City Council Agenda Packet 02-14-1983AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF TILE CITY COUNCIL
February 14, 1903 - 7t30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Gri.msmo.
Members: Jack Maxwell, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, and Dan elonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Minutes of the Meeting field on January 24, 1903.
3. Citizens Cemrmenta/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
( Old uuni,wus.
i 4. Consideration of Meadow Oak Final Plat.
S. Consideration of a Report from Oakwood Block Subcommittoo.
G. Consideration of Change Orders 607.
7. Consideration of Issuing a Certificate of Substantial Com-
pletion for Treatment Plant.
New Business.
0. Consideration of Eatablishing a Fund to Supplement Employoe
Insurance Benefits.
9. Consideration of Bide for the Acquisition of Sower/water
Department Van.
10. Adjournment.
C
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY CC1l18CIL
January 24, 1983 - 7:38 I.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Fran Fair,
Ken Maus, Dan Bloniycn.
Members Absent: None.
2. Appruval of the Minutes.
A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and unani-
mously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
hold on January 10, 1983 as presented.
3. Citizens Comments.
Ms. Candy Benoit, Assistant Community I'ducation Director, was
present at the meeting to formally invite the City Council
members to a Community Forummeoting on Monday evening Jan-
uary 31, 1983 for the purpose of evaluating Monticello's
Chemical Awareness and Prevention Program.
Mo. Benoit noted that this is the first time in the State of
Minnesota that o Community Forum will be used to look at the
pros and cons of a community's effort to prevent alcohol and
drug abuse. The community form is meant to provide a basis
for planning future prevention activitiou of a chemical
awarencuu and prevention progrum took force.
4. Continuation of Public 11carinn - Meadow Oak.
A motion was made by fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously
carried to continue the public hearing on the proponed ex-
tension of public utilitioe to the Meadow Oak Subdivision
until the developers of the property finnlizo their owner-
uhip in the land involved.
5. Consideration of Advertleine for Bids for Public Improvements
for Meadow Oak Sublivinion.
Up to thin point, the City Council Iiaa authorized a feasibility
utudy and the preparation of•plann and spocifications for pub-
lic Improvements to Meadow Oak Subdivlaion but the Council lion
not authorised tho making of three ienprovemonta. An authori-
motion to actually conmronco conotruc tion would not be ordered
by the Council until after tho actual recording of the now
plat is made. Ibwovor, the City Engineer has prepared final
Council Minutes - 1/24/83
plans and specs for the proposed improvements and in order to
expedite the project, the developers are requesting that the
process be started for advertising for bids on the project.
John Badalich, Consulting City Engineer, gave a brief review
of the proposed sewer, water and storm sewer improvements
that are planned for the Meadow Oak Subdivision. Mr. Badalich
indicated that the estimated cost would be as follows:
water Lines $357,000
Sewer Construction 238,000
Storm Sewcr and street
improvements 248,000
TOTAL CONSTRICTION COST $843,000
25♦ indirect costs - 210,750
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,053,750
Mr. Badalich noted that this project provides services to the
plat boundaries and also will provide some improvements to 29
with the first stage of the manufactured home site platting
to be done by the developer's own contractors.
It was Suggested by the Council that possibly the City should
require some wort of quaranteo from the developers that their
improvements of sewer, water and utroet construction into
the manufactured home site phase will be done at the same time
that the City's construction takes place and that this could be
resolved either by written agreement or possibly bonding by
the developers.
Mr. Badslich noted that this project would have to be advertised
in the local newspaper and Construction Bulletin for a minimum
of three (3) weeks prior to the bid opening which has been sche-
duled for 10:00 A.M. on February 22, 1983. if the final owner-
ship of the property hes been resolved by the February 26th
Council meeting, at that time the bids could be awarded.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair to adopt a resolu-
tion approving the plane end ,epecificationa and ordering the
advertisement for bids for the improvements for the subdivision
to bo known as Meadow Oak. The motion also included a stipu-
lation that the developers of Meadow Oak be advised as to the
coot incurred no far in the preparation of plane and opecifl-
cations and that the City receive a written commitmont from
these developers agreeing to roimhurse the City for all expenses
incurred to data. Voting in favor of the motion were Maus, Fair,
and Maxwell. Opposed •as Dan "'onigan with Mayor GrimLmo
absent during thin portion of .0 meeting. (Seo Resolution
1983 - 066).
r.
Council Minutes - 1/24/83
G. Consideration of a Personnel Issue Concerning Wren Klein.
The Mayor began discussion of the issue saying that the course
of action seemed fairly clear to him and that he felt that it
was unfortunate that this issue luid developed to this point.
lie asked if any one had anything further to say before official
action was taken. Administrator Eidem began his discussion by
introducing Mr. Frank gladden, Attorney at Law, who Eidem had
retained for the purpose of investigating legal implications
and legal options with regard to this matter. He noted that
lie had arrived at his own recommendation based on the legal
opinion that Midden had submitted to him. Eidem noted that
there was a copy of a resolution that would state the City's
intent to terminate Klein and he recommended the adoption
of that resolution. Eidem noted that upon adoption, he would
then direct the appropriate letter lie sent to Klein notifying
him of his legal rights and of the City's intent to discharge.
Eidem went on to state that based upon investigation into case
law, there was serious doubt that Klein would be eligible for
Veteran's Preference Treatment under Minnesota Statutes. Ile
noted that the termination proceedings would proceed according
to the personnel policy established in Title 1, Chapter 6 of
the City Code. Finally, Eidem noted that because there was
serious doubt regarding Klein's Veteran's Preference status,
that Klein should be paid through Che end of January during
which time we could approach Klein and his counsel concern-
ing which remedy they intended to seek. Joseph Kaminsky,
Attorney at law, representing Klein addressed the Council
and Eidem to ask tile question, whether or not tlw Council
wanted their determination at that time. Frank Madden said
that it was not necessary to have an answer at thin time,
that the City should proceed with the resolution and notice
of intent to discharge and after that Klein could respond.
Council Member Maus raised the question whether or not Klein
wan prepared to submit his doctor'u certificate that was
originally to two presented to the Council on January 10th
and for which he wan granted an extension. Mr. Kaminsky
stated that they had talked to John Huffaker, the therapist,
today and that Mr. Ituffaker had said lie had just that day
received information from Ridem. Kaminsky asked whether
ISidem could shed any light on that. Eidem stated that al-
though Iwo had the authorized release of information signed
by Klein he had never had tho information requested by
Iluffaker. In fact, tic said that he called Iluffaker to ask
him if he wanted any information. A motion ly Ulonigen,
seconded by Ken Maus and carried unanimously to adopt the
following resolution:
Council Minutes - 1/24/83
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council is the appointing authority
for all employees of the City of Monticello (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the "City"); and
WHEREAS, Loren Klein (hereinafter referred to as the
"employee") has been employed by the City since April, 1978;
and
WHEREAS, a review of various matters relative to the
employee's work performance and conduct indicate evidence
of sufficient cause for dismissal of the employee;
NOW, TIIEMYCHIE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the City Council
directs that a notice of discharge be directed to the employee
and that said discharge be effective on the date of such
notice, pending any hearing to which the employeo may be
entitled by law.
CITY COUNCIL
Eidom stated that bocauuo this issue may go to hearings and/or
litigation, his recommendation would be for the Council to
formally retain Frank madden as legal counsel so that he would
Lo involved from the very beginning. A motion by Blonigon,
seconded by Fran Fair and carried unanimously to hire Frank
Madden so legal counsel in the issue relating to the termina-
tion of Loren Goin.
Council Minutes - 1/24/83
7. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting for the Purpose of
Conducting Evaluation Sessions with Various City Consultants.
It was the consensus of the Council to hold a special meeting
Tuesday, February 15, 1083 at 7:00 A.M. for the purpose of
conducting evaluation sessions with the City Attorney, Consul-
ting City Engineer, and Consulting City Planner.
S. Consideration of an option from the [IRA for the purpose of a
Housing Development.
Recently, Mr. Joe Poehler appeared before the City Council with
a presentation for a proposed elderly housing project on Lots
13, 14 and 15 in Block 51. This was the property the City re-
cently acquired an option on from the Monticello Development
Corporation. At that time, Mr. Poehler was directed to go to
the HRA since he indicated he may be looking at tax increment
financing as part of the project. Mr. Poehler presented an
in depth presentation of his proposal to the HRA Committee and
received a favorable recommendation to proceed with his project.
