Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-08-1982AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL November 8, 1982 - 7:30 P. M. Mayor: Arve Grimsmo. Council Members: Phil White, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the October 25, 1982 Meeting. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions/Requests, Complaints. Public Hearinq. 4. Continued Hearing on Public Improvements for Meadow Oak Subdivision. old Business. 5. Consideration of an Offer to Purchase Block 32. (The Oakwood Block). G. Consideration of 'raking a Purchase Option un Lutn 13 ai,.l 1.:, Less the Southerly 15 feet of Lot 15 in Block 51. 7. Consideration of a Policy Proposed from the Downtown Parking Committee. B. Consideration of Change Order's #62, ®63, 064, and 065. 9. Consideration of Appointments to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority. New Business. 10. Consideration of an Appeal to Amend the Zoning Ordinance and to Grant a Conditional Use. (Carlson 5 Gille - Two separate items). 11. Consideration of setting a spacial Meeting for the Express Purpose of Establishing 1983 Salaries for Non -Union Personnel. 12. Consideration of Law Enforcement Contract with the Wright County shoriff's Department. 13. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL October 25, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Ken Maus. Members Absent: Phil White, Dan Blonigen. 2. Approval of the Minutes for October 12, 1982. A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Grimsmo to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 12th, as present- ed. voting in favor were Maus and Grimsmo, abstaining was Fair as she was not present at the last meeting. 3. Citizens Comments. Mr. W.J. Murphy, owner of the now Monti Motel, requested a temporary variance on the completion of his landscaping plan at the motel in order to obtain an occupancy permit to allow him to open next week. Mr. Murphy presented a plan to the Council indica ting how the proposed landscaping and shrub- bery will be installed, but indicated that not all of the plantings will be installed before he would like to open. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimous- ly carried to grant a temporary variance from the land- scaping requirements prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit contingent upon Mr. Murphy providing a bond for the value of the landscaping not completed at the time he opens. The variance would be good until Juno 1, 1983. 4. Continuation of: Public Hearinq on Meadow Oak Proposed Public Improvements. It was noted by the Mayor that the developers of the Meadow Oak Subdivision have not been able to work out all the details regarding fee ownership of the property and getting permission from the currant fee owners for potitioning of improvements and as a result, the public hearing on the proposed improve- ments was continued until the next regular scheduled Council mooting of November 8th, 1982. Council Minutes - 10/25/82 F 5. Consideration of Revisinq Policy on Snow Removal from Downtown Parking Lots. Presently, the City of Monticello has funded the entire process of snow removal from downtown parking lots and questions have been raised as to whether all or part of the cost should be assessed to the downtown business owners. Current city snow removal policy has been submitted to the Downtown Parking Committee for their review and recommendations and as of this date, the parking committee has not completed their review and made recommendations to the City Council. As a result, it was the concensus of the Council to table any action upon revising the snow removal policy until the full Council can meet to discuss the issue and after a recommenda- tion is received from the Downtown Parking Committee regard- ing the policy. 6. Consideration of a Request by John Sandberq for the City to Re- imburse him for Sewer Repair Expenses. On September 15, 1982, Mr. John Sandberg experienced sewer Lack up problems at his home on 1025 Oak Lane. After attempt- ing to roti or flush the sewer lines several timet, which was not successful, Mr. Sandberg had Gene Pyle begin excavating the sewer line in the area of his property line near the street. During the excavation, Mr. Pyle found that the service between the main and the street and the property line was sagged a few inches causing the sewage to back up into the house. Mr. Sandberg requested that since the sagged sewer line was in- stalled by the City in 1975, it should be the City's reoponsi- bility to pay for all expenses incurred by himself to repair the line. Total expenses amounted to approximately $860.00 for sewer rodding and repairs to the line. City Engineer, John Badalich, noted that since Mr. Sandberg and the previous owner, Blair Lampert, apparently experienced problems right after hooking up in 1976, the City of Monticello should have boon notified at that time that there might be a problem as the contractor on the project would have been responsible for one year to fix any problems. By waiting six years to approach the City, the City has no recourse against the contractor. In addition, Mr. Badalich felt that the main reason that the property owner is experiencing some problems is that the sewer service has to run from the back of the house around the house all the way to the street which is approximately a couple hundred foot and that the lino probably does not have enough fall for the distance involved. Mr. Badalich felt that the original installation of the pipe was correct. - I - Council Minutes - 10/25/82 Councilmember Maus indicated his concern over whether the service line on the property from the house to the street was installed correctly with the proper amount of grade as he felt this infor- mation was necessary before he could make a decision as to whether or not the small sag near the street was sufficient to cause problems. Other concerns noted pertained to the time limit between initial construction in 1976 and the request for repairs in 1982. Should the City of Monticello be liable for these repairs even though the City was never notified of any previous problems. it was noted that after initially revealing the problems Mr. Sandberg was having, the City offered to split the cost of re- pairs with the property owner and Arve Grimsmo made a motion which was seconded by Fair to again offer Mr. Sandberg reim- bursement for one half of his cost incurred, totaling approxi- mately $430.00. voting in favor were Grimsmo and Fair, opposed was Maus. 7. Consideration of Change Orders 055 through 061 on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Project. John Simola, Public Works Director. and Jerry Corrick, Project Engineer, review, -d with the Council the following recommended change orders on the wastewater Treatment Plant construction. Change Order 055 portains to a 45 working day extension in the time to complete the project to December 31, 1982. Change Order 056 would provide for a gyboon board enclosure over tho panel in the control roan at an additional coat of $236.00 Change Order 057 pertained to drilling three additional drain holes in the existing digester foundation to facilitate drainage of water for an additional $425.00. Change Order 058 pertained to upgrading some painting and coat- ing for the floors, ote. for an additional $6,510.00. Change Order 059 portains to the installation of fencing around the entire complex for an additional $9,250.00. Change Order 060 pertained to replacing two existing older doora and frameo and one window in the control building with now doors and windows for an additional $2,415.00. Change Order 061 pertains to adding additional reserve air storage capacity to the existing high pressure air uystom for an additional $12,750.00. A motion was made by Maus, oceonded by Fair and unanimously carried to approve change ordorb 055 through 61 with the Paul A. Laurence Company on the wastewater Treatment Plant Project for an additional amount totalling $31,646.00. Council Minutes - 10125/82 8. Consideration of a Resolution Amending the 1983 Municipal Budget. At the September 27th meeting, the City Council adopted the 1983 budget setting a total tax levy of $1,227,064 which included a $79,340 levy within the sewer fund. Since that time, it was discovered that erroneous rate schedules were used in the sewer fund resulting in less revenues than will actually occur. By using the now proposed rate schedule of a $1.28 per 100 cubic feet of sewage, sufficient revenue will be generated to cover the existing expenses within the sewer fund, thus the $79,340 levy could be eliminated and transferred to the Capital Outlay Improvement Fund. A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution amending the 1983 budget set- ting the tax levy at the same figure of $1,227,064, but transferring the $79,340 from the Sewer Fund to the Capital improvement Revolving Fund. (See Resolution 1982-057). 