110CLUND PROPERTY $3,385.92 CURTIS HOGLUND PROPERTY 55,789.14 t 2 Lots $2,894.57JLot WATER MAIN Water Main Construction Coat $24,722.06 Plus 29.441 Indirect Cost 7,278.16 Water Main Assessment 832,1)00.16 (Including Service Assessment) Water Main Service Construction Cost $ 3,502.50 Plus 29.44% indirect Cost 1.031.14 Water Main Service Assessment 6 4.533.64 $12,000.16 x 70.87% • $22,678.51 - 4.533.64 . $18,144.87 (unit assessment) $32,000.16 x 10.752 - $ 3,44 0.02 $32,000.16 x 18.382• $ Q 5,081.63 32.1100.16 J January 6, 1991 Pope 3 MARCARLUND PLAZA DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY $18,144.97 - 30 Apartment Units - 604.83/Apt. Unit $ 4,533.64 - 30 Services - 151.12/1" Service MAURICE HOGLUND PROPERTY $3,440.02 CURTiS HOCLUND PROPERTY $5,891.63 - 2 Lots-$2,940.82/Lot STORM SEWER Storm Sever Construction Cost $33,493.00 Change Order No. 1 2,860.00 $36,353.00 Plus 29.447. indirect Cost 10,702.32 Storm Sever Assessment $47,055.32 r47,n55.32 x 70.977. - $33,348.11 $47,055.32 x 1n.757. - 5,058.45 $47,n55.32 x 19.382 - R,64R.76 $47,055.32 MACARLUND PLAZA DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY Due to the Townhouse Development and the way this property woo platted It was decided that the storm sever assessment would he on a unit basis. $33,349.11 - 30 Apt. Units - S1,111.60/Apt. Unit MAURICE HOGLUND PROPERTY $5,058.45 - 135,900 Sq. Pt. - 0.0372/Sq. Ft. CURTIS IIOCI.UIID PROPERTY " 104R.77 r $133,3110 So. Ft. - 0.0648/Sq. Ft. I.ot 1 - 75,210 Sq. Ft. x .0648/Sq. Ft. - $4,876.94 I.ot 2. - 58,170 Sq. Ft. x .0648/Sq. Ft. - S3,771.92 ' PPn.ICCT 90-2 SANITARY SEWER Since this area Is coned residential it was assessed InO% against the henefitted property using a unit method. Snnitary Sewer Construction Cost $ 7,699.90 Change Order No. 1 (Partial) 600.00 S 8,299.90 Plus 27.262 indirect Cost 2,259.65 Sanitary Sewer Assessment $10,549.55 $10,549.55 t 9 Units - $1,172.17/Unit ` Jnnuary 6, 1981 Pnpe. 4 Snnitary Sever Service Construction Coat $3,324.00 Plus 27.265 Indirect root _ 906.05 Sanitary Sewer Service Ansessment $4,230.05 $4,230.05 - •12 Services - $352.50/4" Service + - There were double services constructed to the three lots in the proposed Brother's plat. WATER MAIN Water Main Construction Cost $ 7,904.00 Plus 27.265 Indirect Cost 2,154.46 $10,058.46 $10,058.46 T 9 Units - $1,117.61/Unit Water Mnin Service Construction Cost $2,913.00 Plus 27.265 Indirect Cost 794.07 Water Main Service Assessment Sanitary Sever Services $3,707.02 - •12 Services - $308.92/1" Service Water • - There were double services constructed to the three lots in the proposed Brother's plat. Main Services STREET CONSTRUCTION Storm Street Construction Costs $12,879.50 Supplemental Agreement No. 1 650.00 $110,552.44 $13,529.50 Plus 27.265 Indirect Cost 3,687.86 Street Assessment $17,217.36 S17,217.36 T 715' - 324.08/Ansessable Foot ;:ate.: The street assessment !s be sed on the front footage method. Lnr 11, Black. 2 was not assessed for street at this time because the street was not completely constructed on either side of the lot. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY - PROJECT 80-1 Total Cost Assessed Sanitary Sever S 23,355.18 Sanitary Sever Services 8,141.78 Water Main 27,466.52 14nter Main Services 4,533.64 Storm Sever 47,055.32 Total Assessed Project 80-1 $110,552.44 �- Janunry 6, lg9I Page 5 SUMMARY - PROJECT 80-2 Total Cost Assessed Sanitary Sever $10,549.55 Sanitary Sewer Services 4,230.05 Water Main 10,058.46 Water Main Services 3,707.02 Street Construction 17,217.36 Total Assessed Project 80-2 $45,762.44 Total Project Cost $156,314.88 TYPICAL LOT COST - PROJECT 80-1 Lot 1, Block 7, Macarlund Placa Sanitary Sewer $ 472.67 Sanitary Sewer Service 271.39 Water Main 604.83 Water Main Service 151.12 Storm Sewer 1 111.60 Total Assessment $2 TYPICAL LOT COST - PROJECT 80-2 l.ot 23. Block 4, The Meadows Sanitary Sewer $1,172.17 Sanitary Sewer Service 352.50 Water Main 1,117.61 Water Main Service 308.92 Street Construction 1 046.82 Total Assessment $4:948.02 If ynu have, any questions regarding this breakdown of costs and proposed nssessment, plense contact us. Yours very truly, OPR-SC11E LE11-MAYERON ASSOCIATES. lINC. jCl.hn�P. Bndallch, P.E. ity Engineer JPB/tr 11 c l C Macarlund Plaza Parcel No. 155-037-007 010 155-037-007 020 155-037-007 030 155-037-007 040 155-037-007 050 155-037-007 060 155-037-008 010 155-037-008 020 155-037-008 030 155-037-008 040 155-037-008 050 155-037-008 060 155-037-009 010 155-037-009 020 155-037-009 030 155-037-009 040 155-037-009 050 155-037-009 060 155-037-010 010 155-037-010 020 155-037-010 030 155-037-010 040 155-037-010 050 155-037-010 060 155-037-011 010 155-037-011 020 155-037-011 030 155-037-011 040 155-037-011 050 155-037-011 060 155-037-001 010 155-037-001 020 Auditor's Sub -Division 155-011-000 010 TOTAL PROJECT ASSESSMENT CITY OF MONTICELLO PROJECT 80-1 ASSESSMENT ROLL 1/6/81 Total Assessment $2,611.61 2,611.61 2,611.61 2,611.61 2,611.61 2,611.61 2,611.61 2,611.61 2,611.bl 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,611.62 IPV 2,611.62 L' 4t 2,611.62 1' 2,611.62 C 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,bll.b2 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,611.62 2,611.b2 2,k11.62 5`� 10,712.23 01"� 7N. 2�3 y 9,607.31 I�S� cj $11,884.39 ,! 5110.552.44 The Meadows Parcel No. 155-035-002 110 155-035-004 200 155-035-004 210 155-035-004 220 155-035-004 230 155-035-004 240 Section 4-121-25 155-500-044 200 TOTAL PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1/6/81 CITY OF MONTICELLO PROJECT 80-2 ASSESSMENT ROLL Total Assessment N✓ of $2,951.20 _--y eir 4,998.02 499802 iJ 4,998.02 3s 4,998.02 6 CS1}s ?.S 5,479.64 $17,339.52 (02 S45.7Ii.44 AUTHORIZATION TO RAZE (REPAIR) HAZARDOUS BUILDING We, the undersigned, and husband and wife, presently residing at , i Minnesota, state that we are the fee owners of record in Joint to nancy1 of premises commonly known and described as Street (Avenue), Minnesota and legally described as Lot , Block Addition to the City of according to the map or plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder . . ' of the County of ( 0CI(WT— , State of Minnesota; that there nov exists on the premises 6 certain i;V ( Lr-� i N CA- which building_; we agree and admit is a hazardous building as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section. 463.15 to %63.261 in that it constitutes a fire hazard and a hazard x to public safety and health because of age, physical damage, inadequate maintenance and dilapidation, and which building we agree and admit is 0 beyond reasonable repair and should be razed and removed.` We further state that no other person, firm or corporation has any right in, claim to, or lien against these premises. we do hereby authorize the City of Waw A1fC_\Ie pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.151, to (raze ouch building and to re -move the materials therefrom from the premises, including the foundation of the building, to fill the excavation therefrom to grade, and to levy and collect the expense of such razing and removal and filling of the excavation)3 as a special charge against the real estate on which the building is situated, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.151, and we waive any right to,a hearing on such assessment as well as any other objection to any failure 4 to comply with the statutes setting out the procedure for Bach aaoeasment. We further state that there are no Items of personal property or fixtures on ouch premises do the building vhich we determine to be of any value and we hereby authorise the City of �I)J� l i Y ,• d', to dispose of any personal property or fixtures thereon or within the building. The City of shall have sole determination as to how the vork is to be done and as to whether it is done by bid or contract or other - viae, and ve release, relinquish, and vaive any right to any accounting of fhe coat or expenses involved in the razing and removal (repair). We do further release and discharge the City oft(�3h tt�tU from any action or cause of action, claims and demands for damages by ourselves or by our heirs or assigns as the result of the razing sad removal of such building. It is understood that the City of 1[` shall be under no obligation because of this authorization to remove or raze (repair) the building above described and that the removal or razing (repair), under the Lerma of this authorization is subject to the approval of the City Council of the City of �1�.