As part of Mr. Poohler's application process with Farmer's Home
Administration, he would have to obtain an option on the prop-
erty from the IIRA Committee. The IIRA Committee adopted a
motion offering the City of Monticello $1.00 and other good and
valuable considerations to purchase a contingent option on Lots
13, 14 and 15 in Block 51. After the option is granted to the IIRA,
they will in turn offer a contingent option to Mr. Poehler
for a price of $200. The final sale price of the land from the
City Lo the IIRA would ba approximately $50,350 and then the IIRA
would sell the land to Mr. Poehlor for approximately $32,000
to $33,000 leaving approximately $17,000 to $18,000 to be re-
covered through tax increment financing.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Maxwell and unanimous-
ly carried to grant a contingent option to the IIRA for $1.00
and other good and valuable considerations with the total
sale price of the land being $50,350 for Loto 13, 14 and 15, in
Block 51. The contingent option to the IIRA would be good for
one year regardless of whether Mr. Pochler'a development pro-
coods no planned.
9. Consideration of Mutual Aid Aclreemrnt with the City of Clear-
water.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell and unanimous-
ly carried to approve entering into a mutual aid agreement for
fire protection services with the City of Clearwater and author-
izo the City Administrator to work with the Fire Department Chief
Willard Fornick in establishing and upgrading all mutual aid
agreements with any community abutting the Monticello Fire
diatricta.
f
Council Minutes - 1/24183
10. Consideration of an Application for a Conditional Use Permit -
Michael DeBoor.
Mr. Michael DeBoer, who currently resides at St. Michael, Minn-
esota, requested a conditio0al use permit to be allowed to
operate a minor repair body shop on a portion of Lot 10, Block
16, Townsite of Monticello. Mr. DeBoor plans on temporarily
renting the garage from Mr. Clifford Olson, who owns the prop-
erty, for the purpose of operating a body shop.
As part of the conditional use requirements, Mr. DeBoer re-
quested a variance from the minimum lot size requirements of
22,500 square feet as the proposed site only contains 10,890
square fact. In addition, a variance from curb, yutter and
hard surfacing of the parking lot requirements was also re-
quested on a temporary basis of one year to see if the busi-
ness can ba established.
At the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on Janu-
ary 11th, 1983, concerns were expressed by some of tho commission
members regarding outside storage of cars or parts and the po;:-
sible odors that could result from spray painting in this loca-
j
recommended onJa three 4to4two vote that the conditional -uno
`
permit be denied.
Mr. DeBoor presented to the Council additional references re-
garding his pant body shop operations in St. Michael and also
ahotchas showing how Ire proposed to improve the building along
Hwy 25 along with the screening proposals. Mr. DeBoer noted
that lie would ixa putting ul) a six foot fence for screening
from liwy 25 and there would bo enough apasc to more a number
of cars outside without being seen from llwy 25.
An a result of the information presented, a motion wan made by
Blonigon, seconded by Maus and unanimously carried to grant a
conditional are permit to Mr. DeBoer for the operation of it
minor repair body L'hop for one year and to grant it variance
from the herd surfacing requirements for the parking area for
one year at which time it will be reviewed.
11. ftitification of the Memlership of the Senior Citizen Council
rind the historical Society.
A motion was made by Fair, accorded by Blonigon and unani-
mously carri.od to ratify the 10 Board of Directors for the
Senior Citizen's Center as proaonted and the 10 members of
the historical Society Committeo as presented along with
by Iowa aubmittod by the Senior Citizens Council. Sao
uupplemant 111 for cumpluto listing.
Council Minutes - 1/24/93
12. Quarterly Department Head Reports.
Quarterly department head reviews were held with the YMCA
Detached Worker, Mike Melstad, Fire Department Chief, Willard
Farnick, law Enforcement Representative, Duddy Gay, Public
Works Director, John Simola and Department Heads, Rick
Wolfsteller and Tom Eidem.
Willard Farnick, Fire Department Chief,reviewed with the
Council the status of the new fire pumper that the department
will shortly he receiving from the manufacturer. Mr. Farnick
noted that when the truck chassis was ordered from Monticello
Ford, the calor provided from the factory did not match the
,yellow color of the existing fire truck and as a result, Gen-
eral Safety Equipment Company, the body manufacturer, request-
ed an additional $550 for repainting the cab to match the
color specified.
Mr. Farnick also noted that the Wright County Parks Depart-
ment is currently setting up fire protection districts for
all their county parks and the City of Monticello would be
responsible for 2 county parks in the City's fire district.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Alonigen and unani-
mously carried to authorize the tire cillo[ to notify tnu
County that the City will provide fire protection services
for the Montissippi County Park and the lnrson County Park
located in Montieollo'a fire district at no additional
charge.
Wright County Sheriff's Deputy, Buddy Gay, was present and
suggested that the City Council give some thought to Chu
possibility of licensing arcades. In addition, it wan sug-
gested that in the future, the City Council may want to con -
aider a loitering ordinance to be eutablishad.
Public Works Director, John Simola, along with Jim Miller,
Wastewater Plant Sui•erintendant, requested that the Council
extend Scan Hancock's probation on the position of waste-
water tab Technician for an additional 3 months duo to the fact
that the lab has not been in operation yet and this would
give the supervisors additional time to evaluate Mr. Han-
cock'u performanco. A motion was made by nlonigen, second-
ed by Maxwell to extend Mr. Hancock'a probation for an ad-
ditional 3 months. Voting in favor were 9lonigon, Maxwell,
Grimamo, and Fair. Kan Maus was aboant from the meeting
from this point on.
no_
Council Minutes - 1/24/83
Council Member Fran Fair noted that the State Horticultural
Society has indicated that some assistance may 1w2 available
to the City of Monticello if the City should proc.ed with
the acquisition and improvement of the park laid Located
adjacent to the new public library. Currently, this park
area is owned by the Monticello School District but the
possibility exists that an agreement may be forth coming
whereby the City will acquire the park property from the
school and improve into the City's park system. Mrs. Fair
presented the Horticultural Society's information to the
City Administrator for his review.
The City Administrator, Tom Eidem, noted that a Joint Cable
T.V. Committee has been established between the communities
of Big Lake, Buffalo, i:Ak River, and Monticello and requested
that the Council authorize up to $500 ba appropriated to pro-
vide legal help in drafting a Joint Power Agreement for cable
T.V. franchise. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell
and unanimously carried to allocate up to $500, total expendi-
tures, with an initial expenditure of $250 to provide for legal
consultant fees to help draft a Joint Powers Agreement. It was
noted that after anagreement and franchise is established,
sums ui Liuu munuy may w accupLurw try ou,ur CUmWnlLlga LndL
rjoin the consortium.
I1 A motion was made by Blonigen, accondetl by Maxwell and unani-
mously carried to authorize the City Administrator to be Lha
City's delegate for the Minnesota Iaague of Cities legislative
conference scheduled for wadneaday, January 26, 1983.
13. Consideration of Change Orders 081, 084, 005 and 0B6 on the
Wnstewator Treatment Plant Construction Project.
Public Works Director, .John Simoln, and Consulting Engineer,
John Badalich, recommended that the following change orders
Lo approved as part of Lila Wastewater Treatment Plant con-
ot.ruction project with the Paul A. Inuraneo Company. Change
Order 1101 involved additional seeding and sodding at the
Wastewater Treatment Plant for an additional cunt of $6,400.
Change Order 004 involves Liao conotruction of a hopper with
drain at Lha lower and of a conveyer in the preliminary
treatment room at an additional coot of $2,405. Change
Order 005 involves the LnnCallatiun of a circular uhiold
of Steal around a pipa that entered into the aeration
building at a cost of $391. Changs Order 006 provides OSHA
Safety required signs in various areas throughout the plant
at a total Coat Of $1,2)9.
A motion woo made by Fair, seconded ley Maxwell and unanimously
lcarried to aph.rova Change orders 1101, H4, 635 aiul 06 for an
cd(litiunal $10,563 on Liao Wastewater Treatment Plant conotruc-
t.ion project with t.hu Paul A. Inurence Cumlu+ny.
