City Council Agenda Packet 12-13-1982AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
December 13, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo.
Council Members: Phil White, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the November 22, 1982 Regular Meeting and
the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on November 30, 1982.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Hearings
4. Public Hearing - Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan; Resolution
adopting said plan.
5. Public Hearing - Oakwood District 01 Tax Increment Finance Plan;
Resolution adopting said plan.
6. Public Hearing - Meadow Oak Subdivision.
7. Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution on Proposed Assessment Roll
for Improvements of 7th Street.
old Business
8. Consideration of Change Order 01 with Omann Construction Company on
the 82-1 Improvement Project and Final Payment.
9. Consideration of a Proposal to Construct Elderly Housing and Utilize
Tax Increment Financing for the Acquisition of Property Recently
Purchased from the Monticello Development Corporation.
10. Consideration of a Preliminary plat of Meadow Oak Subdivision.
11. Consideration of Change Orders 072 through 078 with the Paul A.
Laurance Company on the wastewater Treatment Plant Construction
Contract.
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
December 13, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
Page R2
12. Reconsideration of a Request by John Sandberg to Reimburse
for Sewer Backup.
13. Consideration of Adopting 1983 Sewer User Charges.
14. Consideration of Adoption of a Sewage Pretreatment Ordinance.
New Business
15. Consideration of a Request by Property Owners to Have Special
Assessments Reamortized.
16. Consideration of Proposals for a Water Tower Maintenance Con-
tract.
17. Consideration of 1962 Budget Transfers.
16. Administrator's Report on the Effects of Action Taken During
the Special Session of the Minnesota legislature.
19. Consideration of December Bills.
20. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
November 22, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Asve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Ren Maus, Phil White.
Members Absent: Dan Blonigen.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the November 8, 1982 Meetinq.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by White and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the November 8, 1982 reg-
ular meeting and the minutes of the special meeting held on
November 15, 1982.
4 6 5.public Hearing - Consideration of a Request by Meadow Oak De-
veloper's to Commence the Preparation of Plana and Specifi-
cations and to Defer some Special Assessments.
Mr. Dick Knutson, partner in the Meadow Oak Subdivision
development, explained to the Council that Mr. Jim Boyle
and the developers have reached an agreement and are ready
to wnrl! not the financial arrangements so that Mr. Boyle
can take clear title to all the property within the Meadow
Oak Subdivision in the near future. As a result of this
arrangement, Mr. Jim Boyle will have clear title to the prop-
erty and the previous problem of other property owners being
assessed for come part of the sewer and water improvements
to the development would be eliminated with Mr. Boyle owning
the entire property which the sewer and water would cross.
Mr. Jim Metcalf, attorney representing Maurico Hoglund, indi-
cated that an agreement has been reached between Vaurf.co Hog-
lund and Jim Boyle and indicated Mr. Hoglund's willingness
to go along with the proposed development plana as follows:
1. Mr. Hoglund will agree to give an casement across a
portion of hie property near County Road 39 for the
installation of sower force main provided Mr. Hoglund
is not aoaosood at all for any of the coot.
2. Is willing to agree that plane and apace can be order-
ed on the proposed improvements provided no assess-
monto aro levied against the Hoglund property until
clear title is transferred to Mr. Jim Boyle.
As part of the request by the Meadow Oak Developers on the
proparation of plane and specifications for utility improve-
monts, the developers requested Council consideration on do-
_ forcing the water main a00000mont which would run through
property awned by Mr. Boyle from the Oakwood Industrial Park
Council Minutes - 11/22/82
to the Meadow Oak Subdivision be deferred for up to six years.
An agreement presented by the developers indicated that if the
six year deferral would be granted, the developers would not
try to subdivide and sell off the industrial property next
to the freeway until the deferral had lapsed thus not compet-
ing with present industrial land within the City.
City Engineer, John Badalich, briefly reviewed the estimated
cost of providing sewer and water to the Meadow Oak Subdivision
as follows:
The total water line cost from Oakwood Industrial Park to
the Meadow Oak Plat would cost $411,500 consisting of an
assessable lateral cost of $214,000 and an oversizing cost
of $197,500.
In addition, the sewer service to the Meadow Oak Plat would
cost an additional $318,000 for a total cost of $729,500 to
bring sewer and water to the Meadow Oak Plat.
Of the $411,500 water main cost, normally the overoizing of
$197,500 would be picked up on ad valorem taxes by the City and
as a result of the request by the developers fur a deferral,
the $214,000 amount is the amount requested to be deferred for
six years.
Concerns were expressed by the Council that a six year deferral
has not been granted in the past to any development and would like -
IV sot a precedent for the future. It was noted that other
than a few individual deferrals for senior citizen hardships,
etc. the City has not granted any deferrals except for one
year. Mr. Knutson noted that they will still develop the
Meadow Oak Subdivision even if assessments arc not deferred on
the industrial property, but requested that the City at least
consider deforring the industrial property water main aesess-
ment for one year as they have in the pact with other projects.
A motion wan made by White, seconded by Maus and unanimously
carried to authorize the city engineering firm of OSM to work
with the Meadow Oak Developers on the preliminary stages of
preparation of plane and opecificatlona for improving the
property with sower and water. It was noted that it woo the
Council's conconaus that the water main aosesmnont in the amount
of approximately $214,000 through the industrial property would
be deferred for one year.
In addition, a motion was made by Whits, seconded by fair and
unanimously carried to continuo the public hearing on the
proposed improvements to the Meadow Oak Subdivision until final
arrangements are made between the developers and Maurice Hoglund
on clear title in Jim Boylo's name.
-70
I
Council Minutes - 11/22/82
6. Consideration of the Proposed Caw Enforcement Contract - Es-
tablishinq Hours of Coverage.
At the previous Council Meeting, the proposed hourly rate for
the sheriff's contract for 1983 was reviewed which showed an
increase in the hourly rate of '-5♦ to $15.25 per hour.
During 1982, the City contracted for 128 hours per week of
coverage. If the same amount of coverage was provided under
the new proposed contract during 1983, total expenditures would
reach a $101,504 versus the 1983 budget amount of $108,500.