�LV1.�(. b In the presence of: STATS OF lIII MOTA COUM OF On this __ day of , 19_, before me appeased to be known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledge that they executed the same as their own free act and deed. Notary Public Stamp and Seal RESOLUTION 1:0. RESOLUTION CONFIRMINU AGREEMENT WITH AND FOR REHOVAL (REPAIR) OF A CERTAIN HAZARDOUS BUILDING. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF , MINNESOTA: 1. The city council confirms the consents to the attached agreement with and for (removal by the City of ) (the making by the City of specified repairs to) the hazardous building at Minnesota, otherwise described as Lot , Block Addition to the City of etc. 2. The city is hereby authorized and directed to raze and remove (undertake the specified repairs to) such building (enter into a r contract for the removal or'making the specified repairs to such building ` upon approval of the City Council, Adopted by the City Council of Minnesota thio day of , 19 _ Mayor City Clerk RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR AUTHORIZATION OF CHANGE ORDERS ON THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR UPDATING THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has received a Federal grant in the amount of $4,149,300 and a State grant in the amount of $829,860 for updating its Wastewater Treatment Plant at a total estimated cost of $5,532,400; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has awarded a construction contract to Paul A. Laurence Company of Minneapolis, in the amount of $4,704,000 for updating its Wastewater Treatment Plant; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has retained Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Assoc. of Minneapolis to serve as consulting engineers on this improvement project; and WHEREAS, due to the magnitude of the project, it is anticipated there will be various change orders to the contract with Paul A. Laurence Company; and WHEREAS, it is imperative that the project be completed as expediently as possible; and WHEREAS, Arve Grimsmo, Mayor of Monticello, is the City's Authorized Representative to sign all documents relating to this project; NOW THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello. Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorize Orr-Schelon-Mayeron R Assoc. and Arve Grimsmo to approve and sign all change orders up to $5,000 in order to allow work to commence immediately. 2. Approve all change orders of up to $5,000 at the next Council meeting. 3. Approve all change orders in excess of $5,000 prior to actual work being commenced. 4. Orr- Schelen-Mayeron and Associates will verify that all change orders are fundable by EPA and MPCA and are within the stupe of the original project. s, -1hose .A w+ c I? 92046 VA..ar %a eN 6 w.e'� ha ori r..G, Resolution adopted t is 9th day of February 1981, on a mAaion.+'b J seconded by Voting in favor: Opposed: Gary Wicber, City Administrator 0 CAPITOL OUTLAY ITEMS Prepared By: John Simola Public Mork; Director February S. 1981 6 ` STREET DEPARTMENT/SHOP EQUIPMENT 1. A -Frame Hoist This request is for a piece of shop equipment that would decrease the risk of injury in routine equipment maintenance and repair tasks. S% Specifications: JQ) 1 A. 5 -Ton Rolling Gantry Crane - 14' high x 12' wide T� B. 5 -Ton Hand -operated Chain Hoist 1�1 C. 5 -Ton Hand -geared side-to-side trolley Quotes: / V� Skarnes, inc., Minneapolis, MN. - $3,970 Jib Equipment Co., Minneapolis, MN. - $4,750 (Neither of the above quotes include freight) 2. 1981 Truck Cab b Chassis Replacement of Unit N1, 1972 Intl. We would use our own wing, plow and sander at this time. The budget includes $16,000, while actual current estimates are $16-18,000. This unit would be purchased in conjunction with the Sewer Equipment. if no sewer equipment is purchased, this truck and snow equipment could be delayed for purchasing until early 1983. Estimated purchase price of a complete unit then would be $36,000. c PARK & RECREATION \ 1 . Landscape Rake ?1 n 0 This is an attachment for the rear of the Bolens. Primary uses are to prepare ground for grass seed. We have the maintenance building yard, the parks at Mississippi Drive, Balboul Park and Anders Wilhelm to A level out this year so they can be mowed. This rake would be 'J used every year for various park and City projects. Cost estimates are $1,000 to $1,500, which is budgeted. 2. Picnic Shelter We would like to build a picnic shelter at the Hillcrest Park. This park is seeing more use and there is currently no shade or shelter. We would propose to build a 16' x 20' shelter which could be later converted into a warming house or wind shelter for the already existing skating rink. $2,600 is budgeted for this shelter which would be built with City and summer labor. SEWER/WATER DEPARTMENT 1. Pick-up Truck As you know, the above departments have four (4) full-time employees and usually one or two summer employees. There is only one (1) vehicle for transportation of men and equipment. At our last meeting, you were given the cost analysis 1 performed in 1980. This data shows very little difference in costs for a 3 -year old vehicle vs. a new vehicle. As shown, a 3 -year old vehicle getting 5 miles per gallon less than a new one would cost us $1,416 per year vs. $1,400 per year for a new vehicle. For a 1981 3/4 Ton, Regular Gas, 6 -Cylinder, 4 -Speed Pick-up, I have obtained a low quote of $6,740 from Gould Brothers and a high quote of $6,895 from Iten Chevrolet. I have located two white 1978 models with 28,000 to 30,000 miles. Both are clean 3/4 Ton, pre -leased vehicles with V8, automatic ps, pb and good tires. Selling price is $3,495 each, { —M I do not specifically recommend either the new or use.. They would both do the job. The only advantage I see would be that the new unit would be more dependable. 2. Comprehensive Sewer Cleaninq Proqram As you know, I have presented you with a wealth of information on the Jet machine and we have discussed it several times. I wish now only to go back one final time and present just the basic principles behind my opinions. A. I believe the City should have a comprehensive sewer cleaning and maintenance program based most likely on a 5 -year plan. B. It is my opinion that the rodding machine used by the City is not an entirely effective cleaning tool and the efforts put forth each year in sewer cleaning are not as productive as theymay be. I believe we should get positive results from our cleaning efforts. This can come about with jet machine cleaning of sewers followed by only minimal rodding. If you agree with items A and 0, then the question is as follows: Whether to own the equipment or contract for outside cleaning? I believe I have outlined the most economical way to purchase the equipment by utilizing one of our own trucks. Pros and cons are aplenty; however, it is my opinion that owning this equipment is far superior to outside contracting, SEWER/WATER DEPARTMENT (Continued) 3. Water Valve Exerciser J The City water system consists of several miles of watermain and hundreds of hydrants. There are several hundred valves in this system. These valves need to be exercised on a regular basis, otherwise when they are needed, they will not shut off, or will become inoperable. In 1980, we began inspecting hydrants and exercising valves regularly (once a year)." The average valve requires 25 turns to close and 25 turns to open again. Very few valves turn with ease, and the men become tired after a few valves, thus limiting production rates. A commercial valve exerciser consists of an electric driven gear rotator, shafting, rev. counter and electric generator. The generator would have other uses throughout the City as some of our parks do not have electric power to perform maintenance tasks. Costs of the exerciser if $1,528, with a generator (3,000 w) costing approximately $650, making a total of $2,178. The budget has allowed for $1,900. We could stick to the budget by purchasing a used generator for approximately $400. •This will have a positive effect on our insurance rates. J 1 2.. >; HE, y F\{ v" # h N' n �'.: { 1' .J%fie, "I', r ,;r.r wy -+-jto i-*•• 7Vt 1_��d �^i .Jl Ft r',►� r� ����'� �r.