Council Minutes - 1/24/83
14. Consideration of Approval of Fire Contract with Silver Creek
Township for 1984 Through 1986.
Recently, Silver Creek Township requested that the Joint Fire
11toard prepare a new fire contract to cover the years 1984
through 1986. Although the current contract does not expire
until December 31, 1983, the Silver Creek Township Board re-
quested that a new contract be prepared for 1984 through
1986 as they must set their budget for the year 1984 at their
upcoming annual meeting in March 1983.
After reviewing the anticipated cost of providing fire pro-
tection service , the Joint Fire Board recoanended that the
City of montice llo enter into a three year agreement with
Silver Creek Township at a flat annual charge of $7,250,
which they felt would be sufficient to cover the anticipated
fire calls in the future.
This information was presented to the Silver Creek Board
which recently approved the flat charge of $7,250 per year.
A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair and unani-
mously carried to approve entering into a extended contract
nL _
the years 1984 through 1986 calling for an annual charge. of
$7,250 per year with no additional costo per fire. It wan
also noted that the recommended contract will now be for-
warded to the Monticollo Township Board for their approval
as part of the Joint Powers Agreement. See Exhibit 02.
15. Consideration of an Appointment to Fill the Ponition of
Wastewater Mechanic/laborer.
Tile Public Works Director, John Simola, noted that approxi-
aotely 216 applicants had applied for the position of
Wastewater Mec panic/Laborer. Mr. Simola noted that himself
along with the City Administrator and Wastewater Suporin-
tondent narrowed the applicants down to 10 individuals who
were then intc rviawod. After roviewing the applicants, it
was recommended that a Mr. John Koffman, currently from
Anoka, Minnesota, be offered tho position of Wastewater
Ph;chanic/Inborer.
A motion was made by Maxwell, geconded by Fair and unani-
mouoly carried to offer Mr. Koffman the position of Waoto-
water Iaburor/Mochanic.
c
Council Minutes - 1/24/83
16. Approval of January Bills.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of January as pre-
sented. See Exhibit N3.
Meeting Adjourned.
7
1,7
Rick Wolfsteller
Assistant Administrator
- 10 -
0
Council Agenda - 1/14/83
4. Consideration of Final Plan Stage of the Planned Unit Development
Meadow Oak Subdivision. (R.W.).
Mr. Jim Boyle along with associates, Dick Knutson and Bob Bemboom,
developers of the proposed Meadow Oak Subdivision recently com-
pleted what will constitute the final platting of the entire pro-
posed Meadow Oak Subdivision. The final plats have been submitted
to the City Engineer and City Planner for their review and their
comments have been enclosed with the agenda.
Mr. Boyle and the Meadow Oak Limited Partnership intends to record
three separate plats as follows:
A. Meadow Wks - This plat will cover the entire project
amounting to approximately 165 acres and will be sub-
divided into 16 outlots (Outlet A through P). At the
time of recording, the project will be owned by Jim T.
Boyle and Beverly A. Boyle (outlets A, C, D, G through
P) and the Partnership (outlots B, E and F).
B. Meadow Wks Estates - This plat will constitute a re -
plat of outlet B and will be subdivided into large lots
intended for single tamliy dwellings.
C. Meadow Wks Second Addition - This plat will constitute
a replat of outlot F into small residential lots in-
tended to serve as homesiteo for manufactured housing
to be installed by the Partnership.
The developers have also submitted a copy of the Meadow Oak's
Second Addition plat indicating all building act back lines on
each lot within tho subdivision. This was one of the require -
manta and recommendations of the City Planner which the doveloporo
have adhered to. In addition, the devolopere have also submitted
grading, drainage and erosion control plans along with a troo
preservation and planting plan for the first two phasos of the
development.
At tho time the entire subdivision in approved and recorded along
with the replotting of the two outlots for the first two phases,
tho City of Monticollo will receive outlot E by deed for park
requirements. In addition, the City will receive all trailways,
etc. that abut the first two outlets being replotted. It in the
intent of the developers that the City will acquire all of the
other trailwaya throughout the subdivision in phones to coincide
with the actual replotting of the additional outlots as their
development dictatoo.
Council Agenda - 1/14/03
4. Consideration of Meadow oak Final Plat. (R.W.)
Council Agenda - 1/14/83
In addition, the developers will dedicate additional park land
adjacent to Interstate 94 after 50% of the development is com-
pleted.
The Planning Commission at their February 8th, 1983 meeting
reviewd the final plat as submitted. The commission reviewed
the comments from the City Planner, John Uban, in regard to
this plat and recommended that Mr. Uban's comments in regard
to the park dedication for the trail system be incorporated
into the final plat showing approximately 30 to 40 foot trail -
widths rather than the 60 feet as recommended. In reviewing
all the comments, it appears that there would be no problem
with the developers meeting all of the recommendations of the
City Engineer and City Planner.
This final plat is primarily being presented to the Council at
this time for review and general acceptance. Since the owner-
ship problem has still not been finally resolved, it is rec-
o manded that the Council not officially approve the final
plat as submitted but possibly just indicate a general accept-
ance of the plat which would then would be finalized at a
future meeting after the ownership problem is resolved. If
any additional changes are recommended in the final plat, this
would give the developers time to tinaiize their plat for
approval in the future.
REFERENCES: Copies of two draft letters prepared by the
developers concerning the status of the property ownership
and outlining the proposed final plat subdivision. Also
enclosed aro comments regarding the plat from the City Planner
and the City Engineer. The entire sot of final plats aro
available at the City Hall for your review.
- 2 -
C
Meadow Oak Limited Partnership
c/o McCombs -Knutson, Inc.
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plvmouth, Minnesota 55441
January 16, 1983
City of Monticello
City Hall
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
RF.: Proposed Meadow -Oaks Subdivision - Plat Approval
Gentlemen:
This letter is to confirm the discussions and understand-
ings which Meadow Oak Limited Partnership (the 'Partnership")
has reached with officials of the City of Monticello ("City")
concerning various matters which must be satisfied before the
City will give final plat approval to various plats in the
proposed Meadow O:!: De:•clop-cnt (tha "Pi'vject"), This letter
summarizes the conditions which various city officials have
( established as a condition of approval of the plats for the
Project.
1. identification of Plats. The Partnership intends to
record three plats. These plats are as follows:
a. Meadow Oaks - This plat will cover the entire
Project amounting to approximately 165 acies and will be
e:ubdivided into 16 outlots foutiots A through P).. At the
time of recording, the Project will be owned by Jim T.
noyle and Beverly A. Boyle (outlots A, C, h, G through P)
and the Partnership (Outlota B, E and P).
b. Meadow Oaks Estates - This plat will constitute
a replat pf outlot B and will be subdivided into large
lots intended for single family dwellings.
C. Meadow Oaks Second Addition - This plat will
constitute a replat of Outlot F into small residential
lots intended to servo as homesitem for manufactured
housing to be installed by the Partnership.
2. Recordinq Order of Plats. The Partnership and the
nnyles intend to record the overall plat of Meadow Oaks at the
time the Partnership acquires outlets B, E and F. The Partner-
ship will acquire outlots Of E and F by a metes and bounds
description. The Partnership and the Boyles will then join in
city of Monticello
Page 2
t)+• execution of Meadow Oaks, together with the Federal Land
Dank and record Meadow Oaks. it is contemplated that Meadow
Oaks Estates and Meadow Oaks Second Addition will be recorded
shortly after Meadow Oaks has been recorded.
3. Obligations of Partnership. The Partnership will
assume the following responsibilities:
a. Parkland Dedication Requirements. The City has
indicated that the parkland dedication requirements for
the entire Project will be satirfied by the dedication of.
outlet E of Meadow Oaks together with the dedication of
the trailways shown upon the development plan for the
entire Project. These areas will be dedicated as follows:
i. Outlot E will be deeded to the City
simultaneously with the recording of either Meadow
Oaks Estates or Meadow Oaks Second Addition,
whichever shall be recorded first.
U. The traaiiways shown the overall development
plan for the Project will be dedicated in the plat of
each of the outlets of Meadow Oaks as each such
outlet is repleted into individual residential lots
and streets.