During the months of September and October, additional hours
of 16 hours per week has been added to present coverage or 144
hours per week. If this coverage was continued on an annual
basis, the proposed contract would total $114,192 for 1983
which would be $5,692 over budget.
In reviewing the hours of coverage with the Wright County
Sheriff and deputies in attendance at the meeting, concerns
wore expressed by the Council that in the future, the City
requested that the County continue its efforts to try and got
any proposed increases in the hourly rate established prior to
the City adopting its budget so that it can be aware or any
increases in the following year.
In working with the proposed budget of $108,000 for 1983, the
City of Monticello could contract for approximately 136 to
137 hours per week.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by White and unanimously
carried to approve entering into a police contract for pro-
tection for 1983 with the Wright County Sheriff's Department
with a minimum of 165 hours actual coverage Sunday through
Thursday and a minimum of 19% hours coverage Fridays and
Saturdays with a total annual expenditure not to exceed
$108,503.75 with the Sheriff's Department to use their own
discretion on setting an additional 8 to 9 hours per weak
over the minimum of 128 originally established. (Soo exhibit
11/22/82 01).
7. Consideration of Change Orders 066 through 071 with the Paul A.
Laurence Company on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction
Contract.
The following change orders wore recommended by the City Engineer
and City staff.
066 - Conversion of electrical cutloto to accommodate loth
single and triple phase power - additional 4424.00.
3-0
Council Minutes - 11/22/82
71 I
067 - Replacement of 10 lighting fixtures for a cost of
$1,846.
068 - An extension of the water main along Hart Blvd. with
a thin black top mat on Hart Blvd. by the wastewater
Treatment Plant for an additional $3,853.
069 - 1. Removal of a portion of the wet well hand rail and
addition of grading to gain access to the ele-
vator.
2. The addition of non-skid treads on the ladders that
provide access to the wastewater pumps.
3. The addition of grading over the trough to the prim-
ary clarifiers.
The total cost of these three segments of change order
069 total $4,807.
070 - Repair and installation of newer parts in the old final
clarifiers totalling $12,904.
071 - Thin change order involves balancing quantities for storm
sewer, Class 5, and black top quantities. Between the
cotimated bid im ntities and the final installed mianti-
ties for part 7 - roadways, parking lots and storm drains,
totalling an additional $15,628.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously carried
to approve change orders 066 through 071 with the Paul A. lAurenee
Company on the wastewater Treatment Plant Project for an additional
amount of $39,463.
8. Consideration of Job Descriptions for la borar/Mechanic and Waste-
water Treatment Plant Assistant Superintendent and Calling for
Applicants.
A now position at the now Wastewater Treatment Plant hes been
recommended and that it be classified an a laboror/mechanic
position. This position is intended to carry the majority
of the load for all of the trouble shooting, maintenance and
repair overall, thus freeing the oporatoro for the ongoing
plant operation and lab requirements.
A now job description for the laborer/mechanic position was
presented to the Council for their review and acceptance. It
was also recommended that thin position would be under the present
union scale and the proposed starting wage would be at 80% of the
present union scala.
- 4 -
Council Minutes - 11/22/82
A motion was made by White, seconded by Fair and unanimously
carried to approve the job description presented for laborer/
mechanic position and to authorize the advertising for filling
this vacancy.
Also a job description was presented to the Council for an
assistant superintendent for the wastewater Treatment Plant.
This new classification as an assistant superintendent is
essential because plant operations have been moved to a split
shift format resulting in the necessity of having a supervisory
person on site during both shifts. It was also recommended that
this position and job classification, if adopted, could be pro-
moted from within rather than seeking outside applicants. It
was the general concensus that a notice could be posted listing
the assietant superintendent's position as a promotion from with-
in the present employees and it was noted that presently one of
the City employees would be qualified to be promoted into the
asoista nt super intendant' a position and would be discussed at
the salary negotiation meeting scheduled for November 30, 1982.
9. Consideration of a Request by the HRA to hold a Public Hearin
for Tax Increment Financing on December 13. 1922 at 7:30 P.n.
Currently, the Monticello Housing 6 Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
is preparing to adopt a general redevelopment plan for the City
of Mont icello. This redevelopment plan will also be reviewed and
hopofully, approved by the City Planning Commission in the near
future and the HRA Committee requested that the City Council
schodu]La a public hearing on the proposed redevelopment plan on
Dcccmbe r 13th, 1982. Both the HRA and the Planning Commission
arc acd•iodulod to review and adopt the redevelopment plan on
Tuosday, November 23rd.
Concurrcntly with this, the HRA will attempt to complete the tax
incremmnt financing plan for the I1(I proposal so that a public
hoar inc for the specific plan can be hold at the came time as
the hoaring for the general redovelopmont plan on December 13th.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously
carried to act December 13th, 1982 as the data for the public
hooting on the City KRA'a redevelopment plan and to also hold a
public hearing on the came data for the proposed tax increment
financing plan for a development proposed by Idfl Corporation.
o
Council Minutes - 11/22/82
10. Consideration of Making a Loan to the HRA for the Purpose of
Their Acquiring all of Lot 7, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park.
As part of the proposed adoption of the general redevelopment
plan for the City of Monticello, the first specific proposal
of a tax increment financing district has been progressing.
Recently, extensive negotiations with IXI Assemblies Corpora-
tion has been taking place for them to buy a portion of Lot 7,
Block 3 and construct a building prior to the end of 1982.
The basic formula under this proposal would require the HRA
Committee to buy all of Lot 7 for a total price of $58,600
from the Oakwood Industrial Park and in turn resell this prop-
erty to IXI Corporation for approximately $8,000 and recapture
the difference through tax increment that would result from the
now building being placed on this lot.