•'t, al' F: w�, 1r�'•,.'t\ k ; r•�� 'Z lye �f��/� r'Y"'' a L ,1{t�{Y,n'•. t 77" J �r. L;•�t,��„�f�-. ,''t�.'r.r��� t. R�-�� � t ' r�t'� yw" - A;u T,1'1[',+'j�ni-; .,` i r • t ` 1. 3 + . - j � �.•.� �' •, J �/►�`, {� �w�.fw� �� rt;.M 15 Ty�i ♦�N �I i ah ♦: j �aF�F.` ~�i,r� gypp. . - :� • • , f �, ��.1Mu, r. � I ��. . ♦p l'.��,"1aiT.:Yiic •+• r • + �%its • '�Tr-�-. iN[tllf,.7lr.�'. York PROFESSIONAL lets you get more work done ... with less work for you! d PRO \J �" With the York "PRO", there's no need to dismount to change m ` II roke lulu It's dune hydrouLcully . .. Irum the tractor X11 seat. Iroclor power replaces manpower. You complcle more \ a 001,In »oik61g plgacn latter ...and with leu effort.. Caster wheels are set manually to desi,ed working depth. \ the.eahcr when setting roke angle, caster wheels adjust outomohcally to working angle of rake. Iho elbc.rnt, .cnnNle 'PRO" attaches quukly to any trop for wish a standard 3 point h ah and euro hydroul:c valve control pcskago It combines a scarifier (Lr ripping; a flip• up blade Iwdh end boats; for grading and ecrlh•moving. Specifications and an 8 -lout safe for finishing 11 breaks hard ground, to moves storm, roots, and debris, lumps, levels, ditches, York PROFESSIONAL • Model PRO mulches . and ossuresa smooth, "condtioned"surface. FRAME FRACIOR REQUIREMENT I..n .I .I..nu.11r .sided newryr.l .rr.l At.•4rd 7eani A,uh c.nlhdl.wun1.idlA ale' CASUR WHEELS i N.wbn .1 .0. ..91. /w�h.n. 4h.r. 3•.. a S0. T Ip•' ne'�I ITI M. RAKE WINw•'ll' FLIP -UP MADE N•.br. .11...h d1 Lu .. 10.100' Moo M... Ir... ld .11"rl..l let ' .1 4.1A ��. 1.13' W."k. 111 IL. U..e .. MI. •s..1h 1' tad Aar. ..;Ohl I.I.nh../. ...A.. T SCARIFIER W.4.h / eel. M..d. .wrri.l W.'sk. T77 IAr XgA...rA.n .pi,nO n..l 1'/..n.r .1 1..1h 10 Ir..4d ..p r• N..i I..wl.d .II.1 14.1 HYDRAULIC CYLINDER o..A•..u.M ..6.d.. ...t. e5A1 probe 1.�. 3' 31,.sa 13' Red d.u.rur Ma.—. cP--, .,.r.— T700 n.• WfIL.IfIr C.-1— .t 41.1 .n.1 1,031 M. YORK RAKES A drvlslun of YORK MODERN CORPORATION • Undrlill/, NY 1384'J-607,30 ?LII AGO 101 orkl I ►.rHrra .. u 0 is.e0 ee Vhy a planned program of valve exercising is important The advantages of periodic, programmed opening and elosing of valves have long been rccognired '•v water works ollicials, valve manufacturers, and Board of Fire Undetwriten. Planned esercising of valves keeps them clean .out r,Ivrahlc. extends valve life, pinpoint, valve .gwfalinit problems while there is still time to .chedule repair or replacement rstan•hours on an ilicient basis. ECONOMICS A PAQUR I'he orcin obstacle to planned valve exercising proFr:uns is, of course, the fact that manual ,greration of valves isa %low, costly process. At today's wage rates ..walling around the ley" and keeping an accurate turn town is a luxury that nobody can alford. t/sc of powered equipment is .t must. 1:4jllwhlL%T SKI.ECt'ION VITAL 11orlabilily, versatility, spccJ, vahe protection, ono -count accuracy, ruggcdneu—these are things to look for in powered valve operating cquipnent. \. illustrated in this bulletin, nit of these char- 1we been engineered into Wachs w -R-Drive. These are the reasons why many cnt usm report that Pow-R•Drise has cut s.d u• opcnuing man-hours by at least one third. This is how ■ llccause the ssorkmcn have the "feel" of the vulvc, they know when it is full open and full closed; no shear pins ate needed to prevent over-torqucing. Pow -R -Drive dues the counting, too; un easy - lo -read turn counter automatically adds and sub- tracts revolutions turned. A single Pow -R -Drive unit fits all standard valves from (i to GO' ... and is self-adjusting from sire to site. It needs only u portable 60-cfm air contprevsor or small electric generator as a power usurce. Compact amt portable, Pow -R -Drive can be moved from job to job in any kind of a vehicle even lits in u car trunk. It can easily be carried to the most inaccessible valves and sluice gates. You don't have to park the vehicle over the valve: thus you clinlinatc trallic tic -ups and damage to lawns and parkways. ANNUAL JET MACHINE COST OWNERSHIP COST 1981 Jet Mounted $22,000 1972 International Cab & Chassis 1,000 $23.000 Less: 7 -year-old Value 8,000 $15.000 7 -year - Yearly Cost $ 2,143 OPERATION COST Fuel (375 hrs. @ 4 gal /hr x $1 .30) $ 1 .950 4 Oil Changes 8 Lube—Jet @ S20/ea 80 2 Oil Changes - Truck @$20/ea 40 Truck Maintenance, Tune-up, Battery, etc. 250 Jet Repair, Hose, Tune-up, etc. 350 General Supplies & Miscellaneous Parts 175 Body Repair 8 Paint Fund 50 Insurance 480 Total Operation Cost $ 3,375 TOTAL OWNERSHIP COST $2,143 TOTAL OPERATION COST 3,375 5,518 315 $14 .71 per hour of operation $14.71 Jet Cost per Hour 18.25 Labor Cost per Hour 32.96 Total Hourly Cost AVERAGE CHARGE FOR SERVICE CONTRACTED (250 (lours) IS FRO14$90 to $130 PER HOUR. COMPARISON City Owned Equipment - 375 Hours @ $32.96/hr. $12,360 Contracted Estimate - 250 Hours @ $90/hr. KL NOTE: While there is a factor of "lost interest" to be considered if the City purchased a jet machine, this would he outweighed in the long run since the annual costs are over $10 ,000 less. 7952711 Id..,, ,, 1 .m. 333 5159 �,r� ,►�'yvl�.,1r;��.PP► 250 East8,oadway MONI tf;E ,0. MN !-63G2. February 3. 1981 Mr. Paul Klein Monticello Fire Chief Route 4, Dox 246 Monticello, MM. 55362 RE, Fire Protection in High -Rise $uildings Dour Paul: Recently, I believe Willard Anderson with the Fire Department, dropped off the two letters from the Minnesota State Fire Chief's Association, copies of which are enclosed. Certainly, the issue of fire protection for high-rise buildings is impor- tant in light of the growth the City of Monticello has experienced in the past and expects to experience in the future. with more and more of these types of buildings being proposed and built, the following questions are raised: 1. Should the City of Monticello limit the height of buildingu to two stories or loss? Currently, Monticello zoning ordinances allow three- story buildings in all commercial, industrial and coma multiple family zones. Current height limitations in thous -tones are three stories. 2. If Monticello does prohibit three-story buildings, what offset might this have on future development? 3. Should the City of Monticello, instead, purchase additional fire -fighting equipment and invest in training for additional fire protection for those type of buildings? 4. Should the City of Monticello help support legislation that would allow each particular community to amend the fire code by having the code more restrictive, and one possibility if thio legislation were panned would he a more utringent act of regulations for high-rise buildings? The reason for my writing thio letter in to obtain Input from thu Fire Depart- ment as to the adequacy of fire protection for hlyh-rico buildings and what some suggested racoomendations might be that could bu implemented by the City Council to anoint the department itself. 