Although the foregoing will satisfy all parkland dedica-
tion requirements of the City, the Boyles have also agreed
to dedicate Outlot A by der -ding Outlot A to the City when
508 of all of the anticipated lots in the Project have
been sold to homeowners.
b. Restrictive Covenants. The Partnership will
prepare and record restrictive covenants encumbering all
of the lots intended to serve as homesites for
manufactured housing containing the following terms:
i. Boats, recreational vehicle and similar
vehielao may not be parked or stored for more than 48
hours during any 30 -day period in the front yard of
any manufactured home lot.
Ji. Nb out -buildings or similar structures may
be bk racteP' or installed..in the front yard of any
rtehUf actured home lot.''
Iii: ThO @Althership shall havo the right to
ivwpeae nueh other restrictive covenants as it deems
necessary or proper for a residential subdivision.
These covenants shall be recorded at the same time each �1
plat of manufactured home ` is in reenrded.
City of Monticello
Page 3
c. Assessments for Trunk, water and Sewer Lines.
I As.represented by the Boyles to the City, the Partnership
l will assume the following obligations with respect to
assessments for the new water and sewer lines which will
be extended to serve the Project:
i. %later Line. The new water line which will
be extended from its present termination point in an
Easterly direction to the site of the Project will be
assessed solely against the property it crosses on a
lineal foot basis. In other words, no portion of the
Project will be assessed for any costs of installing
the main trunk water line from the present termina-
tion point of the water line to the point at which it
intersects with the Westerly boundary of the Project.
The Partnership will, however, agree that the Project
may he assessed for the costs of installing any
portion of the water line within the Project.
ii. Sewer Line. A sewer line will have to be
extended from its present termination point in a
Southerly direction to n point within the Project.
The Partnership will agree to permit all costs of
installing this sewer line to be assessed against the
Project even though property outside of the Project
will be benefited by the installation of thin sewer
line. The City will, however, adopt an ordinance
requiring that any person subsequently connecting to
the sewer line will be required to pay the City a pro
rata share of the original construction cost and that
the City will forward all such payments to the
Partnership or its successors in interest.
d. Public Improvements within the Project. The
City will contract for and install all public improvements
within Meadow Oaks Estates. These improvements will
include streets, curbs, gutters and water and sewer lines
installed in public rights-of-way. The City, however,
will have no obligation to install any public improvements
within Meadow Oaks Second Addition. With respect to the
proposed perk (Outlet E), the City will install all
necessary sanitary sewer lines to serve the park while the
Pattnership will install water lines, at the Partnership's
cost.
+. Proposed Manufactured Hones. The Partnership
agreeb to submit to the City renderings or other
dasoriptive literature of the types of manufactured
housing which it intends to install in Meadow Oaks Second
Addition. The Partnership has already submitted materials
describing the products of the two producers of
manufactured homes which the Partnership intends to
Install in Meadow Oaks Second Addition, Dvnanic Homes,
Inc. and Homers, Inc. If the Partnership elects to
Citv of Monticello v
page 4
furnish products from other manufacturers, the Partnership ��,
agrees to provide the City with similar renderings and
descriptive literature from any other producer of
manufactured homes.
f. Submission of Site Plansfor Each Manufactured
Home Lot. The Partnership agrees _ Ec suWmit a drawing to
the City at the time the PartnPrshio applies for a
building permit for each manufactured home showing the
proposed location of the home, garage and all boulevard
trees to be planted by the Partnership.
g. Basements. The Partnership agrees that at least
one-third of all of the manufactured home lots in the
Project will have basements.
h. Soddinq. The Partnership will comply with the
following requirements:
i. Front Yards. The Partnership will sod or
seed the front yard and boulevard of each home within
one year from the date the City issues a certificate
of occupancy for each home errected within the
Project.
ii. Back Yards. The Partnership will obtain an Je
agreement from each homebuyer within the Project that
the homebuyer will sod or seed the back yard of each
home within one year from the date the homebuyer
clones the purchase of the homebuyer's lot from the
Partnership. The Partnership will not, however, have
any obligation to sod or seed any back yards if the
homeowner fails or neglects to perform such work in
accordance with -the homebuyer's agreement with the
Partnership.
i. Plane Already Submitted to CitIn addition to
the foregoing, the Partnership has alreaxly submitted the
following plans to various city officials:
i. Meadow Oaks (overall plat).
1. Final plat.
ii. Meadow oaks Estates lExecutive Home Sites).
1. /anal pl&t.
Z. Grading plan.
1. Street plan.
iii. Meadow v• :. Second Addition (Manufactured
Home : ► , ��
I. Pinal plat --together with listing of
490 all. Lots and square footage of each
Lot.
2. Grading, drainage and erosion control
plan.
r
3. Street plan.
4, utility plan.
5. Tree preservation and planting plan --
in connection with the landscaping for
the Project, the Partnership agrees
that every lot shall have at least one
tree in the boulevard except that any
corner lot shall have two trees, one
in each boulevard. All trees
installed in houlevards shall be no
less than (A) lh inch,in diameter if
the Partnership is obligated to
purchase such trees from a nursery (B)
or leas than 2 inches in diameter if
the Partnership is able to utilize any
existing trees on the site of the
Project.
The foregoing represents the Partnership's understanding
of its development obligations in connection with the Project.
If you have any quetstione or comments, please contact the
undersigned.
Very truly yours,
MEADOW OAK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By Ultra homes, Inc.
By
Robert J.-Bemboam
Executive Vico President and Treasurer
100
Meadow Oak Limited Partnership
c/o McCombs -Knutson, Inc.
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
, 1983
City of Monticello
City Hall
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
RE: Ownership of Meadow Oaks Project Lancs
Gentlemen:
You requested that 7 provide you with a summary of the
past, present and proposed transactions involving the land
surrounding the Meadow Oaks Project.
1. Past Transactions. The original owners of all of the
land constituting the Meadow Oaks Project and other land were
10 Maurice Hoglund and Gladys Hoglund. Since 1975, the following
transactions have occurred:
a. On December 3, 1975, the Hoglunda sold a tract
of land amounting to 600 acres to Jim T. Boyle under a
contract for deed.
b. Jim T. Boyle and Beverly A. 'Boyle then sold a
one-half interest in. approximately 280 acres of the land
purchased from the Hoglunds to Ronald Offutt of Fargo,
north Dakota in 1976. This 280 -acre parcel does not
include any portion of the proposed Meadow Oaks Project.
c. The Hoglunds then mortgaged the land encumbered
by the contract for deed with the Boyles to the Federal
Land Bank in 1976.
di' The Boyles have agreed to give the Partnership
ah option to acquire a 163 -acre tract of the land which
the Boylan purchased from tha,.Hoglunds. The Option Agree-
ment between the Boyyles and the Partnership given the
06ttnerahlp the zl9lst to acquire this land in increments
by arerairinq various options over a ten year period. The
Boyles' obligation to give the Partnership this option is
subject to several contingencies.
UAV
City of Monticello
Page 2
2. Objectives of Boyles and Partnership. The Boyles and
the Partnership recognize that the following requirements must
be satisfied in order for the Project to succeed:
a. Utility services must be provided to the
Project. The proposed utility lines will cross property
owned by the Hoglunds but subject to the Boyle contract
for deed and other property owned free and clear by the
Hoglunds. The Hoglunds will not consent to or provide the
City with easements for these utility lines unless the
Boyles satisfy the contract for deed with the Hoglunds.
b. Offutt will not agree to the installation of
these utility lines unless Offutt receives a substantial
payment from the Boyles.
C. The Partnership will not enter into the Option
Agreement with the Boyles until the Boyles have acquired
fee simple title to the land constituting the Project
subject only to a mortgage containing provisions which
will permit the Partnership to obtain the release of
portions of the land constituting the Project on terms
similar to the terms of the Option and Purchase Agreement
between the Boyles and the Partnership.