For this plan to work, the HRA would have to receive a loan from
the City of Monticello for $58,600 plus $14,901.67 to pay for
the current assessments against the property. After the purchase
of the property, the HRA will then sell to IXI approximately one
half of this lot containing 2.7 acres at the reduced price. IXI
Corporation would then build a building by December 31st, 1982
and the new tax revenues generated from this building over the
next 8 years would pay back the $58,600 plus the $14,900 in
assessments and also approximately $3,000 in legal fees associated
with the tax increment plan. J
Although the exact terms of the loan between the City and the IIRA
would have to be finalized after an exact tax increment district
and plan has been established, it was noted that the NRA would
repay the City based on its tax increments that would develop
ovor the next 8 years.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously
carried to approve the request for a loan by the [IRA Committee
in the amount of $73,501.67 with the understanding that a re-
payment schedule will be established after the tax increment
financing proposal has been confirmed with IXI Corporation.
11. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair
Business - Pat Townsend.
Mr. Patrick Townsend, who rosides at 107 locust Stroot, ra-
questod a temporary conditional use permit to open a minor
auto rapair shop at his home.
- 6 -
I
Council Minutes - 11/22/62
The property is currently zoned B-4, regional business, under
which a conditional use permit is necessary to allow for such
a business. A public hearing was held by the Planning Com-
mission on November 16th, at which time a temporary one year
conditional use permit was recommended provided that the
following conditions were attached.
1. That no expansion or building permits be issued for ex-
pansion on this property with the auto repair business
being confined to existing buildings only.
2. That only two vehicles at any one time be on the premises
for repair.
3. That on site parking be provided for six vehicles, which
Mr. Townsend does have available.
4. That noise levels be controlled.
S. That the business would not be transferable.
6. No outside storage of parts or vehicles.
7. Only family members could be employees.
A motion was made by White, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried
to approve the conditional use permit on a temporary one year basis
provided that all of the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission were attached.
12. Consideration of a Proposal to Enter a Cable T.V. Proiect Develop-
ment with other Cities.
Recently, representative from the City of Elk River, Big Enke,
Buffalo, Maple Elko and Annandale mot to discuss the possibility
of all the cities entering into a joint powers agreement for the
purpose of establishing a cable service territory. The main
result of that meeting wan that four cities, namoly, Big Lako,
Elk River, Buffalo and Monticello, would servo nathe caro develop-
mant force and put together the entire joint powers package. When
the work is complete, other cities such as Annandale, Maple Lake
and possibly Rockford and Delano along with Albertville and
St. Michael could join tho consortium so that a better bid pack-
age could result when the time comes to award a possible franchise
for cable T.V.
- 7 -
-.._ _-. - .. .-...mss•. • - --^--- ca---- - - - �-'
Council Minutes - 11/22/82
t"
P motion was made by White, seconded by Maus and unanimously
carried to approve the establishment of a joint cable authority
between the four communities of Big lake, Elk River, Buffalo
and Monticello and to authorize the City Administrator to
participate in the study to establish a joint powers package
for determining needs and establishing a territory for a pos-
sible single franchise agreement. The City Administrator was
instructed to report back to the Council on progress in the
establishment of this consortium.
13. Approval of Bills for Month of November.
A suction was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of November as
presented, (See exhibt 11/22/82 02).
Meeting Adjourned.
Rick Wolfatoyler
Assistant Administrator -
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MOWICELL40 CITY COUNCIL
November 30, 1982 - 6:30 P.M.
Members Present : Arve Grimsmo, Ren Maus, Fran Fair, Phil White,
Thomas Eidem.
Members Absent: Dan Blanigen.
The meeting was called to order by the Mayor. Administrator Eidem
began with a brief introduction on the preliminary negotiations he
had held with each of the non-union employees. He explained how he
arrived at the figures ho had, and explained some of the aspects he
considered critical to granting salary increases. He noted that he
had used approximately 8.4% as a cost of living adjustment in de-
termining suggested salary increases. He stated the reason for
this was that the early months of the year, inflation and cost of
living were.at double digit levels while the latest CPI reflected
a 5.5% increase, thus he selected a middle ground. He explained
that he had told each employee teat merit increases were not being
considered by him, but that if the employee wished, they could
address the Council individually on the question of merit in-
creases or salary adjustments. No also stated that he had in-
formed the employeos that their attendance at this Council meeting
was optional, but that most had said that they were willing to
atop in to visit with the Council prior to the salary decision.
The following employees appeared before the Council briefly:
Lynnoa G illham
Marlene Hallman
Diana Jacobson
YAran Hanson
Walt Rack
Roger Mack
Jim Millar
Scan Hancock
John Simola
Rick Wolfstollor
At the conclusion of the individual interviews, the Council began
their salary doliborationa. Council Member Maus raised the quos -
tion as to what exactly is the cost of living. He stated he did
not fool the cost of living was actually 8.6\ and that the real
coot of living was more accurately reflected by a figure of 5%%
to 6%. Council Member white concurred with this. Maus stated
that he did not seriously object to the dollar figuro that wan
proposed in same canon but he wan uncomfortable with calling it
cost of living if it did not accurately reflect coat of living.
He wont on to may that if it does not reflect cost of living then
in fact, it would have to be a salary adjustment or a merit raise
and, if that is the case, do all the employees warrant a merit
increase.
Council Minutes - 11/30/82
b•
Eidem stated that it was his contention that the increases should
reflect slightly more than what is determined to be the actual in-
creasing cost of living so that employees may continue to improve
or "got ahead". He stated that if the cost of living increased
5.5% and a pay raise was 5.5%, then the employee is not improving
his life, but merely staying the same, and perhaps, in some cases
playing catch up. Eidem stated that was part of the reason why
he looked at the 8 to 8N8 range. A motion by white, seconded by
Maus, and carried unanimously setting the cost of living figure
to be used for salary increases at 6%. A motion made by Maus,
seconded by white and carried unanimously to increase the clerical
wage range by 6%, and extending the ceiling of that range by 20C.
Eidem was then directed by the Council to assign clerical wages to
Gillham, Hellman and Jacobson within the defined range. Council
discussion again returned to the problem of cost of living in-
creases. Maus then suggested that perhaps cost of living percent-
ages should be dispensed with totally and that dollar amounts be
determined and agreed upon and increases be granted in that fashion.