11/t/1110"J'se to Mr. Paul Klein February 3, 1981 Page 42 You might want to bring this to the attention of the Fire Department as a whole and formulate a act of recommendations that the City Council could consider at one of its upcoming meetings. Should you have any questions in this regard, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, % e Zr'y-17b.r City Administrator GW/ns ENCL.AS cc: d_ Fir* _Corroepondenca ; Loran Klein Willard Anderson City Council Attached to my letter In what I consider to be a very important message from Chief Mertz, Chairmun of our Legislative Committee. This message relates to Important legislatiun that we have uttempted to pass through the Minnesota Legislature during the past neveral years. This lartalation will be re -introduced this year by the !linnesoto State Fire Chiefs L.eCislation Committee. We hope to obtnLn your support and the support of all other Fire Service Organizations nn a State and Local level. The Committee and myself feel this is n key year to have this legislation passed glue to the heavy lona or life suffered recently in, Las Verna and New York, and locally on u nmallor scale in Brooklyn Park where three young children loot their .lives. .I Um' therefore requesting your help and efforts on n local level. c First. would you plenne make a copy of Chier !tertz letter and send, it to your local Legislators and then aluo nand a copy to your 1:00L-1 uewnpap'er. If at all possible, deliver it to them in person. .,ccondly, I would like you to send a pernourfl letter to L'hfvl' Idr-Ft::.,,. Yrum your department and possibly your Reginnal Association,_ underlininE your strong oupport of this very important le l: I' al.nt.ion. ,!'lease give this matter your prompt attention, don't let it ret. :fust 'in your mountains of paperwork. 1 feel u concerted and combined effort on mfr port nt thin time could be very instrumental in ;etting this very crucial leetnlation I,nosed. : would personally appreciate your errorts to support tlfin very ii portant issues n ° Gordon F. Vadnais Fire Chief - White Bear Lake President - Minnesota State Fire Chior'o Asonciation DON'T GIVE i1QL A pLACI TO START n..:rww -a-11,; Iw -a-11,lr fl I.00 I R nand ft; rr na� dlr Idr I.r Urynl,,,nn � V I.ul, M.,V,nu, ffl,. „n..a.w TO: FELLOW FIRE CIIIEF'S u",ra •ave, rna Incl n urvinM, r,yl FROM: GORDON F. VADNAIV, !rl!liiIDEII't' MSFCA - r' SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR, UPCOMING FIRE SAFETY `LF.C1::!.ATlUIi: Attached to my letter In what I consider to be a very important message from Chief Mertz, Chairmun of our Legislative Committee. This message relates to Important legislatiun that we have uttempted to pass through the Minnesota Legislature during the past neveral years. This lartalation will be re -introduced this year by the !linnesoto State Fire Chiefs L.eCislation Committee. We hope to obtnLn your support and the support of all other Fire Service Organizations nn a State and Local level. The Committee and myself feel this is n key year to have this legislation passed glue to the heavy lona or life suffered recently in, Las Verna and New York, and locally on u nmallor scale in Brooklyn Park where three young children loot their .lives. .I Um' therefore requesting your help and efforts on n local level. c First. would you plenne make a copy of Chier !tertz letter and send, it to your local Legislators and then aluo nand a copy to your 1:00L-1 uewnpap'er. If at all possible, deliver it to them in person. .,ccondly, I would like you to send a pernourfl letter to L'hfvl' Idr-Ft::.,,. Yrum your department and possibly your Reginnal Association,_ underlininE your strong oupport of this very important le l: I' al.nt.ion. ,!'lease give this matter your prompt attention, don't let it ret. :fust 'in your mountains of paperwork. 1 feel u concerted and combined effort on mfr port nt thin time could be very instrumental in ;etting this very crucial leetnlation I,nosed. : would personally appreciate your errorts to support tlfin very ii portant issues n ° Gordon F. Vadnais Fire Chief - White Bear Lake President - Minnesota State Fire Chior'o Asonciation DON'T GIVE i1QL A pLACI TO START Mruo Lona 333-5134 rt~ AArRzeHixFj December i, 1980 TO: ALL MINNESOTA FiRE CHIEFS 'r"•I••^I ••�•«•' Y rwi,+www+lltU •u•hr.wMn <!.,•m.., lbra W fAr.sn,n Iu.uucrxa FROM: ORVILLE N. ME RTZ, tHAiRMAN OF LEGISLATIVE i,n„n..k,,,,x,n•ihM COMMITTEE ♦a+n ...,.. ulw.m.«. SUBJECT: Ft RE PROTECTION iii HIGH-RISE AND HIGH LIFE WARD BU t LO1 NGS . An you are all well aware, no city or community in thu State of Minnesota Is permitted to nw,ke any laws, ordinances, or building requirements that exceed the State Building Code without permission from the State Building Code Division, and then only after a lengthy hearing. Our experience with the State Building Code, in so far as It regards more fire protection for the buildings I question, has been about as negative as you can get. Ttlose of you who attended the adoption hearings of the State Building Code can testify to ttiu opposition the State Fire Chiefs received from the State Building Code Division Itself. ,.Len we proposed fire safety rules to prevent Las Vegas MGM Grand fires, as well as the ..+position we received from them in subsequent legislative sessions when attempts were ••.s,h• to correct this Inadequecy. e fact of the matter is that MGM Grand -type fires can happen In any ono of our communities. . does not have to be a high- rise or a hotel, it can occur in apartment houses, office buildings, banks or any large area where large amounts of combustibles and people come together In the same place. The present State Building Code permits certain buildings to be cunstructed as high ai you want to. and stretch clear across your county. and stilt not be required in in'.tall complete automatic sprinkler protection. Sprinkler protection Is given, in the State Outtding Code. as an alternative to other building protection tethniquos, all of which lave miserable safety records, only when the building ex.ce,•d•. 75' in height. There la so mandatory eom18leto automatic serinkier requirement in the State Buitdiny Code for *the oriidings mentioned here, ragardless at size, conii-iniatiun, or heinht, 'urtheraxsre, you can build any size apartment house or hotel you want tu, and nut even ut In an alarm system if it remains under three stories. he Minnesota State Fire Chiefs. in conjunction with others, are again qui till to sponsor eg Fslatlon that wi l l perms t Ind Ividual etmnmuni t les to exceed the Sulu Doi Iding Code„ s it regards fire detection, starting, and suppression deviLes. The state law persalts s to aimand our fire code, but we can make no amendatents that exceed the bulidiny u.do ,quirement. are asking you to pleats contact your local representatives and ,;nators aid inform em of the need for this legislation. Orville N. Mertz Fire Chief - Rochester Chairman of the MSFCA Legtalativc Committee t:c jt OON'1 6tYf FIRE R riAt'i i0 SiAtf n RssJmt : F�J%1 'W200ye R6 pA,ri.s titVO GcN- riiP4sNT 15olt2 5,000nn.1. s P: f. 7 L Aa.- Cos % oc 1 to- G L ow,y x sLd l ed i B,Ate CoS% a $ ( iso! YA k c.-' l4So i, 2cz�o JeF�Ktix Foa. 3yu W. -iµ Sao L -:no JA13�' ?/b jR. Mita `ro 3,coo Oe ,', I, Foci 3yat w:r-L 1,00o Lnvio JAl i 00 y2 4iw 'oro "C3, F 1o,00a \Yd v\.J,t F.Yt 61Its1504 C%V(O} A1Ji 2 -t o X z aN'b►' ►5 6 LL7o !/F�,c`r , ��nrr- 3ycs .vf °/GO•/o. Al. c voiJAJa„ 604 SS4 � fr A.r� SQ - . . Gv,►f tar..ra h� • 6 8 q 4 g "o ►S 20 2S PA,Le-% �a4 �Y►t 0 t r l4So 3ytr . SCa � ✓a/.+d �T c3j+gj' �ti►OC�1D �N• 2. 3,exc�✓".r►'ur►%— 74 - , z • a ,rtr t3►S� /SMA6r , S, o0o K.4rs (het y�At y Cor— OgGq sy.W L=37- x0 Nl��i , s000 M.'— PO"yg^4� Ydov y Cos7' ' ;400 fwc. Gy�ts , SDC? !/al a v -sr- 0 o T ro CAo.r•►t 0.0;t,.y VC,000 3r•,r., lw-ra- aor omr- ;to flood- S,000 Mdd, Pat /0-4- yagoi , C,qw. �" 2570 t: 3yar i✓s cAAW 07rCd.va tr►vgO O Tw n wow # M .rp.n C. h.. A f...•lM of o,.Ydm- 9"—U... "n Tt«I An, .n•tl.