9. Quarterly Head Department Meotina. various department heads within the City met and reviewed items with the City Council as follows; Mike Melstad gave a summary of the YMCA Detached Worker Program. Karan Hanson, Senior Citizen Center Director, noted that their recent remodeling project has now been completed. Willard Farnick, Pira Chief, noted that the Fire Department members are reviewing the City's plans for a proposed addition to the Fire Hall which would temporarily be used for ambulance housing. in addition, he noted that recently he has had many inquiries about inspecting fire places and wood burning stovas, but noted that he has not boon pro- viding the inspection services as he felt he was not qualified and did not observe the actual construction in most cases. It was noted that the !wilding inspector, in meat cases, does inspect fire places if he is aware that thoy aro being con- atructed. Mark Irmitor, Liquor Store Manager, reviewed with the Council the 9 month financial statement for 1982. It was noted that sales have increased approximately 8% over the same period in 1981 and operating income has increased almost 10% over 1981 figures for the first nine months. - 4 - J Council Minutes - 10/25/82 Loren Klein, Building Inspector and Zoning Administrator, reviewed with the Council that the general contractor on the recently built Library has asked for his final payment of $20,000. Mr. Klein noted that it was his recommendation and that of the architect that not all of the funds should be paid at this time since there is a problem with the roof leaking and this has not been repaired satisfactorily yet. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously carried to authorize that $15,000 of the remaining $20,000 be paid to Cates Construction Company with the remaining ;5,000 being withheld in an escrow account with passbook interest until the leaks in the roof are repaired. John Simola, public Storks Director, gave a brief review of the public Works Department's activities. John Badalich, City Engineer, noted that the City should be considering updating its comprehensive plan, especially in regard to its water system and plans for possible, addition- al walla or storage facilities. Tom Eidem, City Administrator, noted that the Housing and Re- development Authority Committee will soon be activated to work on the tax increment financing plan that is forthcoming. Mr. Eidem noted that several individuals on thn. HRA Cotmnittee ( have indicated they will be resigning from the committee and \_ in the near future the Council will have to be appointing now members to fill these vacancies. 10. Approval of the Bills for the Month of October, 1982. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of Soptcmbor as proeonted. Soo Exhibit 10/25/82 11. Meeting Adjourned. �Z/�- '/fie. Rick Wolfstoller //J, Assistant Adminiet)ator - 5 - MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL November 4, 1982 - 7:30 A.M. Members Present: Fran Fair, Phil White, Ken Maus, Arve Grimsmo. Members Absent: Dan Blonigen. A special meeting of the city Council was duly held at 7:30 A.M. at City Nall on November 4, 1982. Called to order by the Mayor. Eidem presented to the Council the judges sworn statement of the results of the November 2, 1982, Municipal Election. On a motion by White, seconded by Maus, the following resolution was introduced for adoption. (See Resolution 458, a copy of which is attached). Voting in favor: Maus, Fair, White, Grimsmo. Opposed: None. Thomas A. Eidem City Adminiotrator _RESOLUTION i$58� n RESOLUTION.CANVASSING,,THE ELECTION, ,AZM DECLARING T'HE RESULTS (NOVEMBER; 2', 1982) WHEREAS, The City Administrator has duly)presente& to' the CitY"Council' the Summary Statement of ballots voted in the' November 2,19,82,. Municipal Election, and WHLRFA-S,.said statement has been sworn to�by the judges of said, election, and IMERFAS, the total of votes cast for the offices voted upon are an follows, to -wit: 'For Councilmember C c E. a Frances Fair 915 ° Jack Maxwell 621 David M. Richardson, 502 Dennis Seitz, ° 1 Roger Host 1 Dr. Maus- 1 Tom Link 1 spot_ Hagar Arve A. Grimsmc; r 1,07,6 , 1Ran Peters 1 ,Frances; Fair. 1 Kenneth Maus' '3 Doug Pitt,. 2 Wait Markling 1 Varna Mollonbock 1 Loo'Nelson, 1 ` Don Nagel 1 Richard Brooks, Sr.; 1 Bill. ,Sandboig 1 Jamoo Voll 1 Trent Anderson 1 Dan Frio 1 Doan Dahlhoimor 1 Gary Wiobor 1 MOW THEREFORE, OR IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO THAT tho totals listed above aro doomed to be correct, the oloction is doomed to be valid, and the official winners of the vloution are doclarod to be as followsg Por Coincil, Francon Fair and Jack Maxwell; For ttayor, Arvo Grimsmo Moptod this _U day of November, 1982. .J Mj��CJ or ATTESTi fJ14./�' ( . Council Agenda - 11/8/82 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 4. Continued Hearing on Public Improvements for Meadow Oak sub- division. (T.E.). I spoke this week with Dick Knutson and they have assured me that they will not be coming before the Council on November 8. Thus, the hearing should be continued for one more meeting. They did mention that if everything goes right for them, they will be coming in November 22nd to discuss plans and specifi- cations, provisions for payment and the deferment that they are interested in. I have encouraged them to get me all of the documentation they can prior to the 22nd meeting so that it can be given to you well in advance. At any rate, the Meadow Oak Subdivision need not come up at the November 8th meeting. 5. Consideration of an Offer to Purchase Block 32. (The Oakwood Block). (T.E.). As you recall, in September an offer was made to purchase a portion of the Oakwood Block. At the same meeting, a rerniest was submitted by Security Federal to postpone any decisions concerning Block 32 until they had the opportunity to com- plete a feasibility study and make an offer. You elected at that time to postpone all action until the November 8th meeting. Immediately after that September meeting, I con- tacted Mr. warren Tiogen, the President of Security Federal, of your action and requested that should they like to make an offer, it should be in so that it could be addressed at the November 8th meeting. That offer has arrived. Security Federal is offering a sum of $150,000.00. While I under- stand that thio sum is not considered suitable for the Council, 1 would note that Security Federal has at least addressed the idea of a planned development which would be the most desirable as opposed to individual site development. Thus, while their financial offer is not acceptable to me, their development intent is moving in the right direction. Negotiation of this land sale strikes me as being able to go in several different directions. Assuming that thia first offer is rejected, it seems that the City could start with a counter offer which could be either well above the anticipated income for the sale with the roault being ne- gotiations to an agreed upon pricoi Or the City Council Council Agenda - 11/8/82 might set a firm price and not negotiate. You would simply state that this is what we have to have for this parcel of land, it is not negotiable. Another alternative would be to determine what is the absolute minimum amount that would be acceptable for the land and then call for public bids for the sale of that land. In essence, you would state what the starting bid would have to be and that any bids under that sum would be outright rejected. Using the bid- ding method, of course, has a certain amount of risk if your minimum amount is not set at a satisfactory level. It strikes me, after thinking about it, that you would not want to have a provision allowing you to reject all bids, if in fact they exceeded the minimum amount. if you were to reject all bids, then ypdre basically saying that we are setting this at the minimum amount but we really don't think its the minimum amount. To avoid that situation, you would have to agree upon what in fact you would accept as your minimum amount and if that was the only bid that came in, you may choose to reject it prior to opening it, but after opening it, if it satisfied all of the conditions, I would recommend that the sale be carried through. The final alternative, as I sea it, would be to simply wait, int tAke Any Aetinn, and see if nther Vetter nffnrs Are forthcoming. In a matter very closely related to the sale of this land, is the type of development desired for the land. Loren has pointed out that through our zoning ordinance, the City it- self can enact planned unit development (PUD) stipulations, which would then be attached as a restrictive covenant to the deed. The City, of course, would not want to got in- volved with architectural design or controls, but would like to stipulate that the owner of the land would be re- quired to develop all of the land, for example, and that he could not call off vacant parcels, and perhaps any num- ber of restrictions the City would care to plata on the land. The creation of this PUD would have to occur prior to the transfer so that all restrictions would be in place when and if the transfer of the land occurred. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Assuming that the present offer is re- jected, I sea the following alternatives. 