He also stated that in the future, if cost of living or percentages
were to be used in determining salary increases, Eidem should be
given a clearly defined frame work within which to work prior to
any salary negotiations with the employees. Maus suggested that
since the Council felt strongly on a dollar amount generated by a
figure of 6%, but the employees and the administrator had negoti-
ated in good faith at approximately 8.4%, that a middle ground be
established with respect to actual dollars assigned, and that that i
figure be granted as the salary increase. A motion by white,
seconded by Maus and carried unanimously to adopt the following
salary schedule for 19831
FROM TO
Lynnea Gillham $6.82 per hour $7.57 por hour
Marlene Hallman 5.95 per hour 6.63 per hour
Diane Jacobson 6.65 per hour 7.33 par hour
Karon Hanson 11,040 par your 12,000 par year
Walt Mack 20,748 per year 22,308 par year
Roger Mack 21,252 per year 22,812 per year
Jim Miller 21,300 per year 22,860 per year
Soon Hancock 19,800 per year 20,500 per year
John Simola 26,412 per year 28,332 par year
Mark lrmitor 24,528 per year 26,448 par year
2 _ i
Council Minutes - 11/30/82
With respect to the administrator's salary, Eidem raised the issue
of a 22% disparity between the former administrator's salary and
the current administrator's salary, when in fact, credentials were
nearly identical. He provided data that reflected the mean .
salaries for city managers/administrators nation wide and State
wide. He also raised the question that upon relocating in Monti-
cello, he had forfeited several benefits that he had accrued
through 10 years of public service and requested that some of
those benefits be reinstated by virtue of his total experience,
not just Monticello experience. Council Member White stated and
other members concurred that the starting salary when Eidem was
hired was largely because the new administrator would be unknown
commodity, but that it had been agreed upon between members of
the Council at the time of hiring, that when the new person had
adjusted to the position the salary would then be readjusted to
more accurately reflect what was being paid to the former admin-
istrator. A motion by White, seconded by Maus and carried to
adopt the following salary increases for Wolfsteller and Eidem.
FROM TO
Rick Wolfateller $26,800 per year 29,690 per year
Thomas Eidem 29,000 per year 35,000 per year
A motion by Maus, seconded by white and carried unanimously
allowing Eidem to take 2 weeks vacation in 1983 and 3 weeks
vacation for 1984.
A motion by Fair, seconded by White and carried for meeting to
adjourn.
— -.:: �-� .-,I-
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
C
- 3 -
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
4. Public Hearing - Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan; Resolution
Adopting said Plan. (T.E.).
The Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan is the tool that is re-
quired to implement tax increment financing. Basically, it is a
general guide plan stipulating boundaries within which the HRA
may work their peculiar kind of development and redevelopment.
The steps that are required by statute and that we have gone
through to this point is as follows:
1. The HRA develops a workable plan with goals and objectives
stated therein; it also includes the delineation of the
boundaries wherein they will work; it makes certain findings
a fact that property within the redevelopment area requires
attention. A plan such as this is ordinarily developed at
the very beginning before there are any potential developers
looking to locate or redevelopment in the City. In our
particular case, of course, IXI was already planning to
build here.
2. The Housing 6 Redevelopment Authority stuoica the plan
and when agreed upon passes a resolution adopting the plan
as a redevelopment plan.
3. The redevelopment plan is transmitted to the City Planning
Commission for their review and comment. By law, the Plan-
ning Co;mniosion has 30 days to review and make comments.
Their only comment should address whether or not the redo-
volopment plan coincides or is in general conformity with
the overall comprehensive guide plan of the City. what
was done in our caro is the HRA invited the Planning Com-
mission to a joint meeting wherein the HRA, the staff and
the Commission could go over the plan point by point and
discuss any questions that might have been raised. That
Joint meeting was held on November 23, 1982.
4. Upon adoption of the plan by the HRA, tho revised copy was
sent to the Planning Commission (On the same night) who
in turn adopted a resolution approving and endorsing the
plan. Tho plan was then returned to tho HRA.
5. The HRA then transmits the redevelopment plan to the City
Council who has not this upcoming public hearing.
- 1 -
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
6. Hold the public hearing and accept public comment.
7. If,in the judgement of the Council, further revisions are
required, the plan must be sent back to the HRA for addition-
al consideration of the proposed revision.
8. If no further revisions are considered necessary, the Council
passes a resolution adopting the plan.
Those are the steps that are required, at the very minimum,to put
tax increment financing into effect. The following agenda refers to
the specific tax increment plan for the east 180 feet of Lot 7. This
also requires a public hearing, but can be done on the same night as
we have scheduled here. It is important, however, that the redevel-
opment plan be approved first and then the tax increment plan. They
cannot and should not be adopted in the same resolution.
REFERENCES: A copy of the resolution passed by the HRA adopting the
redevelopment plan; copy of the resolution by the Planning Commission
endorsing the redevelopment plan; copy of the redevelopment plan, a
copy of the resolution to be adopted.
- 2 -
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CENTRAL
MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
HRA 82 - 1
059
WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
desires to promote housing and commercial development and redevelop-
ment, and economic development, and,
WHEREAS, the HRA must establish an area wherein their efforts must be
concentrated, and;
WHEREAS, such an area has been designated and is described as follows;
Commencing at the northwesterly corner of Lot 15, Block 50,
Original Plat, City of Monticello, thence southeasterly along
the southerly right-of-way line of River Street to the north-
easterly corner of Lot 1.1, Block 53, Original Plat, City of
Monticallo;
Thence in a southwesterly direction along the westerly right-
of-way line of Cedar Street to the southeasterly corner of
Lot 5, Block 33, Original Plat;
Thence in a southeasterly direction along the northerly right-
of-way lino of Fourth Street to the northwoeterly corner of
Lot 6, Block 38, Lower Monticello;
Thence in a southwesterly direction along the easterly right-
of-way line of Ramsay Street to the southwesterly corner of
Lot 5, Block 36, Lower Monticello;
Thence in an easterly direction 581 feet along the northerly
right-of-way line of the Burlington Northern Railway;
Thence due south along the easterly right-of-way line of
Washington Street to a point where the northerly right-of-way
line of Interstate 94 and the easterly right-of-way line of
Washington Street intersect;
Thence southwesterly across Interstate 94 to the northeast
corner of Lot 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park;
Thence south along the wont line of the right-of-way of In-
duatrial Drive to the southeast corner of Lot 7, Block 3, Oak-
wood industrial Park;
Thence west along the corporate limits of the City of Monti-
cello to the easterly right-of-way line to Trunk Highway 25;
Thence northeasterly following the easterly right-of-way
lino of Trunk Highway 25 to the southwesterly corner of Lot 1,
Block 15, Original Plat,
Thence in a northwesterly direction to the southeasterly
corner of Lot 4, Block 14, Original Plat;
Thence in a northwesterly direction along the northerly"right-
of-way line of_Gth Street to the southwesterly corner of Lot 1,
Block 12, Original Plat;
Thence in a northeasterly direction along the easterly right-
of-way line of Linn Street to point of baginning.