•. N. V. I1137 � FROM - — f f✓1��10 - .. J�1a_,l�'QU9 & B EQUIPMENT CO., INC. TO _O LE �?pygOl✓Ay _ _ 8700 PENN AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, Code 6M112NES 85423 SUBJECT: _ ✓ r r�N 1- tom/ 5��---- DATE: //Z��� \ .o.o #Cly/Y�++L _ �iv�o, - �� y /psdi�.r f<r r9lGo• /.i 4 1 PLEASE REPLY TO SIGNED REPLY v �UATF:: SIGNL D J 7910 COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED C I II INC , GMENUB _t LIGHTWEIGHT STEEL GANTRIES provide economical, portable overhead support for all types of hoists. They are ideal for, buildings without load bearing walls or columns, and are much less costly than a permanent bridge crane. _1 • A i OTHER FEATURES OF SPANCO GANTRIE$t • winch hoists can be removed for general shop duty when not in use on gantry _ • tubular steel design reduces weight and cost • adjustable models can be easily moved through doorways + every "A" frame is Static -tested to itm96 ' 1 overload • polyurethano wheels gllde easily on roller bearings and will not damage floor NEW! Lava! COST! I to 5 -TOM CAPACITIES ADJUSTABLE AND FIXED -HEIGHT .NTRIES sold with or without 1 -beams for Iffaighl Savings P- Nargh: 0t 041.81ut}a .00e1a Is awtr ~w ran a ch - M caba'cometilong" atiuhad t0 04th 'A" frame (LUG -ALL wlnch.hoi•1 ,to ala 010.00 4 ao Opbon to, thn Nlpo") 9rna1 um«e mrY ur,umh an }dyt aOlrtWna rM rib pnaeran�ng Lshrrnlr,ng OureU1/ rnrnla ne.a a wl�a metal wart arta macre aalyunmenn urea for m Uoor lualnClron twgw 3 ane 5-10n -dm. /re all•alnel •hYmlYl m CUMPRSIIENSIVE SEWER Cl.EANING PROCRAM CONTRACTING Va. CITY PARTICIPATION John Simola Public Works director City of Monticello July 26. 1979 l Due to tite growth of Monticello over the past twenty (20) years, the ataouni of underground utilities has increased significantly. At present, w we have approximately Bb miles of storm sewer and 15 oiler of sanitary a ver within the City. The city sewers are currently nwintained by a crew of two men utilizing a power rodding machine and a set of bucket winch machines. The bucket machine type of cleaning (which was seen on Broadway), when performs) correctly, is the most positive. it its also, however, the slowest. It get.. -rally requires more manhours and equipment hours than any other method of cleaning. &( O ;JI�Q„l.� /�ayt .-lIJ0"0' ho.- (N'�'�"L/ A second method, the roddinq machine, is .t tvclut common mothud of Cleaning in that it is nothing more than a large roto -router. Many people believe it to be an excellent cleaning machine. It shuuld be noted that it does have certain limitations. It will trot, without much time and effort, twve any zignificant amounts of fine to coarse sand, gravt-1, grease or other heavy debris, and is not effective in any pipes larger than 12" diameter, it Allies aativv sludge, and will remove a certain amuuot of root -growth and .jenurally will open a plugged or clogged sewer. If dirt, rand, heavy roots, .,r yrwnv exist, this opening can be temporaty. In addition, the unit i.. ..4 ht -Jit -maintenance item in that $750 to $1,000 per year ]a required for J u•t tcmi and miscollanvous parts replacement. yberefore, it should be noted L hat the rodder is it good maintenance tool. but not a heavy-duty cleaning ..wh ins. In 1971, the City rodded approximately 65 miles of sanitary tower. :.iare that time, with the exception of emergency rtt3dtny, only 158 lin. It. !( .,I .;aaitaty sewer waw bucketed last year. Ittia year, as of July 25th, we {{{{ :.:tvp bucketod 1,265 lin. ft. of xanitaty stvet and with, the excOpttun of i4 oreer.genc:y rodding. tended only 375 lin. ft. of oanitary ruwot. bur to 4- ..Ivy 411 It. iotr arcocs, difficult set -tips and rvviral e�.)ui(xmmt Ureakdutt,s, over JOD , tnhouts were apart in this cleaning, of .ipproxttsately 5.3 lin. It. ` pt -r tvmituur. - i - 7 It is clear that, we neer) a method'of cleaning faster than the Bucket machines and morethoroughthan the rodding �1 machine in order to have'a compt'Ohensive sewer maintenance program. Such a method as indicated above is jet cleaning. A jet is a high - velocity water pump, equipped with a large capacity water tank and 600 feet of hoOe, all mounted on a single -axle truck. Water -is pumped at a rate of 60 - 70 GPM at 1,500 to 2,000 PSI through a l" diameter Lose. A nozzle at the end VC the husc directs the water to the rc.,r, thus "jet" propelling the hose into the pipe. At different intvtvalr, lite hose is pulled Lack In the starting manhole by hydraulic pressure, bringing with it dile frum the line. The dirt in collected at the manhole and removed by pall and rope, or a valuum unit. Vacuum units can he a separate machine which i:: truck or trailer mounted, or those jets equipped with a vacuum unit an the same truck are generally referred to as "combination" units. The jet machines work well in pipe sizes up to 76" to 40", and will genctally remove most types of debris ,•xvept dense root growth and heavy crusted material. Thcse machines require tine to two men, and are generally set up and ol,erating In 10 to 15 minutes with production rates in average conditions far surpassing those of Bucket uGtehincu. Thesv unitn are commonly used in our area from March through Yovcml.er. ,1_comprchensive plan for Monticello should include u lhoruh cleanimt of 2U,000 to 25,U00 I tot, ft. per year. Ilenve rosier, a question --- should the City contract out a major portion of this cleaning, or purchase the Proper piece of equipment and perform the el(•aninq with City pot:,annel. Projected contracted costs pct foot for Cleaninll on aralltr jobs is opptuxlmotely $.65 per lin, ft. -Thio would mo.ut a yearly budget figure of $16,250 fur 25,000 lin. Lt. of cleaning. We will ut,e thele costs: to determine the feasibility of City nwned cleaning equipment. 1 otttimate a CUttst•lV.ltiwe Clcanun) racy of .)J lin. ft. per sunhuur for an inexl•rt u•nced Crew ut.ing a jet unit only. Foot tour Vurtent two Alan CleaIll I clew, City labot costo ate $6,142.50 (including b,.nefits) tar the 175 hours nrreesary to Clean 25,000 lin. it. Thi,, i0 approximately N.246 per lin. L. f,.t ladt,it . Althuugh an .•xpvt ien"J etew wuu1J In• r.:ote ptuttetu,t as tier vent ..n, tile- savingn w,ntle), I hPllewP, he naaL•what ul t•uet ly toil l..ttun at.d i•lc1y.Isvn in lahnl costs. 64lie" �yo 3160 Jet machines cost from $16,000 for a email trailer unit to $30,000 for a lacger .ruck -mounted unit to $60,000 to $90,000 for the combination units I'ur purposes of this evaluation, we will use the $30,000 trucl: unit which we will stave equipped with a 1,500 gallon tank and street flushing spray bars and hand held watering equipment so that it will hale other use;: an wo 11. following is a cost breakdown: 19-0 PULLY E0t1IPPED TRUCK-MOUNTI:U JET with Street Flushing Erlu ipmont $3u,000.UO L1:SSt value of 7 -year cid unit 9,000.00 7 -YEAR WIF11511IP COST $21,000.00 7 > YEARLY COST OF rOU1PMENT . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,000.00 7EARLY OPERATION COST: A. Fuel 1375 hr. x 4 gal/hr- x $1.30/+lull- $407.50 �19S0. 0. 4 Oil changes 6 lube - Jet unit 9 $20/va 00.00 C. 2 Oil changes t lube - truck 0 $20/ea 40.00 0. Truck repair, tuncup, battery, tires,otc. 250.00 E. Jet repair, hose, tuncup, etc. 350.00 e F. Gen. supplies s miac. parts or accesn. 175.00 �a5 G. Body repair and/or paint, misc.,etc. 50.00 H. 11'r-urance 400.00 TOTAL YEARLY OPERATIOt. COSTS i, 5,0�3j7S' a. TOTAL YEARLY EQUIPmEwr COSTS 3,.-680-00 W)TAL OPERATION AM) EQUIPMENT COSTS $ 4,912.50 YEARLY I.ADOR COST 6,142.50 i34•r° TOTAL YEARLY COST 511, 055.00 �t 3 i64 'tineltuirs truck) This would Iigurc Out to allout $0.442 per lin. 1t., or $29.17 per opera- I.tty hour. it would appear to be very coot -effective to own our own equipment, :v i1o1 sr)me 55,155 per year.. I would like to paint out th..t thin Is A single +i t and would recommend that i t bo Included in th-: 1900 butlgot so that we y he•lin our comprehennivo sewer maintenance progtam And have it well under y when our new dioponal plant is Cnm34eted. it should also be stated at: thin time thac the pail and nips method of frit removal can become very tiresome lot the apvrature, especit.Il.y when heavy .nnn.tntu of dirt and gravel are encountered. : would i'utther rccrmfiend that .