1. Propose a counter offer of an amount substantially higher than you would like to receive to induce a higher offer from: the dovoloper in an attempt to finally arrive at a figure suitable to the City. Thio in not unlike union wage negotiations. - 2 - Council Agenda - 11/8/82 2. make a counter offer to that amount which is con- sidered to be, by the Council, the actual accept- able sale price: Clearly indicate that the cost is not a negotiable item. 3. Establish a minimum acceptable amount, declare it as a starting point, and call for scaled bids for that land. I have no professional recommendation on this issue. REFERENCES: A copy of letter from Northwest Community Clinic, a copy of letter from Security Federal requesting postpone- ment of a decision, a copy of my responses to Security Federal and Northwest Clinic, copy of Security Federal's initial offer, and a copy of my most recent letter to Security Federal. - 3 - NoRTHwEBT COMMUNITY CLINIC P.O. BOX 697 • ]66 CEDAR 87REET MON77CELLO, MINNESOTA Win September 10, 1982 Mayor Arve Orimamo City Ball 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 To the Mayor and City Council: We would like to infotm you of our interest in building a pro- fessional office building that would include our medical clinic. We are considering approximately a 40000 square foot brick building with possibly a second floor. We are interested in the 1y acre, northwest corner of the former Oakwood block bordering on Walnut 6 3rd streets. Our offer for this property to $40,000 contingent upon obtaining the necessary financing and permits. We would be receptive to common parking for the entire block although, the 5 acre parcel would probably be sufficient for our own purposes. We would like to start building as soon as possi- ble. If the council is receptive, we would like to explore tax incre- ment financing and commercial revenue bonds. Thank you for your consideration and please advise us of our next step. Sincerely, Ploriano Brion, M.D. PPB/bow 0 security federal &ban association IN — — warp . e•• .e • n <e.e, w+ww Etal . Iarn nrtilal. ppvmr .'. �aa61 Warren W. Talgen Yr,•IG•wVC..' [..W oars. September 24, 1982 Mr. Tom Eidem City Administrator Monticello, MN 55362 re: Block 32 - Monticello, MN Dear Mr. Eidem: Please be advised that Security Federal S&LA is conducting a feasibility study in regards to acquiring Block 32 from the City of Monticello in order to relocate our facility. Security Federal S&LA has been extremely pleased with our reception in your fair city and our current growth indicates that we will shortly outgrow our current location. we would like the City Council to refrain from subdividing the parcel while we do our feasibility study. we look forward to the future with great optimism in regards to the expansion of your community and our presence in it. If you have any questions in regards to this letter, please conta6t me. I r main, Si cecicly Iyours / Warren W. Teige President 6 CEp WWT/mjv off" of tno ( C,ty AOrtt IIA1O, C -ty 4vonlice& Ph" Iat2! 295,2711 Metro: 19121 333.5739 September 28, 1982 Mr. Warren W. Teigen, president Security Federal Savings & Loan Association 109th Ave. North - Box 10 St. Cloud, tai. 56301 Dear Mr. Teigen: Thank you for your letter expressing interest in Block 32 (The Oakvcod Blocky in the City of Monticello. I presented your letter to the City Council at their regular meeting on Monday, the 27th. As you may be aware, the Council received a previous offer for a portion of this block which, as a result of your latter, they elected to postpone taking any action on. It is my impression, from many discussions with the Council, that they would hope to sea the Oakwood Block develop under the direction of a sir.glo dovaluyer rather than in a scattered site manner. In an effort to facilitate orderly development of the parcel, the Council has laid over the entire matter until November 8th, 1982, at which time they hope you will have completed your feasibility study and be prepared to discuss the proposal at length. I know the Council has a genuine interest in sooing quality development of the Oakwood Block. Again, thank you for your latter of interest. We are pleased and proud that Security Federal Savings & Loan has experienced ouch solid growth in Monticello. it is encouraging to the overall economic health of the community. As the Novembor 8th Council meeting nears, you will be receiving a copy of the Council agenda from me. In the meantimo, if I can do anything to help, please do not hesitate contacting me. Very truly yours, Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator TACJmh ccf Oakwood Blook Pilo , 250 East Broadway 0 Rt. d. Box 3A • Monficollo. MN 55362 Owce dl the GIy Admmrsirelp Cff� o� ///onftce[[o 1 Phwe::6121 295.2111 MOW 19721 333.5139 September 28, 1982 Dr. Floriano Brion, M.D. Northwest Community Clinic P.O. Box 667 305 Cedar St. Monticello, MN. 55362 Dear Dr. Brion: Thank you for your letter expressing interest in purchasing one-half acre of the Oakwood Block. Your letter came before the council at their regular meeting on Monday, the 27th. At the same meeting, a letter from another firm was read expressing interest in purchas- ing the entire block and requesting that the Council refrain frcn selling off any individual parcels while they do an economic feasi- bility study. As a result of both inquiries, the Council elected to postpone the entire matter until the November 8th, 1982, Council meeting. It is our hope that all of the relevant data can be assembled by that time, and that a positive direction for orderly development can be established. Again, thank you for your latter of interest. please do not hesi- tate contacting me if I can provide you with any further informa- tion. Very truly yours, Thomas A. ¢idem City Administrator TAE/mh cc: Correspondence Pile 0) 250 East Broadway t7or 83A • Monticello. MN 55362 ME 7 security federal.,s& -, ass -w- Im — ..w..ra . — .... — — — . aut er+am .. "", f . Warren W. Teipen I—.rvO— E.-- 0 -- October 12, 1982 Mr. Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator 250 East Broadway Route 4, Box 83A Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Eidem: After review of our Board of Directors, I am pleased to say Security Federal is interested in developing Block 32 (The Oakwood Block) in the City of Monticello. We 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 One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) cash for clear title to Block 32. At this stage of negotiations to the extent possible, please keep our bid confidential. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact me. I remain, Sincerely yours,_ Warren W. Teigon President 6 CEO —\ WWT/mjv City 4 Monticello Owco of the Gly ACrtun6n91o, Mr. Warren Teigen President and CEO Security Federal Savings 6 Loan Association 100 9th Ave. North Box 10 St. Cloud, MN. 56301 Dear Mr. Toigens Phone: (9121 295 27. November 4, 1982 Mono 1"21 3335139 Initially, I wish to thank you for your interest in and your offer for the acquisition of the Oakwood Block in Monticello. As I noted in my September 28th letter to you, I am sending you a copy of the Council meeting agenda for this coming Monday, November 8th. While the Council has not taken any formal action, or for that matter oven formally considered your offer, I have had the opportunity to discreetly talk with each member individually, and most have indi- cated that they think the land is of greater value. It seems that this tendency is primarily booed upon a professional appraisal done for the City in 1979 that estimated the value of the land at $353,925.00. Each member of the Council las indicated to me that, even though they think the real estate is of a greater value, they are pleased that Security Federal has indicated their interest in the acquisition and in their plans to develop the property as a "Planned Unit Development" rather than in a scattered site fashion. This, of course, is the objective of the Council. In my discussion with Mayor Grim mho, he asked that I encourage you to attend the November ath Council Meeting so that the subject may be further discuosod. Based upon the agenda, I anticipate this matter coming before the Council no later than 7144 P.M. I sin- caraly hope you can attend the meeting. Please contact me at your convenience if I can be of any assistance. Very truly yours,, Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator CAE/mh cci Oakwood Pilo Correspondence Pile CA 250 East Broadway 9 t (10 ', Box 83A • Monticello, MN 55362 Council Agenda - 11/8/82 6. Consideration of Taking a Purchase option on Lots 13 and 14, Less the Southerly 15 feet of Lot 15 in Block 51. As of now, I do not have any written information that I can provide to you for the Council meeting. I spoke with Gary Pringle earlier today (Friday) and he informed me that he had met with George Phillips and they had worked out an agree- ment for the option. He said that he would put the details in writing for me as quickly as he could and get them to me. I have not yet received them. I am afraid that without Gary's data, there is little information I can provide. 