WHEREAS, certain conditions reflecting a need for development/re-
development must exist within the project area.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF MONCICELL,0 THAT.
1) within the designated area one or more of the following
conditions has been found to exist:
a) Conflicting land use.
b) Physical blight.
c) Substandard structures.
d) Economic obsolescence.
a) Under utilization.
f) Land which is vacant, but due to its condition would be
financially prohibitive to develop.
2) The attached plan known as the Central Monticello Redevelopment
Plan makes provisions for the orderly dove lopmont/redeve lop-
mcnt of this area addressing the conditions noted above.
3) The Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan is hereby adopted
as tho official redevelormont plan.
4) The City Administrator transmito a copy of said plan to the
Monticello Planning Commission for their review with respect
to the comprehensive plan for the City of Monticello.
D
Adopted this L3 tL day of AJaseAne?- , 1982.
Choi mon
`-�tU WRQ 1 , Aj-
City
Administrator
J
I
WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority has
prepared a Redevelopment Plan for the purpose of initiating tax
increment financing, ands
WHEREAS, the HRA has submitted said plan to this Commission for
review with respect to its general conformance to the provisions
of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Monticello, and;
WHEREAS, the goals and objectives stated in said plan promote the
orderly growth of the City of Monticello within the general scope
of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Planning Commission for the
City of Monticello that the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan
is found to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is
hereby approved.
Adopted this day of November, 1982.
Jia Ridgoway, Chairman
0
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CENTRAL
MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
RESOLUTION 1982 {62
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, through its
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), desires to promote
housing and commercial development and redevelopment, and economic
development; and,
WHEREAS, the HRA, pursuant to resolution HRA 1982 - 1, has es-
tablished an area wherein their efforts will be concentrated; and,
WHEREAS, the findings of fact of the HRA verify a need for develop-
ment/redevelopment within the defined project area; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, a public hearing was duly
hold on December 13, 1982.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of
Monticello that the attached plan known as the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Plan is hereby adopted as the official redevelopment
plan for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
Adopted this 13th day of December, 1982.
ATTEST:
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
Arvo A. Grim amo, Mayor
0
J
C
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
5. Public Hearing - Oakwood District #1 Tax Increment Finance Plan;
Resolution Adopting said Plan. (T.E.).
As noted above, this plan is the specific finance plan and budget
for the IXI proposal. This also by law requires public hearing
before the Council. Unlike the redevelopment plan, the finance
plan was not required to be sent to the Planning Commission since
the finance is beyond the parameters of Planning Commission busi-
ness. The finance plan has; however, been submitted to both the
school board and the county board for their comment. Let me note
here that they have been invited to attend the public hearing to
make comment; however, neither of the two taxing jurisdictions
can force any alterations in the plan whatsoever. If they do
not take any positive action of endorsement, they can delay the
certification of the plan by 30 days. In talking to Superin-
tendent Johnson, he fully anticipates to present the City with
a sign off that the school board has no objections to the plan.
The county, however, may view it differently and we have to
wait the full 30 days before certifying. The county board
meets again on the 21st and should formally consider it by
board action at that time. If at that time they endorse or at
least turmally withdraw any type of opposition, it will be
certified either that day or the 22nd.
REFERENCES: Copy of the resolution by the HRA adopting Oakwood
District #1 tax increment finance plan; copy of the finance plan;
copy of the resolution to be adopted by the Council.
- 3 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING TAX
INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN 01
HRA 82 - 2
460
WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redvelopment Authority (HRA) has
passed a resolution adopting a redevelopment plan known as the Central
Monticello Redevelopment Plan, and;;
WHEREAS, the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan in part, states ob-
jecti.vas for economic development, to wit, land acquisition as an incen-
tive to private anterprise,and;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 773, the City of Monticello is
authorized to establish a Tax Increment Economic Development Finance
Plan, and;
WHEREAS, a development agreement for economic development shall be
entered into between the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
and LXI Laboratories, Inc., the developer.
NOW THEREFORE, HE Ii HEREBY RaSOV ED by the fw,uwiny and FaduYoicycwnt
Authority of the City of Monticello that;
L. The Tax Increment Economic Development Finance Plan known as
the Oakwood Industrial Park Tax Increment Finance Plan (A copy
of which is attached hereto) be, and the same hereby is,
adopted.
2. The City Administrator transmits Copies of said plan to the
City Council with a request for a public hearing.
3. upon the holding of a public hearing, the oast 180 fout of
Lot 7, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park, be certified to the
County Auditor of Wright County, State of Minnesota, as Oak-
wood Industrial Park Tax Increment District 01.
Adoptad this 29th day of November, 1982.
Phil! White, Chairman
ATTESTi
tut.