+ : c-lmrato vacuum unit ho planned for in the tuturu to auui ut in the cleaning. rhe Cleaning operationo would become still nti:.rr of lectivv and ptWuctive and prowidr for better operating Conditions. N LJ MEMORANDUM TO: File G-21-29 6 Step III File FROM: Gary Wieber DATE: February 3, 1981 SUBJECT: Approval of Chanqe Order on City of Monticello's Step III Grant for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. On January 30, 1981, I called Tom Cilhertson, attorney with the State Auditor's Office, regarding methods for approving change orders on the contract with Paul A. Laurence for Step III construction on the Wastewater Treatment Plant. My prime concern was the anticipation of a number of change orders, currently there are three to be considered at the City Council's next :meeting, anticipated on the contract with Paul A. Laurence. Specifically, there is a need to have the change orders effected prior to consideration by the City Council on small items. If the change orders have to be approved by the City Council prior to ceamaencing the change order, it would unduly delay the project. In the last audit report issued by the State Auditor's office, there was a comment on the 1976 sawar and water project that a change order was approved without prior Council approval. In light of this, I asked Tan Gilbertson provided that a method was established and approved by the Council if it could delegate the duty of approving a change order to the City'a Authorized Representative, who is Arve Grimamo, for change orders under $5,000. Reasoning for the $5,000 benchmark in that this is the figure under which quotations are not necessary. Tom Gilbertson indicated that the City of Monticello could do the following: 1. Document in the minutes and substantiate with the reauoning why the City of Monticello wants to establish a procedure whereby tlae Mayor would be authorized to sign all change ordors up to $5,000 without prior Council approval. 2. Thio documentation would include purpose, time saving, and also indicate that the scope of the change order must be within the intent of the contract for the completion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the contract with Paul A. Laurance. 3. In all cases, the change orders would still ultimately be approved by the Council oven though the ones under $5,000 were being approvud by the Council after the fact. 4. Change orders in excess of $5,000 would require City Council approval, and this would be documented in the minutes. (It should be noted that Tom Gilbertson did not indicate that thio would be a requirement, but this is the method I indicated that the City would like to une). Memo to Files G-21-29 6 Step III February 3, 1981 Page •2 S. All change orders would require the signature of the Mayor and the signa- ture of the authorized representative of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Assoc. It would appear that all change orders will be funded through EPA and PCA, and as a result, the City of Monticello should be reimbursed for 90% of all change orders. It should be pointed out that one of the three change orders which will be approved at the City Council's February 9, 1981 meeting is in excess of $5,000 without City Council approval. However, this change order has not been approved by an authorized representative of the City, and it would seem at this time that the change order would only be a liability of the City of Monticello if it did approve the change order. By having a procedure eotablished, this will not happen again in the future since a method will be documented. GW/no CA COUNCIL UPDATE February 9, 1981 Meeting FIRE PROTECTION - HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS Enclosed, you will find copies of two letters put out by the Minnesota Fire Chiefs Association. I have contacted Paul Klein, Monticello Fire Chief, and asked that the Fire Department review this matter and consider recommending appropriate action. A copy of this letter to Paul Klein is enclosed for your reference. PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS - SCOTWOOD MOTEL in talking with representatives of the proposed Scotwood hotel, for which the City Council previously approved Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of $750,000, I understand the project is still being pursued, and the City Council will be requested to increase the amount of Industrial Revenue Bonds to approximately S1.25 Million. This increase has been necessitated because of the increase of the number of units to 50 units, plus the possible addition of a whirlpool and sauna. This item should be on our agenda shortly, and construction, according to representatives of the Scotwood Motel, is extremely optimistic indicating a start in April 1981. Realistically, this might be more like July of 1981. For your information, there is currently legislation being introduced that would affect the commercial useage of Industrial Revenue Bonds for such uses as motels, hotels, etc. The League of Minnesota Cities is opposing this legislation basically on the premise that since most of the states do offer this type of bonding, it would limit the competitiveness of business in Minnesota, which has already suffered some criticism on its high tax rates, etc. There are some supportive of a general prohibition of Industrial Revenue Bonds altogether since it does have a certain amount of impact on the interest rate that a city will have to pay for municipal bonds. This would actually almost seem preferable since no particular state then would have a competitive edge because it offered industrial revenue bonds or not. POSSIBLE ALLOCATION OF REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FROM WRIGHT COUNTY As indicated in a previous Council Update, the City of ilonticello's request for revenue sharing funds through Wright County was not approved since the funds were going to be used internally. However, Arve Grimsmo, who was at a Wright County Commissioner's meeting, discussed this with the board and there was the possible indication that Monticello would be in line for revenue sharing funds in 1981. 1 have since talked again with Ozzie Arlien, Wright County Administrator, and he indicated that the revenue sharing funds the County expects to receive in 1981 totals $900,000, and this has been committed internally, that is, for use by the governmental unit of Wright County itself. Mr. Arlien did indicate that should there be any reserve in revenue sharing funds and an allocation made to any outside community, that Monticello would be first in line to receive such funding. lie did indicate that a better assessment of the status of revenue sharing funds and what reserve may be left over could be assessed in July or August of 1981. GW/ns MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL January 26, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White. Members Absent: None. 1. Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Variance Request - Decorative Services. Decorative Services of Monticello requested a variance to eliminate the entire curb barrier around their parking lot and driveway to their new facility proposed to be built on the rear half of the lot east of Independent Lumber Company in the Oakwood Industrial Park. Their reason for requesting the variance was that the back half of the lot is lower than the surrounding area, and by constructing a holding pond on the lot, they propose to contain the runoff water in a holding pond that would be constructed as part of their landscaping. The proposed plans were reviewed by John Boda lith, City Engineer, and Mr. Badalich reviewed with the Council the drainage plan and indicated that this concept would be suitable for drainage on this lot and indicated that the curb barrier could be eliminated without affecting proper drainage. Normally, as Mr. Badalich explained, curb barriers are needed to control drainage to the proper areas, but because the lot in this case is actually lower in the middle, curb barriers would not be needed. Council members discussed whother curb barrier requirements on all parking lots in now developments were required strictly for drainage purposes, or whether curb barrier requirements were also for aesthetic purposes. It was pointed out that in the majority of the cases, curb barriers were required not only for drainage, but also to define a specific parking area and for aesthetic purposes. Therefore, a motion Was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil white, and unanimously carried to approve the variance request to eliminate the curb barrier along the driveway leadinq to the building site and parking lot and also to eliminate the curb barrier along the north side of the pro- posed parking lot, but to require a curb barrier to be instslled on the west and south side of the parking lot. It wan noted that the drainage, as proposed, would still be allowed to drain into a holding pond, if constructed an propoued. 