4/hat he did tell me is that the basic cost involved will be about $6,800.00, that we are, at this time, taking only a 6 month option on the land, which means that we are not assuming ownership, but rather simply an option to buy at some later date. The owner- ship of the land stays with the development corporation. fie also pointed out that Mr. Phillips is more than willing to make a provision that at the end of the six months upon payment of six months interest only, the option could be extended for another six months. Also, if the City or the HRA are prepared to make full acquisition, they may do so at any time prior to the and date of the nix month period or even during the extended pericvi. One tether aspect shmild M hrmight Cn ymir attention; The option at this time is being taken by the City of Monticello and not the HRA. Gary felt that this would be the best procedure to follow and I certainly see no difficulty with the City taking the option and as the tax increment program develops, the land could then be transferred to the HRA from the City. When ac- quisition finally occurs, the cost of the land will be $35,000.00. Again, I wish I had Gary's information available for you, but I assure you when I do receive it I will got copies to you as quick- ly as possible. Just a point of information: The developer that I had initially dealt with concerning this property is planning in planning to be in Monticello on Tuesday, the 9th, to conduct an informal survey at the Senior Citieon's Center in order to submit his application for Farmers Homo Administrator lousing Unit. As I understand it, he is wall along hie way to developing a final application, but dean need this survey data that he plans to colloct on Tuosday. - 4 - MEMORANDUM This is a memorandum to Tom Eidem, City Administrator, City of Monticello. This memo regards the purchase of an option by the City of Monticello from the Monticello Development Corporation. The option is for three (3) lots presently owned by the said Monticello Development Corporation. 1 met with Ceorge Philips, and we talked about the terms of this option agreement, and I will set out the terms in this memo for you to discuss with the City Council. This option would be for six (6) months with an automatic extension for six (6) months at the end of the first six months. For these first six months the City would pay the interest due on the mortgage on the property through November 9, 1982, and the insurance premium which is presently past due. The interest due is approximately $6,310.00, and the insurance premium due is approximately $544.00. if the City did not exercise it's option during the first six months and did option to continue for another six months, the City for second nix months would pay the interest that come due from November 9, 1982 through May 9. 1983, which would be approximately $2,430.00. The interest during the next six months during the first six months of the option would be at the rate of 14% as it presently exists. Of course, the Monticello Development Corporation would be Quaranteeing good title to the properties at the time the City would exercise its option, and if good title could not be transferred the City's expenditures would all be reimbursed to the City from the Monticello Development Corporation. This would include the monies paid over to the Monticello Development Corporation, and any monies expended by the City of Monticello to demolish the buildings on the properties. There is presently a renter in one of the buildings on the properties and the City could handle that any way it wanted. The City could see that the renter moves out, or could continue to rant the premises out and take the rent during this period. As indicated, the City would have the right to demolish the buildings on these properties during the six month option period. The City would have the responsibility during the option period of paying any real estate taxes that become due and ere already due and the expenses of any insurance and any other costs of holding the property, dust as if the City owned it during that period. If the City exercises its option to purchase the proportion it will pay an additional $35,000.00 for the title to the properties. Tom, after you meet with the Council, Monday November 8, 1982, we will have to meet on the following Tuesday and come up with the document necessary to be executed for the purposes of creating this option agreement that the City will be purchasing. it is not necessary that we close on Tuesday, but we will want to close as soon as possible this week. Please contact me Tuesday morning so that we can get going on this thing. Dated: November 8, 1982. Gary L. Pringle J Council Agenda - 11/8/82 7. Consideration of a Policy Proposed from the Downtown Parkinq Committee. (T.E.). I talked this morning with Bud Schrupp on the Parking Committee and he indicated that the committee has had a difficult time getting together. He said that he would not be ready to attend the November 8th Council meeting with an overall revised park- ing policy. We have scheduled a meeting of the Parking Com- mittee and myself for Wednesday afternoon, November 10th. I mentioned to Bud that it was my understanding that the com- mittee should address itself to an overall revision of the downtown parking provisions. At that point he requested my attendance in hopes of establishing the direction for the committee, and what we hope to achieve, with respect to the kind of policy, through this revision. I suggested that I would be happy to meet with them initially to, perhaps, map out some direction and some objectives, but from that point the committee would become involved in laying out the actual policy detail. At any rate, like the hearing on Meadow Oak, this item will not come before the Council on November 8th. - 5 Council Agenda - 11/8/82 8. Consideration of Chanqe Order's #62, #63, #64 and #65. Q.S.). Chanqe Order #62. This change order involves seven minor electrical changes. Two changes involve lighting changes, two involve old clari- fier motors, one adds length to battery cables for the stand- by generator, one adds wires for the methane gas engine alarm and the final one involves revising the air compressor circuit for the unloaders. Three of the changes repair or replace 1961 vintage equipment while the remaining four are necessary changes or additions to the new portion or the plant. Total amount for these changes is $3,409.00 Chanqe Order #63. This change order adds electrical shut offs in the chlorine room for the chlorinators and leak detector. These switches are necessary for safety and servicing. Total for the three switches is $711.00. Chanqe Order #64. All sidewalks to the filters and main digester building as wu li an acco6n eLupn to Lhu cla&iriure wan w.Lttud in dueign. These are necessary for obvious reasons. Total coat is $3,749.00. Chanqe Order #65. This change order balances estimated quantities with actual quantities for the interceptor and outfall sewers. Total "savings" is $98.00. Tho total addition of those change orders is $7,771.00. Approval of theso change orders would leave a balance of -$18,403.07 in the contingency fund. REFERENCES1 Enclosed copies of change orders. -6 - - ` CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER :o■luhn■s asmuu ' We suasion . " OUR SCHElEN•MAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. //+�/ 'ehYhStaN Or FIaDa CONSUITaNTe, tNC >I�h e..maS wIwNVM IY/ aUtq m7e wiNNiammtS, wN aastSAtA 1}teead TW.' 1fre1Y . Contractor Paul 'A. -Laurence Co. Change Order 1116. 62 Address P.O. Box 12671 10000- Highwav 55 West' Flud tadif• fa. 100 Minneapolis,' Minnesota 55440 Project No. 068-2748.6 Job Location Monticello. Minnesota " EPA wont ib.070855-03 In accordance with the teres o1 your -contract doted November 20 19 80 with the City of Monticello owner for WWTP Upciradinct and Appurtenant Work tau era hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plana amt specifications: .0escription and'3ustificwtion: - Rater to Fleid'Modif r 100 (Mtechod) Review of electrical wiring installation requirements for the air compressors, standby generator, gas engine blower, ex. primary clarifier drive, and ex. intermediate *clarifier drive has required wiring revisions or equipment changes' .va ��,esG uGwa4rb. xaekdom of Costs this Change Order: - ' Labor Egvlp.ant Profit t Overhead Total Add Total Deduct 1$1,414.00 r (material) I $445.00 1 ,$3,409.00 .1 .550.00 Amount of Original Contract: f 4,704,000.00 ' Total Ccwtreet Contract Thru C.O. /61 1ote1 Addition Total•Osduct Thru'Thls C.O. 162' 1$4,855,832.07 $3,409.00 ' $4,859,24107 Original Continpencles 13%3 11 . Nat Re1■aining . Cont. Thru C.O. F Add This C.O.. I Doduet This G0._ I Contingencies 1 1 There a I I I be an .mftens ton of 0 deye for completion. Us date of the com■piet ton of Contract was December 31t9 82 wad now at 11 b. December 3119 82 xopted by - Pete, planed . Cont Actor -. , Recownd ed Osti tinned a{02t'o'r2 [ng nNr�. y L/ ADW O+ad bar GGJJ DtTa Sion" - I CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER LASO 8~0" I ASSOCUIES, INC, se, 0*60" 01 1100[ CW WITAtRa. Contractor Pahl A.. haute Fe Co. Cho"90.0roor Ob. 63 waren P.O. Box 1267 10000 Highway 55 West field radIf. No. Minneapolis, -Minnesota - 55440 project Ob Job Location Monticello. Min I nesota Eft grant lb.C2708!55-0 In accordance with the terms of your contract dated November 20 19 80 with the Citv of Monticello o."or to, WWTP Uparadinq and Appurtenant Work You are hersby requested to comply with the following changes tram the contract Plans and space fleatiot-s: DSKrJPtl*n Ono justif icart ion: Rotor to F told 04odi f if 12 'Witached 3 Local disconnect switches are requir6d for the chlorinators and chlorinator leak detector in -order to allow for servicing of the equipment. breakdown of Costs "to Change Ordsi. Labor(Subcontr. Ectulpment profit & owsrhood -Total Add Total Deduct. material $677 00 $34.00 $711.00 Amount ofOrIgInsi Contracts.f„4,,,7Q4_QnQ_OQ ontract Thru C.O. I Total AdditionUCIR 70141 Cod Thru This C.O. I _i2 1 54,859,952.07 $4.859,241.07 $ 711.00 Original Conilogsaclos ()1) 1 sort Raul ning Thru,C.O. It Add This C.O. Deduct This C.O. Contingencies There 9 111 be a1 artons ion of 0 dove for completion. the Ion contract December 31 82 and most *III be December 3110 62. the date of camplel of was Itcopled bar Dots a#anad CIDWO f Ct/ Z -ccuame-dod by • Dr. stoned t rq I hear "'o-od be —,• t 1 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER caeuln0a uamllss lase u m so OUR-SCHHUN-MAYER017 ! ASSOCLATIM, etc. b. of moot WnauiT,YTs. C. bmw UJT Mlhhahh Avg Sung no Whhe •rallm. Yh as+l»hD y1� TYn' Nor• .ontractor Paul A. Laurence 6. Charge order No. 64 Address P.O. Box 1267,'10000 Highwov 55 West Field abodif, Ob. 106 Minneapolis,-Minnesota 55440 1roJect No. 068-2748.01 " Job Location 'Monticello, Minnesota - V% grant aas.C270855-03 ' in accordance 91" the torn of your contract dated November 20 19 80 With the City of Monticello Owner for WWTP Uoaradinn and Appurtenant Work You aro hereby rcduested to comply with the fol loving changes from the contract olons and specifications. Description and Justification: - Rotor to Field Ibdlf,/ d 06 LA17ached)' .• Concrete Access Walkways and Stoops at the Primary ansa Tntprmpaiatn r1„rifi„=a and Concrete Access Walkways at the Diqester Control Buildino arra the Trickling Filters in order to provide a safe and maintainable access to these areas. t-eakdorn of casts this Change order: 1 Labor EOuipsent (materlai[$489.00 Profit ♦f overhead Total Md Total Deduct $1,910.00 $1,350.00 $3,749.00 I raount of original Contract: f 4, 704, 000. 00 Totat Contract 'ontrect Thru C.o. / 6 3 Total Addition total onduct .. Thru Thls Ceg. if 64 $4,859,952.07 $3,749:00 $4;863,701.07 lrlglnol Contingenclos (it) S Of Remaining any. Thru C.O. Add Th Is, C.O. Deduct This C.O. caatingancles . 'nor* Vitt be on ewtenslon of 0 days for completion. he cane of the co+plat Ion of Contract was December 31t0 82 and aoW•e11I be . December 31 -cepted by Date Signed - I:ont� for It .1 J_Jl/4Z sco o-ded DY J�� lam*-ik"1r ata It -ad Engineer r'o•ed by We 1110.06 ov.ar I I 1 I 898 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER ca■auusw uswuo tAta $$*[roan 04M-SrHELEN-NAYERON • ASSOCIATES, tNC. s o..�oy0. wtous con. ysuotrTwwwC. '� .cattail r.[wyewy sICIV,ti 8N r�wtarpe. y 8µ.7M+A ssrassottr. Isms ' Contractor Paul A. l aprenco T,n. Change order No. 65 .Address P.O. Box 1267 X0000 Hiqhwav 55 Kest field sbdif, w, NIA Minneapolis, Minnesota 55840 s}olect No. 068-2748.0 job iocation Monticello. Minnesota Eel Grant tb.C270B55-03 In accordance with the term of Your contract dated November 20 19-P0 with the City of Monticello owner tar WWTP Uagradinq and Appurtenant work You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes froathe contract plans and specifications: owscription and Justification. -Refer td f tend siodif ♦N A (Attached) Balancing Cha oe Order reflecting the difference between the estimated bid quantities and the final installed quantities for Part VIII — Special Provisionsi .for SBnitary Interceptor anti Outfall Sewers. Breakdown of Casts this Change Order: Itaoor Equipment florin ♦ Overhead Tatsf Add ) Tota000 Aeount at original Contrwts x41704, 000.00 • TORN ConinCt • Contract Thru C.O. t 64 Tend ,iadlttoo. Total Deduct Thr This C.O. /;••b„y $4,863.701.07 $98.00 $4,863,603.07 Original Contlhgenclas f35l f lbt Most lnIrg (Cont, ibry C.O. t Add Thlt C.O. Dialect This C.O. cpatiagwncies There .III be on antension of 0 days for canpfetlon. The dale of the eosplet Ion af.Contract was december 310, 82 dad )tow will be December 31, 82 accepted by 'Orta Star -ad coatr�aJj/tor •,srn—nded by Mi'"�.�'R��'1 ..r; . �?�" v`wd ,.•owed btu_ net.y--.-- Council Agenda - 11/8/82 9. Consideration of Appointments to the Monticello Housinq and Redevelopment Authority. (T.E.). In an effort to revitalize the Monticello HRA, we find that we are in need of four (4) new appointments. Of the five members, the one person who would like to stay on is Mr. Vic Vokaty, whose term does not expire until December 31st, 1985. The persons who need to be replaced and their ex- piration date are listed as follows: Leo Nelson Chairman 12-31-82 Ken Tvedt 12-31-83 George DeMars 12-31-84 Robert Doty 12-31-86 The appointments should tcchnically be for the balance of the term. Thus, in the case of Leo Nelson's replacement, that term will only be through the end of this year. At the first meeting in January, a new appointment should be made, either to the person who fills in for this final interim or to someone new who is prepared to make a five year commitment to the HRA. 'Chose appointments are made by the Mayor with final ratification by the City Council. Persons who have expressed a desire to serve on the IIRA are as follows: Don Cochran Bud Schrupp Phil white (Dr. White has agreed to assume the final interim position of Mr. Nelson. lie has not indicated whether or not he would fulfill a now five year appointment that would begin in January of 1983). The fourth appointeo has not yet been confirmed, although I am aware that some members of tho City Council aro contacting persona they think may be willing to accept an appointment. As a reminder, tho HRA will become an integral part and extremely active in all of our tax increment financing pro- jocto in tho future. They are an absolutely essential organ to the proper development of a tax increment plan. Finally, because of the stags we are at with our tax in- cremont plan, the IIRA will begin work almost immodiatoly after the appointments havo boon ratified. - 7 - Council Agenda - 11/8/82 10. Consideration of Granting a Rezoning Request - Mrs. Les Carlson. (L.K.) Upon the death of Les Carlson some months ago, Mr. Carlson's welding shop was discontinued and subsequently the equipment was sold. At the time of Mr. Carlson's death, his welding business was located within an R-1 zone where it was a non- conforming use which was permitted under the grandfather clause. Hnwever, since Mr. Carlson's death, the welding business, as previously stated was discontinued and Mrs. Carlson would like to utilize the building at this time for rental income. However, because this building is in an R-1 zone, the only use for that building would be as a single family home. Mrs. Carlson has an individual who is willing to lease, or possibly purchase, her building to create another business. In order to do so, it is necessary that the property be first rezoned and then a conditional use be granted to allow that type of business. The rezoning re- quired would be that of B-3. At the Planning Commission meeting, Mrs. Carlson was present and asked for a clarification of the difference between R-1 and R-3 zoning and questioned as to when the property was zoned to R-1. Kra. Carlson also wanted to know if the taxes on the former welding shop would ix: reduced now since it is no longer being used as a welding shop and is by ordinance a residentially zoned property. There was objection from several neighbors who received public hearing notices regarding this rezoning request. A letter was read by Mr. Dale Dahl objecting to this re- zoning request as well as Roger Schwientok, a neighbor, objecting to the rezoning because he felt the property was zoned R-1 and when he purchased his hone he understood that the conformance of the non -conforming welding shop would be required at sono time in the future, which would ensure a continuity of residential zoning in that area. Mr. Stave Johnson, another neighbor, was present and stated that he understands Mrs. Carlson's feelings about wanting to have her property rezoned to make its income value greater than it is presently under R-1 zoning. lie also stated that he felt that the zoning within the City should be maintained and that the business should be expanded within a proper zoning district. Ito felt that tho City should comply with and not alter the comprehensive plan. It was also Mr. Johnson's feelings that Mr. Gills's rights to maintain his off-aalos facility adjacent to the Carlson property should be protoctod, but he did not -hl- Council Agenda - 11/8/82 feel that Mr. Gille should be allowed to expand his auto sales facility in an R-1 zone, but that Mr. Gille should be required to move his auto sales facility if he wanted to expand it. Mr. Gerald Doerr was present to state that he has no objection to Mr. Gille's auto sales facility being continued in the location that it is, but that he would object to rezoning and subsequent conditional use being granted to Mr. Gille to expand his auto sales facility. Because the members of the Planning Commission felt that the property owners were correct in their request that the comprehensive plan for zoning should be continued as it presently is, a motion was made by Schaffer, seconded by Bondhus, with all voting to recommend denial of this re- zoning request for rezoning the Carlson property from R-1 to B-3. REFERENCES: An enclosed map showing the location of the Carlson and Gille property and also showing the zoning districts within the areas surrounding this property. - 9 - C Council Agenda - 11/8/82 10. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request - Fred Gills. (L.D). As was previously stated in the consideration for rezoning for Mrs. Les Carlson, a subsequent request was made by Mr. Fred Gille, the abutting property owner, that he be granted a con- ditional use in order that he might be allowed to expand his auto sales facility unto the Carlson property which is im- mediately to the east of his existing auto sales facility. Again, I refer you to the previous item and the information contained therein regarding rezoning for the Les Carlson property. The Planning Commission had previously recommended that the property not be rezoned in order to accommodate anything other than a single family residence and they also agreed with the comments of the surrounding neighbors regarding the rezoning of the property and the potential request for a conditional use for an auto sales facility so therefore, the Planning Ccaenission acted on a motion by Bondhus, which was seconded by Schaffer to recommend denial of the condi- tional use request by Fred Gillu. NOTE: Enclosed rare the same reference9 for theRe two agenda (( items as were enclosed for the Planning Commission for their `i meeting and also included is the letter from Mr. Dale Dahl as an agenda item regarding both of these items. Mr. Steve Johnson has also submitted a letter stating his opinion since he is unable to attend the Council meeting. =)= October 17, 1982 Mr. Loren D. Klein Zoning Administrator Planning Commission City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Route 4. Box 83A Monticello, h7N 55362 Dear Mr. Hleins This letter is presented as my testimony regarding the rezoning application by Mr. Fred Gills. I will not be able to attend the public hearing. I am opposed to rezoning, to B-3 status, the properties now occuppied by the Carlson Welding Shop and Gille Auto Sales. There are several reasons for my position on this matter. 1. The apparent intent of the original zoning plan will be violated if the aDDlication Is approved. At the time this area of the city was zoned, the Planning Commission had full opportunity to zone these business properties as B-3. Instead, the Commission chose to zone the entire area as H-1, but to allow lheee business pruperties an "exception" status as long as that type of business would continue on each property involved. The apparent intent of the Commission, by this action then, was to (1) refrain from bringing economic hard- ship on the owners of the Carlson Welding Shop and Gille Auto Sales, but (2) to make it clear that when that type of business ceased to exist, the property should be for R-1 use only. To approve the rezoning application now would be to deny the current validity of the reasons for the original zoning plan. 2. A ma.lor change in honing (as R-1 to B-1 is) would contra- dict the zoning exngctatone of those residential property owne rp in the area that tuilt or purchased Droverty with the bplief that the area would remain zoned for residential use. This area of the city has enjoyed significant residential growth in recent years. The properties involved are carefully and beautifully landscaped and the structures are mostly new and well-maintained. It easily can be classified as one of the loveliest parts of town. It was my belief that the neighborhood would remain residentially zoned when my wife and I purchased our home at 1229 Sandy Lane in June of this year. That it was R-1 and would likely remain so was a major factor in our decision to buy the home we did. I vividly recall discussing the zoning laws as they apply to the properties involved in this application with the realtors involved in our purchase and, later, with neighbors. I was assured by these discussions that r (2) the area would remain residential. The Planning Commission should not contradict such reasonable expectations by approving the Gille application. 3. Granting of B-3 status to properties within the R-1 zone will discourage investments by future homebuilders and purchasers. The granting of B-3 status to the properties affected by the Gille application would set an adverse precedent. In effect, it would destroy confidence in the Planning Commission's guidance of the orderly growth and development of this part of the city. Prospective home builders and buyers would face uncertainty as to future property usage, a deterent to their investment. Also discouraged would be any planned improvements by existing residential property owners. Since moving into our home, we spent several hundred dollars on tilting and landscaping. If this area is partially rezoned, I believe it would affect the resale value of our home. I now plan additional home improvements expenditures. If the rezoning application is approved. I certainly would reconsider those plans and, perhaps, even consider "cutting my losses" by selling and locating elsewhere. 4. Granting of the Gille application would create or intensify adverse feeling between Mr. Gille and his residential neighbors. Since this application has been made public, I have heard my neighbors compain that (1) Mr. Gills is already using the welding shop property to display his automobiles and trucks (a violation of the zoning ordinance), (2) Mr. Gille is using the county ditch on highway 7$ to display his merchandise (a violation), (3) Mr. Gille may already be using the welding shop for auto repair purposes ( a violation). I have personally observed items (1) and (2). Another complaint deserves mention. A view of the Gille property from the golf course shows that the place is a depository for "junked" automobiles and trucks. Even if this usage is consistent with the original "exception" status afforded Mr. Gille earlier, the fact remains that his pro- perty is an "eyesore" in an otherwise attractive residential surroundings. This negative physical appearance would be enhanced by the granting of his application. If hard feelings develop or inteneify between Mr. Gille and his residential neighbors because of the items mentioned, I would loin my neighbors in whatever legal actions are appro- priate to assure that his business be contained within his propertyylboundaries and that it not be a visual nuisance to the beauty of the area. I have tried to view this matter from the perspective of Ra owners of the proportioe seeking B-3 Boning status. 0 owner of the wolfing shop property would like to sell at (3) the highest price possible. Mr. Gills would like to expand his business operation. The welding shop property value, for R-1 usage, is low because it is adjacent to the Gille property. If both the welding shop property and the Gills property were available for R-1 usage, both properties would bring a high resale price. They overlook a beautiful golf course and are in an attractive neighborhood. From the perspective of the neighborhood, the best solution to the current problem would be for Mr. Gills to relocate his business at this time to an area zoned for B-3 usage. Residential property values would be protected by such a decision. The greatest resale values could be obtained for the welding shop and the auto sales property. And adverse feeling would be eliminated. The alternative, even if B-3 status were granted, would be the lowering of property values, reduced residential growth and maintainence, and a heightening of hard feelings and possible lawsuits between Mr. Gills and his residential neighbors. The balancing of business and residential interests in a growing comwwUty in difficult, and sometimes impossible. We all look to the Planning Commission and its decision In thiE matter as a signal of its resoluteness and perceptlon of the best interest of the citizens of Monticello. Thank you for this opportunity to express my views. Sincerely yours, Dale C. Dahl 1229 Sandy Lane Monticello, Minnesota 55362 0 �, Mon[ic_Ilo 2952938 W 1 MONTICEL LO, MINN. 55362 Tal. Elk River 4411197 ELK RIVER, MINN. 55330 November L, 1942 City Council City of Monticello Monticello, Minn. 55362 I am writing this letter in lieu of personally appearing at the council meeting due to another pressing co=itment. I want to express my opposition to any rezoning of the Carlson -Dille property for the following reasons: 1.) As van brought out in the public hearings one adjacent property owner was forced to pay a premium of 1/2x due to the temporary commercial nature of rille Auto Sales. To grant a business zoning would even further effect the values of adjacent property. In effect, the expansion of Mr, 1:ille's business would be at the expense of his neighbors. 