3. Proposed Transactions. In order to accomplish the
foregoing objectives, the Boyles, Iloglunds, Partnership and
Offutt are arranging for the following transactions, all of
which will occur more or less simultaneously:
a. Doyle has arranged for a new loan from the
Federal Land Bank covering all of the property which the
Boyles have purchased from the Hoglunds except for the
three outlets designated in the overall plat of the
Project as Outlets B, E and F. The proceeds of this
mortgage will be used to satisfy the contract for deed
with the Hoglunds and to satisfy the original mortgage
which the Hoglunds gave to the Federal Land Bank.
b. The noyles and the Hoglunds will grant all
necusuar %u nmonts for the proposed water and sewer lines
which Will srve the Project.
c. The Doyles will repurchase the one-half interest
in the 200 -acre parcel which the Boyles originally sold to
Off utta. The Boyles will pay a portion of the repurchaso
price in cash and give Offutt a second mortgage to cover
0
City of Monticello
Page 3
the balance of the repurchase price. This mortgage will
be a second mortgage to the new mortgage to be given by
the Boyles to the Federal Land Bank. .
d. The Partnership will pay the Boyles
approximately $170,000. Of this sum, $150,000 will
constitute the entire purchase price for Outlets B, E and
F of Meadow Oaks and the remaining $20,000 will constitute
option money for an option on the remaining portion of the
Project.
4. Status of Real Estate After Transactions, Following
the completion of the above transactions, the following will
occur:
a. The Boyles will be the fee simple owner of all
of the land which the Boyles originally agreed to purchase
from the Hoglunds under the contract for deed except for
the approximate 40 -acre parcel (Outlets B, E and,F) which
the Partnership purchased from the Boyler. The Boyle's
property will, however, be subject to the Federal Land
Bank Mortgage, the Offutt second mortgage, utility
easements running in favor of the City, and the Option
Agreement in favor of the Partnership.
b. The Hoglunds will have no further interest in
the land sold to the Boyles under the contract for deed.
The lloglunds will, however, retain fee simple title to a
parcel of land lying to the North of the Project subject,
however, to an easement for the propoddd sewer line to be
installed on this property.
C. offutt will hold a second mortgage on the
280 -acre parcel referred to above which lies to the west
of the site of the Project.
d. The City will hold appropriate easements over
all of the land for the proposed utility lines.
C. The Partnership„will own fee simple title to
outlets A, E and F.
S. Subsequent Transactions. Following the conclusion of
the above transactions, the following will occurs
S a. The Boyles, the Partnership, the Federal Land
Bank and the City will join -in the execution of the plat
of Meadow Oaks. This plat will then be recorded.
city of Monticello
Page 4
b. The Partnership and the City will execute the
p lats of Meadow Oaks Estates and Meadow Oaks -Second
Addition and record both plats.
c*The Partnership will have an option to acquire
the remaining portions of the Project from the Boyles and
will commence the development of the Project.
if you have any questions or comments concerning the fore-
going, please contact me.
very truly yours,
MEADOW OAK LIMITCD PARTNERSHIP
By Ultra Homes, Inc.
By
f:obc-rt J. Bemaoom
t Executive Vice President and Treasurer
R
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON Et ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consubing £ngn,oers
Lm,d Surveyors
February 4, 1983
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem, City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Meadow Oaks Final Plat Review
Dear Tom:
The final plats of Meadow Oaks, Meadow Oaks Estates and Meadow Oaks
2nd Addition received by our office on January 17, 1983 have been
reviewed by my staff and we offer the following comments based on the
zoning and subdivision ordinances of the City. For review purposes,
these final plat copies were marked Preliminary in red.
1. MEADOW OAKS PLAT
As to the Meadow Oaks Plat consisting of four sheets our comments are
as follows:
1. This plat borders on both county and state highways which requires
county and state review according to Minnesota Statute 505.03, Subdi-
vision 2. The preliminary plat, I understand, had been sent to the
County Highway Engineer and the Commissioner of Transportation.
According to the Statutes the City cannot act until recommendations
have been received from these two agencies ora period of thirty (30)
(lays has elapsed since submittal. i believe the Developer is aware of
this requirement.
2. The wording shown on Sheet No. 1 of 4 sheets indicating Planning
Commission Review and City Council approval is different from the
certification shown in City Ordinance 11-4-2(B)4.
3. The City requires one (1) reproducible copy of the final plat for
their files.
4. outlots A and E according to tht preliminary plat will be dedi-
cated to the City for park purposee. These outlots should be deeded
LU thu City, Oedina nee 11-6-](E), simultaneously with approval of the
final. plat by the City and prior to recording of the plat. According
to the Meadow oak Limited Partnership letter of January 18, 1983, the
conveyance of Outlot A follows a different procedure.
T1. MEADOW OAK ESTATES
This Is a re -plat of Outlot B, Me Oaks to Meadow Oaks Estates
consisting of two sheets.
Page Two
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem
Re: Meadow Oaks Final Plat Review
February 4. 1983
1. If the requirements of No. 1 above were fulfilled in the
Preliminary plat stage, nothing further is required from the Highway
Departments for the Final Plat.
2. Same as Paragraph No. 2 above
3. Same as Paragraph No. 3 above.
4 The dedication statement for easements, shown on Sheet No. 1,
should indicate reference to both utility and drainage purposes. On
Sheet No. 2 the drainage note should indicate 12 feet on all front and
rear lot lines and a 6 foot easement on all side lot lines. City
ordinance 11-5-4(A) indicates this 6 foot easement requirement and
also the preliminary plat stated that the easements in this area as
required by ordinance.
5. Outlets A, B and C according to the preliminary plat will be dedi-
cated for park or trailway purposes. These lots should be deeded to
the City, Ordinance 11-6-3(E), simultaneously with approval of final
plat by the City and prior to recording.
6. The mathematics and format of the plat should be checked by th,2
County surveyor.
7. On Sheet No. 2 the note relating to "the east line of Outlot E"
should be corrected to show the east line of Outlot B. Meadow Oaks is
having the hearing noted. Also the cast line of Outlet B, shown at
the top of Sheet No. 2, should be labeled the "East Line of Outlet B,
Meadow Oaks".
8. Any drainage and utility easement along a line common with
another lot is acceptable at the six foot width. An example is the
common line between Lots 5 and 6, Block 3.
Irl. MEADOW OAKS 2N)) ADDITION
Phis is a re -plat o2 Outlet F, Meadow Oaks to Meadow Oaks 2nd Addition
cons i nt i ng of 2 Sheets.
1-3. 'rhe commerits noted above in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 apply to this
plat an iieii,
4. `-lie drainage note shown on Sheet No. 2 should indicate that the
12 feldt ridlh aVVllotl to all front and rear lot lines. The 5 foot
width indicated for all side lot lines is exceptable in this area. The
preliminary plat also showed this and further stated that if a garage
is attached to a dwelling, a five foot setback would be required.
C This will then place the garage structure at the easement lino instead
of overlapping into the easement as would have been the case under
Ordinance requirement.
Page Three
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem
Re: Meadow Oaks Final Plat Review
February 4, 1983
5. Paragraph 5 above also applies to Outlet A in the Meadow Oaks 2nd
Addition.
6. On Sheet No. 2 the utility easement in the northerly portion of
Meadow Oaks 2nd Addition should be labeled as such; that is the 150
foot easement of UPA. Also the utility easement located near the
southerly portion of the plat should also be labeled utility easement.
7. On Sheet No. 2 the bearing location for the east line of Outlot F
should read IS 01. 10' 00" E`. The notation •The East line of outlot F
Meadow Oaks" should be shown on the east line of this plat or at the
top of Sheet No. 2.
H. The mathematics and format of the plat will have to be checked by
the County surveyor.
9. Any drainage and utility easement along a line common with
another lot is acceptable at the five foot width. An example is the
rnmmnn line between Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 140. 2.
This concludes our comments regarding the Final plat review for the
three Meadow Oaks Plata. Being that the developer did not furnish us
with sufficient copies of the preliminary draft of these plats, I
cannot include any of the marked up plats for your review.
in addition to our comments regarding the plats, it is very important
that we get the necessary easements for watermain from Chelsea and
Fallon Avenue to the westerly boundary of the -Meadow Oaks plat and the
easement for sanitary sewer through the flogland property from C.R. 75
to C. P. 39.
If you have any questions in this regard, please give me a call.
Yoars very truly,
ORH-SCHELEN —MAY ERON
ASSOCIATES,
Jahn P. iladalich, P.E.
City Engineer
JPB:min
cc: Mr. Peter Bishop/enclosure - McCombs -Knutson Associates, Inc.