A.,
Thomas A. Cidom
City Administrator ,
RESOLUTION ADOPTING OAKWOOD DISTRICT 01
TAX INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN
RESOLUTION 1982 063
WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority pur-
suant to a resolution passed the 29th day of November 1982, has
adopted the Oakwood District 01 Tax Increment Finance Plan, .(a
copy of which is attached hereto) and:
WHEREAS, the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan in part, states
objectives for economic development, to wit, land acquisition as
an incentive to private enterprise; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 273, the City of Monticello
is authorized to establish a tax increment economic development
finance plan; and,
WHEREAS, a development agreement for economic development has been
entered into between the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and IXI Laboratories, Inc., the developer; and, I
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 273, a public hearing was
duly hold on December 13, 1982, at which hearing all persons in-
terested in making comment were allowed to comment; and,
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has submitted to the Superinten-
dent of School District 0882 and the Auditor of Wright County, a
copy of such plan as required by law.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the
City of Monticello that,
1. The tax increment economic development finance plan known
as Oakwood Tax Increment District 01 Finance Plan be, and
the name hereby is adopted.
2. The City Administrator in directed to transmit a copy of
said plan to the Auditor of Wright County for certification.
Adopted this 13th day of December, 1982.
Arvo A. Grim®o, Mayor
ATTESTi
Thomas A. Eidom
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
G. Public Hearing - Meadow Oak Subdivision. (T.E.).
This is the continued public hearing on the proposed public improve-
ments. This, of course, we have gone over several times. The
hearing should be continued by a simple motion and second and vote.
As a reminder, the reason this hearing is being kept open is due
to the conflict in property ownership. That is apparently pro-
ceeding well and they anticipate having full possession of the prop-
erty by the first meeting in January as it now stands. So long as
Hoglund/Metcalf are still the owners, I recommend that the hearing
simply be continued. At the time ownership is clearly established
in Boyle'a name, then the public hearing should be formally closed.
Once the hearing is formally closed and all testimony has been
entered, then the Council takes action whether or not to order the
improvements.
with respect to the proposed improvements, I wish to attempt to
further clarify one issue that will be coming up under the pre-
liminary plat consideration later in the agenda. Ordinarily, if
the Council plans to do an improvement, they would adopt a single
rean'lration that would do two thinns.
1. Order the improvement to be made.
2. Authorize the preparation of plans and specifications.
Since the hearing is still open, and the existing title owner is
opposed to the improvements, it is best not to order the improve-
ment to be made; however, you may make a motion authorizing the
preparations of plans and specifications. Boyle, at al. are re-
questing that the Council take formal action on the authorization
of plans and speco and are prepared to guarantee payment for the
engineering axponoeo rogardl000 of the outcome of the improve-
ment. Mr. Knutson met with me on Tuesday and explained that the
Council taking this action is a critical stop in thoir devolop-
ment. It is rather confusing, but it goes something like this.
Once the Council authorizoo plans and specs, then the limited
partnership can be sold. Apparently the limited partnership will
not be completed until the City takes soma kind of formal action.
Upon the selling of the limited partnership, $350,000 In cash will
raised. That sum of monoy in conjunction with tho Federal land
Bank will allow the Boyle partnership to acquire tho land free
and clear from Hoglund and Offutt. Once that acquisition is made,
then the hearing can be closed and the improvemonta can be ordered.
- 4 -
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
So you see, it is partly a catch 22. In our most recent discussion,
I suggested to Knutson and Bemboom that for the time being, the only
request they make be for the authorization of the preparation of
plans and specs with a financial guarantee from their side. It
occurred to me that all of the other requests that appeared in the
letter at the last meeting become irrelevant only when the improve-
ment is ordered to be made, and that those requests should come at
that time. I informed them at that time, it would be better to ne-
gotiate terms of pay back and extent of improvement. Thus, the
rather lengthy document that they submitted for your consideration
at the last meeting will be reduced to a simple request of auth-
orizing plans and specs under the auspice of the City and having
the partnership guaranteeing payment of same, whatever the out-
come.
Consideration of the preliminary plat comes later in the meeting
and has been addressed by Rick in the supplement.
REFERENCES: A copy of the request and payment guarantee by the
Meadow Oak partnership. A copy of the resolution authorizing
the preparation of plans and specifications.
- 5 -
Jim T. Boyle
9826 North 46th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85028
December , 1982
City of Monticello
City Hall
Monticello, Minnesota 55313
RE: Costs of Engineering Plans and Specifications
Gentlemen:
Over the past several months, the City of Monticello
t"City") and I have been discussing the installation of a new
24 inch water trunk line ("Water Line") and a 6 inch forced
sewer line and lift station ("Sewer Line") over certain
property located in the Southeasterly portion of the City which
I am purchasing from Maurice and Gladys Hoglund under a
contract for deed. I intend to sell a portion of the property
to be served by the water and Sewer Lines to Meadow Oak Limited
Partnership which will then develop its property as a new
residential subdivision.
In order to meet the deadlines established by Meadow Oak
Limited Partnership, it will be necessary for the City to order
promptly final plans and specifications for both the Water and
Sewer Lines. If the City orders these engineering plans and
specifications for delivery by December or January, I will
agree to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any costs or
expenses incurred by the City with respect to these items as
follows: -
A. If construction of the Water and Sewer Lines has
not been commenced by , 1983, I will
immediately reimburse the City for all of the City's
out-of-pocket costs paid to the City's consulting
engineers for the preparation of the final plans and
specifications for the Water and Sewer Lines. I will also
agree to reimburse the City for any additional out-of-
pocket costs paid by the City which are related to these
utility lines but only if the City has first obtained my
written approval before incurring any such costs.
City of Monticello
Page 2
B. if construction of the water and Sewer Line has
commenced by .1 1983, the City will
agree that the cost of the final plans and specifications
will be included with all of the construction costs and
assessed against the various parcels as outlined above.
If the foregoing proposal is acceptable to you, please
indicate your acceptance by signing this proposal in the
indicated space and by returning it to me.
Very truly yours,
Jim T. Boyle
JTB: th
cc: Mr. Maurine Hoglund
Meadow Oak Limited Partnership
City of Monticello
Page 5
ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO this day of
1982.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By
Thomas Eidem, City Manager
By '
, Mayor
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND THE PREPARATION OF PLANS
RESOLUTION 1982 164
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 27th day
of September, 1982, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the
proposed improvements to and for Meadow Oaks Subdivision by con-
structing sewer collection lines, water distribution lines,
streets with curb and gutter, storm sewer and other appurtenant
work pursuant to a petition of effected property owners.