2.) All of us built or purchased homes in the area after checking the zoning status of surrounding property. The welding and auto shop businesses at that time were grandfathered into the area, and would be allowed to continue on the current basis. It was also understood by the ordinance that they may not expand or change their nature. Also at the termination of the businene that the area could be used only as a single family residential area. On this basis, the area developed with an understanding of this covenant in the overall city plan. To change the zoning would be a violation of the trust expressed by the city in its zoning. 3.) Other areas exist within the city that are zoned properly for these businesses and are currently undeveloped. If these businesses are profitable and expanding pact their present facilities. I real they should consider moving to an appropriate area. 4.) To allow a business ouch as thin establish itself permanantly within a residential area soemo without basis. Nowhere in the area have any business been allowed to start but rather they have been grouped toCether in business districts for their benefit and that of the city. I nee no benefit for the area in permanantly zoning such businesses in an exclusively residential arca. - Continued - Ilovember 4, 1982 To. City Council — Monticello Page 2 I do, however, see the problem that exists in respect to the Carlson property. I also respect the right of Mr. Gille to conduct his business within the grandfathering clause of the ordinance. i also feel that the Carlson property could be Food residential property, save the fact that the auto repair business with the ,dunked cars on it make the property less desirable. This is the same effect that it has on my property as well. The best solution would be for any such existing businesses to relocate thereby increasing the residential value of all property. In lieu of this, the existing businesses may now operate legally exactly as in the past. And to this end I have no quarrel. I do not, however, feel that the property which was used exclusively as a welding shop, should be alloyed to be used for anything but welding as prescribed by lay. Auto engine repair and body work should not be considered the same _se as was the former welding shop. On these points I ask that present zoning be left in tact and that the uses of the property be brought back to those allowed by lay. Sincerely, Steve `Johnson Council Agenda - 11/8/82 11. Consideration of Settinq a Special Meetinq for the Express Purpose of Establishinq 1983 Salaries for Non -Union Personnel. (T.E.). In review of last year's minutes, I discovered that Gary re- quested the Council to hold a special meeting solely to dis- cuss and establish salaries and wages for the city's non- union personnel. Because salary meetings can become very time consuming, my inclination is to urge you to take similar action this year. Shat I would like from you is not only a time and date for a special meeting, but a general framework citing how you would prefer this to be handled. Some of the questions I have are whether or not you want me to negotiate with the employees prior to the meeting and if at all possible arrive at figures that are determined to be acceptable in terms of the budget and to the employee or would you prefer that I stay completely out of the negotiation process. If you request that I negotiate with the employee, then the question arises as to whether or not you wish the employee to attend the special meeting, if in fact, we have already agreed upon a figure. Also, if you wish to have me negotiate with the employee, can the employee assume that the agreed upon figure will be honor- ed and ratified b7 the Council or might that figure be changed by the Council. These are some of the questions that I have that I have addressed in the re-writo of the personnel policy. Obviously, the policy is not yet in affect and will not be for this salary session. I would like the Council to care- fully consider the option of allowing me to negotiate in the best interests of the City and then perhaps honoring that negotiation and setting the salaries accordingly. ilowaver, for the coming meeting, I would simply like to receive direc- tion from the Council an to how you would like me to proceed on this matter. I am not at this time providing you with any salary references. I will provide you with extensive reference material in the supplement for the special meeting that you will set. Council Agenda - 11/8/82 12. Consideration of the Acceptance of the Law Enforcement Contract. As a last minute addition to the agenda, I have attached the pro- posed law enforcement contract for 1983. I think the Sheriff's letter is fairly self-explanatory with respect to actual numbers. Based upon the projected 1983 budget expenditure of $11G,000.00 at $15.25 per hour, the City could expect to receive 15 nine hour shifts per week. This translates roughly to 2 nine hour shifts per day, seven days per week with nine hours left over to be spread around for heavy duty. I am presuming that the City has the right to establish priority patrol schedule time since we had no par- ticipation in the financial decisions. As long as we do have con- trol over the scheduling, I think that we can move patrol time around such that we can plan to stay within the budget amount for 1983. while it has been mentioned that 24 hour per day coverage would be very desirable, at this particular rate, coverage of that type would cost the City a minimum of $133,590.00, or about $25,000 more than was budgeted. I should note that for the purpose of these figures, I am using the $108,000 budget figure since the returned fines balances with the decreased hourly rate, and I consider this to be a wash. T fine it to ho a little distressinn And sanowhat insulting thnt at no time during the establishment of these rates were we at all consulted. Granted, it is their domain to establish their price and then charge that price, and if we wish to buy the service, we pay the going price. It is simply a little disconcerting to go through our budgetary process with all the time and effort that it takes, only to have it made irrelevant because the County elects to do something else. Unfortunately, an I sac it, unless we are prepared to create our own law enforcement department, this is not a negotiable item. We simply must accept the offer and enter the contract. I would also like to note that oven though I am a little upset with the way the matter wan handled, I do not think that the coat par hour is out of lino. My suggestion is that a motion be made to enter the contract contingent upon the City being allowed to determine the number of hours per day that will receive law enforcement coverage. I agreed with the deputies in that within that parameter they should be allowed to not the actual schedule so that it does not become totally predictable. RFF ERENCESs A copy of cover letter, copy of law enforcement contract. - 12 - y�cws� I I DARRELL L. WOLFF County Sheriff Dear Council Members: SHERIFF'S OFFICE Courthouse — Wright County RU"ALO, MINNUOTA 88313 mo .[ma. gency eve. No. 682.3900 Ton Free 1.600.362-3667 8.00 a.m. - 4t30 P.M. James F. Power; Chief Deputy 20 flour emergency Telephones Buffalo 882.1162 Mnro 4736673 Monticello 2952833 Delano 972.2924 Coketo 2866454 Annandale 274.3035 November 1, 1982 The Wright County Board met on October 27 and discussed the cost for providing police service to cities under contract. A motion was approved to increase the hourly rate 15% or to $15.25 per hour. On a cost analysis, it would break down as follows: Salaries $ 11.00 Benefits 3.07 Insurance Uniforms PEM Overtime/Court/Holiday, etc Car Expenses 3.54 $ 17.61 Allowance for fines returned 2.36 $ 15.25 There are no charges for training, administrative or investigation expenses and numerous other incidentals. DW: dI Yours truly, Darrell Wolff Wright County Sheriff L LAP! ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 19_, by and between the County of Wright and the Wright County Sheriff, herein- after referred to as "County" and the hereinafter referred to as the "Municipality"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the municipality is desirous of entering into a contract with the County for the performance of the hereinafter described law enforcement protection with the corporate limits of said municipality through the county i sheriff, and i WHEREAS, the County is agreeable to rendering such services, and n protection on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, such contracts are authorized and provided for by the rrovisian of Minn. Stat. 1957, Sec. 471.59 and Laws 1959, Chap. 372, and Minn. Stat. Ann. 1961 Sec. 436.05; NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid statutes, it is agreed as follows: 1. That the County by way of the Sheriff agrees to provide police protection within the corporate limits of the ninicipality to the extent and in manner as hereinafter set forth: a. Except as otherwise hereinafter specifically set forth, such services shall encompass only duties and functions of the tyre coming, within the jurisdiction of the Wright County Sheriff pursuant to Minnesota Laws and Statutes. b. Except as otherwise hereinafter provided for, as a standard level of service provided shall be the same basic level of service which is provided for the unincorporated areas of the County of Wripht, State of Minnesota. c. The rendition of services, the standard of performance, the discipline of the officers,and other matters incident to the performance of such services and control of personnel so employed shall remain in and under the control of the Sheriff. d. Such services shall include the enforcement of Minnesota State Statutes and Laws and the municipal ordinances which are of the same type and nature of Minnesota State Statutes and Laws enforced by the Sheriff within the unincorporated territory of said County. 2. That it is agreed that the sheriff shall have full cooperation and assistance from the municipality, its officers, agents and employees, so as to facilitate the performance of this agreement. 3. The t the county shall furnish and supply all necessary labor, supervision, equipment, communication facilities for dispatching, cost of ]ail detention, and all supplies necessary tc maintain the level of service to be rendered herein. 4. The municipality shall not be liable for the direct payment of any salaries, wages, or other compensation to any personnel performing services herein for said County. S. The municipality shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity to any of the Sheriff's employees for injuries or sickness arising out of its employment, and the County hereby agrees to hold harmless the municipality against any such claims. 6. The County, Sheriff, his officers, and employees shall not be deemed to assume any liability for intentional or negeligent acts of said J municipality, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof. 7. The municipality shall defend said Sheriff, his officers, agents, or employees against, and hold harmless from, any claim for damages resulting from the enforcement of any duly enacted municipal ordinance. 8. This agreement shall be effective from to 9. The municipality hereby agrees to pay to the County the sum of for law enforcement protection for hours per day of daily patrol service and 24 hours call and general !services from said Sheriff's office during. said term of this agreement. 10. If the annualsalaries of the deputy sheriffs are increased at any time during the term herein stated, this contract shall not be increased. 11. The municipality shall have the option of renewing this agreement for an additional successive twelve-month period. To exercise this option, the municipality shall notify the county administrator not later than sixty days i �;rrtor to the expiration date of this agreement. 12. It is understood and agreed that the offenses for which arrests art made pursuant to state statutes the county shall stand all costs of the courts and its prosecution. When arrests are made under municipal ordinonces of the municipality, the municipal attorney shall prosecute such case. Any and all fines collected shall be paid to the Wright County Treasurer's Office. '=-7 t._ 13. Whereas; legislation has been enacted effective July 1, 1973, making it mandatory that the County Court remit to all municipalities within the said county, one half of all fines levied and collected from traffic vio- lation arrests made in said municipality. And, Whereas; it is understood that the contract fees is based upon the County receiving the entire amount of'all fines. It is understood that the Municipality shall return to the Wright County Sheriff all fine monies received from the County. Said Munici- pality shall remit by check no later than thirty (30) days from when said fine monies are received by said Municipality. 14. For the purpose of maintaining cooperation, local control and general information on existing complaints and problems in said municipality, •ane member of the municipal council, the mayor, or other person or persons, shall be appointed by said council to act as police c omnissionerls for said inunicipality, and shall make periodic contacts with and attend meetings with the sheriff or his office in relation to the contract herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the municipality, by resolution duly adopted by its governing body, caused this agreement to be signed by its mayor and attested by Its clerk, and the County of Wright, by the County Board of Commissioners, has aused these presents to be subscribed by the Wright County Sheriff and the �hairmen of said board and the seal of said board to be affixed thereto and treated by the clerk of said board, all on the day and year first above written 4- y Attest: Clerk Mayor BOARD OF WRICHT COU4TY COMMISSIONERS BY �. Cha i man Attost; Clark, Board of County Commissioners Wright County Sheriff /02 P MEMO TO: All Council Members, Tom Eidem FROM: John Simola, Public Works Director DATE: November 17, 1982 SUBJECT: Snowstorm on November 11th and 12th, 1982. As you are aware, we had our first taste of winter on Thursday eve- ning, November 11th. First came the freezing rain and sleet plac- ing a sheet of ice on the roadways. Then came the wet heavy snow and strong winds. With the street superintendent on vacation, I notified our 3 man plowing crew at 8:00 P.M. Thursday evening that we would start at 1:00 A.M. and be plowing when the storm let up. The trucks were ready and started plowing at approximately 3:45 A.M. The plowing was extremely slow, as the trucks would not turn, and oven with full loads of sand had traction problems. Snow piled up several feet in front of the plows before chunks would slide off. Plows were also tripping due to the heavy pushing. In the areas where traffic from the night before and early morning traffic had gone ahead, the plows had little effect on the compacted snow and ice. Then at approximately 8:30 A.M. one e:iver (Jerry) took ill with a bad eye infection and pain and was sant to the doctor, not to return to work. while arranging for an alternate driver (Matt) another truck driver (Rich) broke down losing a center plow cutting edge and fuel tank hracket. Rich was sent back out immediately with Jerry's truck while Matt and I repaired Rich's truck. Throe trucks were not back plowing until 11:00 A.M. With Matt covering Jerry's route, some spots wore missed. Rick was sent on Jerry's route after completing his. Dick was pulled off his route and put on the loader at 11:45 A.M. to open up cross streets and intersections on Broadway as the trucks could not push the piles back. The loader had to return to the shop periodically to load sand and salt as the little loader was in an unheated polo barn and would not start. The Bolons went out in the early afternoon to clear sidewalks. The road patrol went out after lunch to clear compacted snow and ice off such streets no Walnut, 3rd St, otc. The Bolons broke down with a fuel problem before finishing its rounds and had to be towed in. The sidewalks were completed on Sunday. Back to Friday, it was not until 5:00 P.M. that all streets wore opened. on Saturday A.M., ono truck was sent out on sanding and miscellaneous clean up. After a couple of hours this truck lost its plow. Another truck was sent out in the afternoon to sand the west and of town, near Andare Wilhelm. This area was at the request of the Sheriff's Do- partment. This truck also cruised the remaining portions of town and spot sandod. All Council Members, Tom Eidem November 17, 1982 Page #2 On Sunday, a truck was sent out early to sand miscellaneous inter- sections and make passes by the churches. Monday was spent re- pairing equipment, miscellaneous clean up and sanding and getting ready the snowblower for snow removal Monday night from Broadway. Snow removal started at midnight Morday night, the snowblower was unable to blow the hard snow and ice. Some lumps were as big as 2 cubic yards. Monday night and Tuesday night were spent on snow removal. During the days that follow, the parking lots will be cleaned up and ice removed, ready for the next rain, sleet or enow storm. While the clearing of this storm's leavings was slow, spotty and erratic due to many influences, all those individuals involved did put forth their best efforts. Z personally am not satisfied with the overall time involved in opening up all areas and will take steps to alleviate man power shortages and the readyness of equipment. As far as the storm conditions, I doubt that many communities, townships or counties achieved their normal level of service during this first storm of the season. P.S. The formal Snow Plowing/Removal Policy and the staff's own plan are available at City Nall for your review.