Consultino Planners One Groveland Terrace (6121377-3536
CMinneapolis
Minnesota 55403
Howard Dahlgren Associates / Incorporated
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: 8 February 1983
TO: Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: C. John Uban
RE: Subject Property: Meadow Oaks Subdivision
Owner: Jim Boyle and Others
Consultants: McCombs -Knutson, Inc.
Action Requested: Preliminary Plat - Meadow Oaks
Development Stage PUD
Final Plat - Meadow Oaks Estate
Final Plat - Meadow Oaks Second Addition
l PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
COMPLIANCE WITH CONCEPT APPROVAL
1. The restrictive covenants will prohibit the storage of recreational
vehicles in the front yard.
2. A tree preservation plan and erosion control plan have been prepared
although they are very general they should suffico for a oingls family
plat. There are some ditchoa and slopes that should receive additional
erosion control measures.
3. Plnns have been submitted with setback lines showing that all the lots
have buildable sites for the proposed homes. No lots have been
excessively encumbered by ono of the utility casements.
4. Lot size compliance is oummarixed as follows:
a. Meadow Oaks Estate has 33 lots that are all in excess of
10,000 square fact.
b. Meadow Oaks Second Addition has 39 lots of which 18 lots are
substandard to the 10,000 square foot requirement. The
PLANNING REPORT
APPLICANT: Jim Boyle et al
DATE: 8 February 1983
Page 2
previous approval stated that up to 20 percent of the lots
could be substandard by area or lot width. This Second Addition
has 46 percent of the lots below standard. However, the average
lot size overall is 10,049 square feet.
When looking at the total of the two proposed plats - 72 lots - only
25 percent are below standard. As subsequent plats are submitted a
running tally should be kept so that overall only 20 percent of the
developed single family lots are substandard.
5. Neither the plats nor written statements that were submitted indicate
which lots will receive basements. This is likely to be a customer
choice which will be determined at the building permit time. Past
approvals have been based on the condition that 50 percent of the homes
will have basements. This mix should be kept current with each plat
and permits issued based on compliance.
6. All front yards, right-of-way, and park land should receive either sod
or seed as is being proposed. Any seeding should be hydromulched for
best germination and drought protection. Consistency of lawn treatment
can add greatly to the development's appearance.
7. The Citv Ordinance (8-3-5) calls for the plantinq of two trees per lot
where none exist and that the minimum tree diameter be at least two (2)
inches. The developer is proposing one boulevard tree at 15 inch
diameter. I believe the developer should be encouraged to actually
move as many trees as possible to untreed areas. The developer has also
promised to save all trees within five feet of the curb.
PARK DEDICATION
1. The trail system proposed under the power lines should only be 30 to 40
feet in width. The aesthetics of these trails can also be enhanced by
having the trail curve in a natural pattern through the power line
easements with small mini -parks along the way. A straight, 60 foot
wide trail system (i.e., Outlot C in the Meadow Oaks Estate) may not be
aesthetically pleasing and may be more land than the City wishes to
maintain.
2. An asphalt trail eight (8) foot wide should be included in the park
dedication along with some landscaping of these otherwise barren utility
easements.
3. WaLeI service should be brought to the proposed parks for use in each
Park.
PLANNING REPORT
APPLICANT: Jim Boyle at al
DATE: 8 February 1983 Page 3
L
4. The developer is proposing in Outlet A of the Second Addition to build
a parking lot in the dedicated park land for the use of model home
visitors. Picnic tables, barbeque pits, etc, should be added later
to complement this park development.
5. Park land that is proposed by the developer is ten (10) acres in size
with an addition three (3) + acres of power line easement. The City
should be careful about how much power line easement is incorporated
into the park system. Trails and these power line easements are a
natural combination but the City should not end up providing maintenance
for NSP.
PARK DEDICATION
MEADOW OAKS Outlot E
Power Line Easement
MEADOW OAKS ESTATE Outlot A
Outlot B
Outlot C
Power Lino Easement
MEADOW OAKS SECOND ADDITION Outlot A
Power Lino Easement
TOTAL PARK DEDICATION
Q
9.00 acres
1.88 acres
0.11 acres
0.25 acre s
0.06 acre s
0.64 acres
0.59 acres
0.66 acre s
13.19 acres
Council Agenda - 1/14/83
5. Consideration of a Report from the Oakwood Block Subcommittee.
(T. E.)
On Friday, January 28th, Council Members Maxwell and Maus and
myself met with Mr. Warren Tiegen of Security Federal to discuss
their latest offer for the purchase of the Oakwood Block. Security
Federal's most recent offer was for the entire block for the sum
of $250,000 with $125,000 being paid immediately and $125,000
being paid in one year. They were hoping to have the one year
hiatus so as to coordinate a comprehensive development of the
area. I indicated strongly in earlier conversations that the
City'q preference at this time is to see a Planned Unit Develop-
ment or at the very least a cohesive development design of the
area. The gist of the conversation on January 28th, was that
the City's position is fairly strong in wishing to receive $300,000
for the entire block. The $250,000 figure translates to approxi-
mately $2.30 a equate foot, while the $300,000 figure translates
to approximately $2.75 per square foot. I believe it was Ken
who raised the point regarding whether or not Security Federal
would be interested in purchasing by the square foot at the
$2.75 price. He noted that in this way they would not be
romitred to narnvsarily take the entire block bit cnuld work
�t within their own budget framework. The question was of course
raised that if we are selling it off in parcels, would we be
able to maintain a cohesive architectural design. It in at
least our preliminary findings that the City in preparing the
deed could establish the area as a Planned Unit Development
and that all purchasers would have to conform to the development
controls stipulated. Thus, if Security Cederal only bought a
part of the block and developed it, no long as they mot the
planned development controls, they would essentially be setting
the architectural precedent for the overall block. That in to
say that any future buyera and developers would have to plan
construction similar to or complementary to the construction
that had already occurred on that block. Ideally, I still think
the concept of the single developer is the most favorable, but
realistically it may be similar to the search for the holy grail.
Our purposes may be equally well served by calling the property
at a square foot rate and simply implement development control
over the parcel. Security Federal is receptive to this tyle of
proposal. Tho conversation concluded with the agreement that
Ren and Jack would bring the substance of our meeting to the
Council. Ono thing that should be done would be to take action
on the offer. Technically, a motion should be made and seconded
to accept the offer and then the nays would defeat the motion
if that is the position of the Council. Once the offer is do-
foatod, thon the Council should perhaps formulate a counter
offer.
Jack and Ken stated that woo would do our bout to con-
struct sonic fano of counter of far to take back to Security
Federal after this meeting. Up to this point, we have taken
- 3 -
Council Agenda - 1/14/83
the position of just denying their offers with no real counters,
thus not engaging in any negotiations up to this point. In
order to get the entire process off of dead center, we think it
would be to our advantage to counter their offer with one of our
own. With respect to the actual merit of thei z current offer and
the value of the land, I will defer to Jack who has agreed to
speak more of the issue on Monday night. His expertise
will certainly shed alot more light on the subject than anything
I could say.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the offer as presented in the letter.
2. Accept the monetary offer but counter tlio payment proposal.
3. Deny the offer, and end the discussion.
4. Deny the offer and formulate a counter proposal.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is the recommandati on of the subcommittee
that alternative #4 be taken. As I noted above, to properly deny
the offer would be to make a motion in favor and either let it die
for lack of second or second the motion and vote against it. Just
a rcminier: Yap neeA not vnr,A :n favor of a motion even if you
made the motion. The making of the motion is doing nothing more
than bringing the question to a vote. The form the counter pro-
posale take could be varied. We could conceivably counter with
an offer of $300,000 for the entire parcel. Based on our con-
versation with Mr. Tiogen, they will reject that offer because of
financial reasons. We might wish to counter with a per square
foot offer. Another possibility would be to half of the
block. I am aura there are several other poofaibilitios that one
could imagino as a counter offer.
REFERENCESi A copy of the most recent letter from Security Federal,
comparative financial data on land values.
- 4 -
security federal a ban associatm
im ..' wwn.. . W. ,e ,1121 "1..fe0 • .+v,ppe.. le �,l ]]angf
wa"em w. Teigen
December 31, 1982
Mr. Thomas A-Eidem
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Box 83A
Monticello, Mn 55362
re: Oakwood Block
Dear Mr. Eidem:
After extensive review of the Oakwood Block, this association
would like to revise its bid to acquire and develop Block 32
(The Ca!:::Ccd ^lock) l,: of, tic iiG. :i2 would
anticipate doing a planned development with a mix of retail
and office spaces along with the eventual relocation of our
facility.