AND WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through
two weekly publications of the required notice was given and
the hearing was held thereon on the 12th day of October, 1982,
at which all persons desiring to be heard or given an opportunity
to be heard thereon,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FONTICELLG, MINNESOTA:
2. urr-Schelen-Mayeron is hereby designated as the
engineer for this improvement. They shall prepare
plans and specifications for the making of such
improvement.
Adopted by the Council this 13th day of December, 1982.
ATTEST:
Thomas A. Eidem
City Adminietrator
0D
Arve A. Crimsmo
Mayor of Monticello
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
7. Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution on Proposed Assessment
Roll for Improvements on 7th Street. (82-1 Improvement Project).
(R.W.)
The purpose of this item is to consider the adoption of an assess-
ment roll for the 1982-1 Improvement Project which consisted of
street improvements along 7th St. between Hwy 25 and Cedar Street.
The total project cost as of the date of the hearing is $56,190.96,
of which 1000 is proposed to be assessed to the benefited property
owners. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of the project
cost which includes the Contract with Omann Construction Company
and engineering inspection and administrative fees related to the
project. As you will note, the original construction contract
plus quantity over runs along with the change order 01 amount to
$42,405 with indirect cost bringing thn total to $56,190.96.
Included in the indirect cost is an item for additional engineer-
ing fees that John Badalich of OSM will be requesting from the
City. This additional amount for engineering of $1,188 was
added to the total project cost at this time to enable the
assessment rolls to be established prior to the Council deliber-
ating on Mr. sadalich's request. if it should turn uuL LhaL Lhu
additional fees are not authorized, the resulting assessments to
Perkins and the Americ-Inn Motel along with the cemetery property
would be reduced by this amount.
As part of the improvement project, additional work was performed
for the Perkinb Restaurant that will be directly assessed to them
in addition to the normal assesament for the street improvement.
Those figures are shown on the project shcot that is attached.
Those asaessmenta are proposed to be spread over a period of ton
years on an oven principal basis with the interest roto to be
established by the Council. Normally, our aeseosment ordinance
indicates that the City can charge one and a half (1W percent
above the interest rate paid on the bonds to finance the improve-
mant project, however, this project was financed internally,
which loaves the interest rate to be dotormined by tho Council
action.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Considoration of a motion to adopt the resolu-
tion for the assessment rolls on the 1902-1 Improvement Project
as onclonod. It should be noted that if the actual indirect costs
aro reduced, each individual aaaaasmant would be reduced in the
like mannor.
RF.P ERP.NCES: A copy of the construction project summary and reso-
lution adopting aeaaasmont rolls.
- 6 -
---
•—S�.h,.•,n�r -
--- ---- -- __ Z _. J
' II
Lx) Pi J
-- – A
-IT
r II ��n.,ry rJdP[[�•�S ! I 11Gt �7Bb
� �, C{�ntiye Ord e . I I_I 3•s71 ` . i I I I
li r�r9c G.•-��cr ; . j I � yi ie�SG i I i i j� I y,iyo ill
6
I��N 9/r.e F�.✓/C /-PCS:
eAlt
-
I
,
— _(leo
� 7
ol•
I; -res e.�,.N fees
_ � .I
' Iil
_ .71'IZ II
44 �!/�✓,� Gbid!
_�— —�
—
1!
f AT. u� Asnt l/s
le
7a7�L �IIN!I)/Q r -•T Ce f7`S1
! I
�
I
I t �,
i I I-1----
,T
---h-I--p-I
'•-iio�lo
ILII
n'
II
pr CXwr.ye �/'-(�r
f}ssosspolj��
I II
t/; e
'e;A pei^el
II II
S/i u.dl G
I
,I
I/'
4- ZYGSS3 y
I
I lit
dI I I II
iib
�i ► �1
11,rg,Z4
I I
1)
.
1)
)r!
S3,j L j Y3
SSi :se /. F�/re�
III 1
!
III
f'
141
� . =: !
1 I I j.
/7 J/64 �el;
I G)
R
:r
/9P
prem..
7mTAG_:
1
x76•/79/pt
)1'---•
- ---- iSod3.y� f
2
�I3r /QIYII
11
sl1?
Iy3�,
Ti
IS.�lo�9—I3
W 7a71%'�
�17,9`19.u/
G
I
I/°nz'�?;
I
I
IIe5139,
!i
,4
It
)r I
1'
— — 4-- -•-: _—I_ �_ _ice_ .� _ — I_ -.._ � � _ —; ,
I � I •�
- I-� i -I I -- j- • I -I.1.-..
I
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
i
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT 82-1
RESOLUTION 1982 #61
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law,
the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to
the proposed assessment for the improvement of 7th Street between
Trunk Highway 25 and Cedar Street on the construction of hard
surfacing, curb and gutters and other appurtenant work.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of Monticello,
Minnesota:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and
shall constitute the special assessment against the
lands named therein, and each tract of land therein
included is hereby found to be benefited by the im-
provement in the amount of the assessment levied
against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual in-
stallmento extending uver a period of / Ch years,
the first of the installments to be payable on or be-
fore the first Monday in January, 198,1 and shall bear
interest at the rate of IJ.S' a annum from the data of
the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the
first installment shall be added interest on the
entire assessment from the date of this resolution
until December 31, 198;. To each subsequent inotall-
went when duo shall be added interest for one year
on all unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so as000sed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County
Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on ouch prop-
erty, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to
the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be
charged if the entire aooesamont is paid within 30 days
from the adoption of this resolutions and he may, at any
time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire
amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest
accrued to December 3lot of the year in which such pay-
ment is made. Such payment must be mado before Nov-
ember 15th or interest will be charged through Doc -
ember 31st of the next succeeding year.
4. The City Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certi-
fied duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor
to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and
such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the
same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the City Council on this 13th day of December, 1982.
ATTEST.
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
8. Consideration of Chanqe Order N1 with Omann Construction on the
82-1 improvement Project. (R.W.).