7 Council Minutes - 1/26/81 2. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development - 1 Robert and Marion Jameson. Robert and Marion Jameson, who own a parcel of land on the south sido of the Monticello Junior/Senior High School, requested a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to allow the additional placement of three more log cabins on their property to be restored and used as displays of the past for public observation on a limited basis. Mrs. Jameson indicated that these three new buildings, combined with a couple that are already existing on their property, would be laid out into an historic community and neighborhood type project that would indicate and show how past historic settlements existed. The display area would be open to the public and donations would be asked of approximately $1.00 per adult and 5.50 per child to help defray some of the cost, although a strict admission charge would not be charged. The Council and Public works Director discussed the condition of the pre- sent gravel road leading to their property off of Washington Street, and Mrs. Jameson indicated that the present condition of the road would be adequate with minor improvements to handle any traffic problems. It was noted that the City would be responsible for maintaining the road up to the Jameson's property line, and the balance of the road would be the owner's responsibility. Marion Jameson also indicated that they may like to install a directional type sign indicating the location of this historical landmark, and was informed by the Council that this would require a separate variance for any off -premise directional sign. Motion was made by Phil white, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to approve the conditional use for the Planned Unit Development concept stags and development stage, an proposed. Consideration of Resolution Orderinq Feasibility Renort on Improvements to NSP Property on Rivor Street. A petition was filed by NSP rapresentative, ward King, requesting that the City extend sewer, water and blacktopping to a portion of NSP'a pro - party on Lha south side of County Road 75 along River Street. The improve - mento were requested for the purpose of carving a 23,000 square foot complex NSP was proposing that would be developed for training purposes and would also include a aimulatod control room similar to the actual control room in the NSP nuclear power plant itself. City Engineer, John Oadalich, explained that there were a number of posai- ble waya of serving this property, one would be to obtain sewer and water across County Road 75 near the locution of the Rod s Gun Clubl the other choice would be to receive these improvements through an extension of cower and water through The Meadows Plat to River Street, then southwesterly along River Street to their building. -� Council Minutes - 1/26/B1 In a preliminary review of the area, Mr. Badalich indicated that he would prefer that the sewer be ex tended from within The Meadows Plat, while the water be extended from the intersection of County Road 75 near the Rod 6 Gun Club. Re indicated that the sewer could not be extended from the intersection near the Rod 6 Gun Club without facilitating the inprove- ment of a lift station becau so of depth problems. Motion was made by Dan Blon igen, seconded by Phil white and unanimously carried to approve adopting a resolution ordering John Badalich, City Engineer, to prepare a feasibility report on this proposed improvement project. (See Resolution 1981 115) 4. Consideration of Final Payment to Barlairossa Construction Company on the 1979-1 Improvement Project. Barbarossa Construction Company recently finished construction on tiro 1979-1 Improvement Project, which served the southern portion of Oakwood Industrial Park along with the former J.R. Culp Property, [curing Lane and other minor areas. City Engineer, John Badalich, recommended that final payment in the amount of $10,208.17 be paid . Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by ren Maus and unanimously carried to approve the final payment to Harbarossa and Sons, Inc. on the 1919-1 Improvement Project in the amount of $18,208.17. 5. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment for Siqns The City of Monticello was recently notified that it has Iwen selected to receive a grant in the amount of $35,000 from the Federal highway Administration for the improvement of Ellison Park along the Mississippi River, because it lies adjacent to the Croat River Road Syatem. However, in order to be eligible for those funds, it was necessary that the City of Monticello adopt an ordinance that indicates the City Would be willing to enter an agreement with the Federal Government which would enable the City, in the future, to purchase non -conforming signs along the Groat River Road. The money for the purchase of these non -conforming signs along the Great River Road would come from the Federal Government, but would not be effective unless the Federal Governmont provided at least 750 of the funds for purchasing those non -conforming signs. The Council was concerned wh othur the approximately 8 non -conforming signs now existing along the Creat River Road through Monticello may eventually coat the City more munoy to remove them than actually the City would receive from this grant. Sono of the Council members viewed this attempt to regulate aigno beforo any grant monies wore dispersed as on effort to force the City of Monticello to remove signs at the Federal Government's roqueot. As a result, motion was made by Uin Blonigen, occonded by Phil Whito to Bony any uign ordinance nmondmunt which would require the City 1 - 7 Council Minutes - 1/26/81 of Monticello to enter into any agreement with the Federal Highway Adminis- tration for purchase of these non -conforming signs, and to also reject J any grant monies allocated. voting in favor: Dan Blonigen. Opposed: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White. After further Council discussion on the proposed sign ordinance amendment, it was noted that the sign ordinance amendment, if adopted, would not require the City to remove any non -conforming signs that the City's ordinance does not already require to be removed. In addition, it was noted that funds would have to be allocated by the Federal Government for the removal of these signs, and in all likelihood, this possibility was very remote. Similar agreements have been required by the Federal Government for a number of years, and funds for the removal of non -conforming signs have never been appropriated by the Federal Government. As a result, the City would probably never be required to purchase any non -conforming signs and thus, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus to adopt the sign ordinance amendment as proposed which would allow the City of Monticello to enter an agreement with the Federal Highway Administration to purchase non -conforming signs along the Creat River Road whenever funds would become available from the Federal Government in the amount of at least 756. voting in favor: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White. Oppoued: Dan Blonigen. (Ordinance Amendment 1/26/61 §90) 6. Consideration