We would offer the City of Monticello, Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) based on a contractual
agreement with $125,000.00 down, and $125,000.00 on January
10, 1984 at which time the city of Monticello would deliver
clear title to Block 32. This arrangement would give us
approximately one year to plan for the development of this
parcel, a minimum amount of time in our opinion.
After our discussions it has become apparent that there will
be a number of options and strategies to be reviewed in the
coming year to assure ourselves of the best possible development
of: a crucial parcel of land.
Please keep our bid confidential to the extent you can.
If you have any questions, please contact me, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
Warren W. Teigen
PrcaidenL 6 CEO
r
FINANCIAL DATA
OAKWOOD BLACK
108,000 square feet 2.5 Acres
$250,000 - 108,900 = $2.2956 or $2.30
$300,000 - 108,900 = 2.7548 or $2.75
Each lot is 66 % 15 10,890 square feet
One lot at $2.30 square ft.- $25,047.00
One lot at $2.75 square ft.= $29,947.50
$250,000 would buy 8.35 lots at $2.75 a square foot.
Council Agenda - 1/4/83
6. Consideration of Change order #87. (J.S.)
This change order adds $70 to the cost of change order #85.
An error was made in addition. This merely balances that
amount.
REFERENCES: A copy of Change order #87.
ypr•1Ks' •1�'�
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
snwhtwi Iws.nm
ueo wnf,an
OMi SC NNAY[RON 6 ASSOCIATES.INC.
a—S-O, W +•DLI GOnSua ..c
�. w•f•s,.Iw..lr••••Iw-,lraha..,l.ro.nnow
Contractor Paul A. Laurence Co. Change Order No. B7
Address P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 West Meld fiodlf. No. N/A
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Project No 068-2748.01
.lob Location Monticello, Minnesota twl grant woC270855-03
In accordance with the teras of your contract doted November 20 1980 with
City of Monticello Owner for WWTP Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
Ycu ere hereby reques,ea to c ?:ly with the following manges trm the contract plans and spec) t]eart Ions:
Ooscrlpt Ion *no Justlf heat ion: - 1fef.r to field ffodlt /li/A (Attached)
Balancing change order to correct a computational error of $70.00
made in the total additional price requested in Change Order #85.
`.residown of Costs this Change Order:
(labor I Idol phwent I Prot I s l Overhead
Total Add I Total Deduce
$70.00
Mount of Original contract: { 4,704,000.00
ontract Tnru C.O. f 8 6
Total Addition
Total Oeduct
$4,933,470.07
$70.00
Orlglasl Contingeedles OSI i
(Cont. Tnru C.O. if
I Ada Thls C.O.
I Deduc+ This C.O.
There will be an ewtension of 0 days for completion.
The dna of the co.plet ion of Con Treat .es flay 31
, 19 82 and Roo with be
cepTad by
C0.1, ctor
oec,ree,ded by _
nglneer
-'110 or
Tdlal OonirOtt
for:: Thi{ C.O. In
$4,933,540.07
fat Reaalning
Contingencies
flay 31 19 82
Dale Sloped
Date Sloped 113 Jlf3
Dote Sl2ned
Council Agenda - 1/14/83
7. Consideration of Issuinq a Certificate of Substantial Com-
pletion for Wastewater Treatment Plant. (J. S.)
On the 3rd of January, the Paul A. Laurence Company indicated
that they were substantially complete with the Wastewater
Treatment Plant project as identified in Part I of the bid
proposal in the plans and specifications. Release of a por-
tion of the retainages were also requested. Substantial com-
plete means that a major portion of the WWTP can be used for
the purpose which it was intended and that the City assumes
responsibility for same.
On January 4th, Mr. Gerald Corrick of OSM, Mr. Richard Keeling
of OSM, Jim Miller and myself made a detailed inspection of the
project. From this inspection a preliminary contractor punch
list was developed. Mr. Gerald Corrick, the project engineer,
then assigned safe monetary valves to each item needing attention.
The total of these items is $140,408.
We are currently (Thru PR 024 December) retaining 5% of the earn-
pleted work or $242,083.85. It is recommended that we reduce
the retainage to 2.9% or $140,407.85 on PR 425 and release
$1n1 ,A7r nn to the contractor.
Council Agenda - 1/14/83
B. Consideration of Establishinq_ a Fund to Supplement Employee insur-
ance Benefits. (A.W.)
During September, 1982, the City of Monticello was informed by
letter from Banker's Life that the company was instituting changes
in its group health policy that would reflect some cuts in bene-
fits for the city employees. This change took effect September 15,
1982 which resulted in a small monthly decrease in the premium.
The original notification by Banker's Life indicated that this
change would take place automatically on 9/15 and that the City
did not have an option to stay with its present policy coverage.
Although this item was not formally presented to the Council
earlier, I believe most of the Council Members were made aware
of this change in our insurance coverage shortly after it occurred.
It was originally planned to discuss this item at a special Council
meeting in November, 1982, but it was delayed until now to allow
the Staff to investigate and obtain other insurance proposals to
see what was available for restoring the benefits to the former
levels and at what costs. We have recently received a few pro-
posals from other insurance companies and this is the reason why
it is being presented at this time.
The City's current policy with Banker's Life has an annual re-
newal date of September 15th and the City did expect some sort of
an increase in premiums to cover the rising medical costs. It
appears that Banker's Life had two options available to them, one
being either to increase the premiums to maintain the same coverage
the City has had for a number of years or two, cut the benefits to
the policy holder and maintain the same premium. Banker's Life
chose the second option and as a result, cut the premiums paid
by the City by a small dollar amount per month but change the
coverage benefits in numerous areas. Probably the most obvious
reduction that affects most of the City's employees is in the
deductible amounts. Under the old plan, there was a $100 deductible
par individual with a maximum deductible of $200 per family. Under
the now policy changes, the $100 deductible applies to each in-
dividual in a family regardless of whether there is one dependent
or 10 dependents. Before, no family usually had to incur more
than $200 in deductible costs themselves while the new plan could
cost a family much more depending on the number of individuals
in the family. For example, an employee with three children will
incur an additional $300 in medical exponeos under the now plan
just for the change in the deductible limits. Another change in
the now policy provisions indicate that all hospital charges are
now payable at 00% with the employee picking up 20%. Previously,
the policy provided for a $130 daily roam and board limit auto-
cratically but all additional hospital chargoo were covered under
- 7 -
Council Agenda - 1/14/83
major/medical provision at 806. In reviewing a claim for an employee
during July of 1982 under the old plan, Banker's Life previously paid
all but $30.00 on a $1682 hospital stay. Under the new plan, the same
billing of $1682 would be payable at only 806, which would result
in the employee picking up an additional $300 in this case. Although
not all employees will incur medical expenses similar to this, these
two changes in the policy could result in an average of $600 to $700
per year in additional expenses to the employee.
The City Staff received insurance proposals for group health coverage
from six or seven different insurance companies. There are about as
many different insurance plans as there are companies and none of
the proposals submitted covered exactly what Banker's Life did before
their change in the September. Of the proposals submitted, monthly
premiums varied from approximately $3,000 to over $3,800 per month
for policies that would provide some of the same benefits Banker's
Life had before their change. As you can see from this, the City's
current premium is around $2,7UU a month, so to change insurance
carriers could cost the City $300 to $1,100 per month additional.
Since we have been with Banker's Life for a number of years and are
satisfied with their service, it is our recommendation that the
City does not consider changing insurance companies, but consider
other alternatives to supplement the insurance to re-establlah
some of the lost benefits incurred by the policy change.
It is recommended that an alternative to switching insurance companies
would be a method of establishing an escrow fund for each employee
by the City. This fund could set aside say $30 a month or $360 per
year to be used by the employee to make up for the decrease in
benefits under such items as the deductible portion or the 20% of
normal bills that have to be paid by the employee. The $30 per
month recommendation was arrived at by comparing what different
insurance costs would be through other companies and also by the
anticipated average loss an employee could incur under our now
policy. As mentioned earlier, a family of 4 could possibly incur
with average medical bills $600 to $700 annually. with different
insurance companies charging a premium of $300 to $1,100 annually,
this would equal par employee approximately $35 to $55 per month. A $30
per month figure was a compromise between the possible addition-
al expenditures an employee could incur and also lased on the pro-
posed premiums for different insurance companies.
