Loading...
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