of Amendment of ordinance to Have the Plrnninq Commission Act as the Board of Adjustment and APpeals. In an attempt to simplify the variance procedures, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance amendment which would allow the Planning Commission to serve as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to hear all variance requests, with their decision being final unless such decision was appealed in writing by any individual within five days after the decision was made. The Planning Commission felt that many non-controverrinl variance requests have been reviewed over the pout years with the Planning Commissiun's recommendations being sustained by the City Council in normal canes. By eliminating the requirement for the applicant to go before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the applicants would not have any undue delay in their requests. It was noted that if an appeal won filed, the findings of the Planning Commission plus any background available would be brought forward to the City Council for tho Council to hear. It was noted by the Council that although many of the variance requests are non-eontroveraial, a 4/5'e vote of the Planning Conmiosi-on members would be necessary, and sometimes there is a problem in having all five planning commission meml:ers present during their meetings. As a result, it was noted that many of the applicant's may be required to attend more than one Planning Commission meeting in nn effort to receive a 4/510 vote, which may result in more dolayu than the present procedure of going to the Planning Commisolon and than to the City Council for approval. In addition, they felt it was the City Council's duty to be the final judgment on variance canon, and therefore, motion was made by Phil White, uccended by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to deny any ordinance amendment that wnuld hnvo tho Planning Commission servo an the Board of Adjustment and Appoolo for vari•.—ce requests. - 4 - Council Minutes - 1/2G/81 7. Consideration of Approval of Fire Contract with Silver Creek Township. The previous three-year fire contract with Silver Creek Township expired on December 31, 1980, and the Joint Fire Board, consisting of Township representative Gerhart Decker, City representative Nick wolfsteller, and Fire Department representative Lee Trunnell, worked with City Administrator Gary Wieber to establish a new contract proposal for Loth Silver Creek Township and Otsego Township. The Joint Fire Board recommended that the standby charge and hourly fee charged be revised as follows: Standby Charge - Silver Creek Township - $4,000 (was $300) Otsego Township - $600 (was $300) Hourly Fee - Both Silver Creek and Otsego Townships - $200 the first hour (was ;300), $100 additional hours (was $100 for second hour and $75 for additional hours). Other alternatives for new contracts were made available to Silver Creek which would include a standby charge of $2,400 plus hourly charges of $400 for the first huur and $100 per hour for additional hours. The third alternativo made available was a standby charge of $1,500 plus an hourly charge of $500 for the first hour and $100 per hour for addi- tional hours. These charges were recommended for a Lhree-year contract based on the percentage of total firemen hours from 1975 through July of 1980, along with a computation to determine the cost of each fire run. The increase in the Standby charges for Silver Creek was based on the City of Monticollo'o fixed coat to provide fire service, which attempted to pro -rate some of these costs to communities served by the Monticello Fire Department, based on the total percentage of time the equipment was used in cacti community. On November 18, 1980 and January 20, 1981, the Joint Fire Board reviewed the contract proposnla with the Silver Creek Township Board. As a result of these meetings and negotiations, the Silver Creek Township Board made a proposal for a three-year contract which would cell for an annual standby charge of $1,000 and a per fire call charge of $250 for the first hour and $150 for each additional hour. The Silver Crack Township Board indicated that their 1901 fire budget had been previously set in March of 1900, and that funds were not available for the larger standby coat or hourly fire cost for 1981, and that their proposal of $1,000 standby and $250 for the first hour was all they could afford for 1991. In addition, they indicated they would have to got the approval at their March Townohip Annual Meeting to uatabliuh any budget for fire protection for the years 1982 and 1983. In light of the budget roquiremento already act for 1981 by the Silver Crook Township Board, it woo the recommendation of the Joint Fire Board that a contract be proponed for 1901 based on t hn offer made by Silver Crook Township of $1,000 standby chargn, plus fire call charge of $250 for the first hour or any fraction thereof, and $150 for each additional hour or fraction thereof, but that the Silver Crook Township Board Council Minutes - 1/26/81 t bring the matter to their March 1981 township meeting for the years 1982 and 1983 to consider the alternatives previously presented by the Joint Fire Board. If approved by the Silver Creek Township, the contract would be entered into for 1981 based on their offer, but the years 1982 and 1983 would be based on the recommendations of the Joint Fire Board. Motion was made by Phil white, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to approve a one-year contract as proposed by the Silver Creek Township Board at $1,000 standby charge with $256 hourly charge for the first hour or fraction thereof, and $150 per hour for every hour or fraction thereof thereafter, with the consideration of extending this one year contract for an additional two years based on the Joint Fire Board's reconancnded alterna- tives after approved by the Silver Creek Township Board at their. March 1981 Annual Meeting. 8. Consideration of Approval of Appraisal - Lindberq Property. Mr. 6 Mrs. Kermit Lindberg have indicated that they would be receptive to selling their property, located directly cast of the present wastewater Treatment Plant facility. While the current site of the Wastewater Treatment Plant is sufficient to handle the updating of the present facility, but according to the consulting engineers, it may be necessary for the City of Monticello to find another site for a wastewater Treatment Plant in 20 to 25 years from now. Since Mr. s Mrs. Lindberg have indicated a willingness to sell their property at the present time, a motion was made by Phil white, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried to authorize the City Administrator to obtain an appraisal on the 5.13 acres owned by Mr. s Ura. Lindberg to determine a possible basis for an offer by the City of Monticello. 9. Approval of pills for January 1981, and the Minuten of January 12, 1981. Motion was made by Phil white, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to approve the bills as presented for January 1981, and the Minutes of the regular Council Meeting hold January 12, 1981. (See Exhibit 1/26/81 W. lo. Consideration of Resolution on Stop 1I Grant Enginoerinq Fuca. Consulting Engineer, John Badolich, rcquouted that the City Council adopt a resolution approving of his engineering firm asking the MICA and the EPA to reconsider their firma rcyueot for additional engineering fees relating to the Stop I1 wastewater Treatment Plant Grant application. Mr. Badolich indicated that this resolution is intended to support the engineering firm's request that thuir engineering Coos lxt rueonsidered for approval as part of the grant project. - G - Council Minutes - 1/26/81 Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution asking the PCA and EPA to review and reconsider Orr-Schelen-Mayeron's request for additional engineering fees relating to Step II. (See Resolution 1981 06). Meeting adjourned. Ric Wolfste�er, Administrati a Assistant RW/ns 7 - 7