A basic procedure the City could use to establish an oscrow
fund would be to sat aside $30 per month par employee (20) which
would than coat the City $7,200 during 1983. Tho funding for
this $7,200 would come from current budget expenditures for the
group health insurance. It would be recommended that each
- 8 -
Council Agenda - 1/14/83
employee be allowed to accumulate $360 or one year's accumulation
and if these amounts are not needed by the employee for certain
medical benefits, the City would not have to contribute additional
dollars to the fund. one advantage to setting up an escrow fund
versus changing insurance policies would be that the possibility
exists that not all of the employees may need to draw from this
fund and as a result, in future years the City would not necessarily
have to contribute the entire $360 to keep the fund at the maximum.
In addition, any monies in the escrow fund could be earning interest
which at the end of the year could be divided amongst the individuals,
thus reducing the City's contribution in the future year.
If the escrow fund is ostabliahed, it is our recommendation that
expenditures for medical expenses be taken care of only twice a
year on July lot and January 1st, for example. Since the main
purpo sy of establishing this fund would be to help defray the
cost of the increased deductible each employee is now incurring,
the procedures the City Staff would use would be to review all
of the payment claims from Banker's Life for each 6 month period
for each employee to determine whether the employee is entitled
to any of the escrow fund money. Basically, since the old policy
provided for a family deductible maximum of $200, we would pro-
pose that the individual still be responsible for the original
$200 out of nmket ernense before any funds could be used from
the escrow fund. This would simplify the procedures for the
City Staff to determine legitimate expenditures incurred above
the previous $200 deductible maximum.
Although the establishment of an escrow fund at $30 per month
per employee is intended to re-establish the benefit levels
provided under the old Banker's Life policy, it is also recom-
monded that each employee be allowed to draw from this fund for
other medical expenses not now covered by the present policy.
These additional items are recommended to be limited to ex-
penditures for eye glasmoo and examinations and dental coverages.
By allowing the employee to also use some of the escrow funds for
these additional purposes, the City would not incur any addition-
al expense at this time as compared to providing a dental policy
which has been determined to average approximately $30 par um-
ployeo par month additional. Once a fund of this nature has boon
established, possibly the Council may want to consider in future
your o, increasing the fund limit as an additional fringe benefit
for the employee, which could be determined at the time salaries
are nogotiatod.
To summarize, it appears that In reviewing other Insurance com-
pany proposals, it is still in the beat interest for the City to
remain with Banker's Life duo to the high coot of come of the
otho r plane that aro available. The employees, in general, are
in concurrence with remaining with Banker's Life, but fool that
an o scrow fund established for each employee to ro-ostablich
somas of the lost benefits duo to the change in the policy would
be a much bettor route for the City to consider.
- 9 -
Council Agenda - 1/14/83
In addition, it would give each employee some additional benefit
in that they would be able to use portions of the escrow fund for
other medical expenses in regard to eye glasses or dental bills
that they do not now have coverage for. Also, the benefit exists
for the City that if the fund is not entirely used by each
employee, the next year's contribution by the City to the fund
could be less than $30 per month per employee.
POSSIBLE ACf ION: Consideration of approving the establishment
cf an escrow fund for health benefits to re-establish the previous
cut in our group health policy. If approved, an indication should
be made of what expenditures would be allowed from this fund and
the City Administrator or City Staff should be directed to take
the necessary procedures to establish the fund. It is recommended
that the fund be established as of January 1, 1983 rather than
retroactive to September 15th, when the actual reductions took
place.
- 10 -
Council Agenda - 1/14/83
9. Consideration of Bids for the Acquisition of Sewer/Water
Department Van. (J. S.) Replacement of Unit No. 6, 1974 Chev.
In the fall of 1980, Unit No. 6 received a face lift in order
to use it for another two years. At that time extensive body
work was performed as well as some engine work. Plans were
then formulated to replace the unit in 1983. An amount of
$8,000 was placed in the 1983 budget for such replacement.
The van is in need of replacement. The body deteriorated
in almost every place that wasn't replaced in 1980. Also,
some of the repair spots have rusted through. In addition,
the drive train is in need of repair. The van has approxi-
mately 55,000 miles on the speedometer and approximately
4,250 hours of use. Generally speaking, its driven 6,000
miles per year or approximately 475 hours per year.
It is not practical to continue to use this vehicle. The
van will be in the City Hall parking lot prior to Monday's
meeting for your inspection. I have prepared specifications
for a now van, a copy of which is enclosed for your review.
The expected trade in price is less than $10,000, — ' hove
solicited quotes from three dealers, Gould Brothers Chov,
Monticello Ford, and Country Chrysler in Elk River. The
following is a tabulation of those quotas.
Gould Brothers Chov. 1983 G20 Chov, B week delivery , 17 MPG,
EPA est. with smaller tires, no service manual, lass hour
motor.
Total $10,459.05
Less Trade 1,374.05
Coat $ 9,085.00
Country Chrysler - 1983 B250 Dodge, 6 weak delivery, 18 MPG
EPA est. loss hour motor, service manual $27.50 extra.
Total $10,241.68
Loco Trade 1,445.85
Coot $ 8,795.83
Monticello Ford - 1983 E150 Ford, WA weak delivery, 16 MPG
EPA est. leas hour motor, service manual, $40 D 0 extra.
Total $10,359.70
Lose Trade 1,134.10
Coat $ 9,225.60
C Based upon the above quotas, it is my rocemmondation that we
purchase the 1983 B250 Dodge from Country Chrysler for the
amount of $8.795.83 and that we add the cost of the cervico
manual for $21.50, making it a total of $8,823.33.
SPECIFICATIONS
FOP,
1 (ONE) 1983 3/4 TON VAN
FOR
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
FEBRUARY %, 1983
Specifications - 1983 3/4 Ton Van
February 9, 1983
(1) New 1983 3/4 Ton
Van.
Payload:
Minimum 2,600 lbs capacity. 6,350 GVW.
Wheelbase:
125" plus or minus 3".
Engine:
6 cylinder gas, minimum 95 hp @ 3600 RPM,
Minimum 225 cu. inches.
Transmission:
Three speed automatic .
Tires:
P235/75R15 B.S.W. snows in rear, with
regular spare.
Battery:
Minimum 400 AMP Maintenance free H.D.
Alternator.
Minimum 60 AMP.
Glass:
Windshield tinted, additional windows
in rear doors and door*or doors only.
Mirrors:
_side
Dual eye level, low mount, stainless steel.
Steering:
Power.
Brakes:
Power front disc, rear drum.
Shocks:
Heavy duty front and rear 1 3/16".
Springs:
Heavy duty with front stabilizer, heavy
duty rear springs, minimum 1,950 lb.
capacity each @ ground.
S^ate:
Driver and passenger, foam padded, vinyl
buckets.
Axle:
Front min. 3,250 lb capacity, rear minimum
3,500 lb. capacity. Ratio ror City travel
is approximately 3:50 to 1.
Misc.
A. 2SPD Intermittent windshield wipers with
washers.
B. Cigar Lighter.
C. Interior rear view mirror.
D. Dual sunvisors.
E. Headliner over drivers compartment.
F. heavy duty heater.
G. Engine block heater.
H. Antifreeze to -35 F.
I. Rust proofing.
J. Dual Electric horns.
K. Back up lights and interior light.
L. Heavy duty rear bumper hitch for minimum
gross 4,000 lbs and tonguo wolght of 300 lbs.
M. Full instruments, fuel, temp, oil prossuro,
battery volts or amps and hour mo tor.
N. Color keyed floor mato/drivore compartment.
0. Service manuals.
P. 10 gallon fuel.
Color:
Exterior, dark blue unless extra cost , than
White.
Interior, dark blue or black.
Quota to include freight, setup and delivery charges FOB
Monticello. Dealer to give expected delivery, data and
EPA, EST, MPG, ra t i ng a. Dealer to show total delivered price
lose trade in of 1974 Chov Van.
•proferred 0