As discussed under item #7 regarding adoption of assessment rolls,
a change order in the amount of $3,572.50 has been requested by
Omann Construction Company on the 7th Street Improvement Project.
The original contract amount totalled $35,985.20 with quantity
over runs totalling an additional $2,852.86. In addition to these
two amounts, consulting engineer, John Badalich, has prepared a
change order which they recommend be approved for 7 additional
items totalling $3,572.50.
In addition, Mr. Badalich also recommends that final payment in
the amount of $9,932.60 be approved.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approving change order 01 for
additional work on 7th Street project to Omann Construction
Company and approval of final payment amount of $9,932.60.
REFERENCES: A copy of Change Order #1 and final construction
navment voucher estimate.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: After the above item was prepared, John
Simola was reviewing the change order request from Ommann Con-
struction and he is not in complete agreement with the total
amount requested of $3,572.50. It is John's opinion that item #3
in regard tb. 40 cubic yards of excavation for $60 should be added
to the baso contract as an extra quantity and not considered as
a change order. This would in no way affect the dollar amount
but would just eliminate it from the change order request.
The major disagreement in the change order involves item 02 for
the removal and relocating of ono existing catch basin for $1,050.
John may have more information available at the Council meeting,
but as 1 undoratand it, the contractor never discussed the re-
location of the catch basin and the resulting coat increase with
the city officials and in John's opinion, this item should be do-
lotod entirely from the change order request. Chuck Wpak, pro-
ject engineer for this improvement, has discussed this issue with
John and possibly more information will be available Monday night.
Finally, items q5, #G, and 07 totalling $2,162.50 are for extra
v»rk that was performed on the Perkin's property by the contractor
but really is not part of the street improvement project. Ono pos-
sibility would be to diroctly ounces Perkin's for those costs but
probably a better solution would be to directly bill Perkin's the
$2,162.50 with payment duo in 30 days rather than spreading thin
portion over 10 years.
- 7 -
A
ORR-SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
Lend Surveyors
December 6, 1982
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem, Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway, P.O. Box 777
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Rea Street Construction and Appurtenant Work
Improvement No. 82-1
7th Street Improvement
Dear Mr. Eidemi
Pursuant to our field observation, as performed in accordance
with our contract, we hereby certify that the materials are
cati=_'actcry :nd the w^rk for the atove project was prepctiy
performed in accordance with the plans and specifications.
upon receipt of Lien Waiver evidence and the Certificate of Com-
pliance with Minnesota Statute 290, please makepayment No. 2 and
Final in the amount of 59,932.60 to Omann Construction Co., P.O.
Dox 161, Hanover, Minnesota 55341. The Contractor will forward
to you the signed change order and payment voucher.
Sincerely,
O RR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
Charles A. Lep&,%, P.E.
CALtmin
2021 East He' 4vonuo • Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnosota 55413
6081331-8880 I'1'L GX: 29.0948
On-SCHELEN-MAYERON i ASSOCIATES, INC.
2021 E. HENNEPIN AVE • SURE 238
MINNEAPOLIS. MINN, 85113
CHANGE ORM NO. ............
City of Monticellcgt: r
i. x572;50.... ... ' S"
' •yrtrJecr Sia: • $2-1 ,'=� f;`.i
Omenn Construction Co. I
..................................... .... Contractor 4
P.O. Box 161
Hanover. M 55341
................................................
Dear Sir (a)
Undo contract dated Jul 26, 82
your..............:............... y...............,...• lt.... With
tha.Citx.of.11oatlcsiXa..tiinnaaat+►....................... owner for .............
Street Construction and Appurtenant York
.......... ............. ................... ................... I ........... .............
......
we are authorized by the owner to Mreby dbeet you to ..4471!14tl..tbe.Ad4S.43oPAi.......
..vork.sx. detailed. aa.the.attacbed. ahoet............................................
.................................................... I..............................
cud to mW to (ttsdsart tesla) the Y anossdamea W t oaatract and gpocutcatl^ tY am of
throe 'thousand five hundred sevEnty two add . 50trxtz=.tattxxux.xmrxxt cid Doiiara
........... ....... .
7bm will be sn extemim of ....-fl"....... days for temptetioo.
TLs data of compIctioo of contract was ....... It .... and now wiU be .......... it ......
Amwtd of artalnal "Wrap Ta1al Ad&I. Total Dedvd%m C*M,aet % O*to
(adjusted for in-
stalled quantities) $3.572.50 -0- $42.405.56
3B.B33.OA ___ _ _._• _ _�_
Approved tt.... It"Pseftoy lnEsittsd,
...........................................
0.00, OIMSCHELEN-MAYBON
Approves .......................... IS....i TES, INC.
............ For �......... .. '. .........
U+
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PROJECT NO. 82-1
CHANCE ORDER NO. I
I. Lower casting on one (1) catch basin $200.00
2. Remove and relocate one (1) existing catch basin $1,050.00
3. Add 40 C.Y. excavation for cemetary driveway $60.00
4. Remove one tree in cemetery $100.00
S. Install 107.5 L.T. curbing for Perkins @ $7.001L.P. $752.50
6. Add eight (g) sprinkler heeds and 75 feet of water line $660.00
for Perkins
7. Add 15 tons bituminous driveway for Perkins @ $50-00/ton $750.00
TOTAL ADD CHANCE ORDER NO. 1 $3,572.50
..mss a . • � —.�.. -.r
I
S
COHSTRUCTITIN MOOT VQJDER
.nate Voucher No. 2 1 Final
ate Hovember U. 196: For Period Ending : November 19 , 198;
roaect Member 82-1 7th Street Improvement
loss of Wor4. Street Construction ani Appurtenant Mort.
For City of honticello, Wright Canty, Minnesota 70 : Own Constriction, Co.
Box 161
Hanover, Mn. 55391
A. Original Contract Amont s 35965.20
B. Total aylitions s 3572.5[
C. Total Deductions f
D. Total Funds Encur%ered 1 39557.70
C. Total Value of WorA Certified to Date s 92905.56
F. Less Retained Percentage 0 1 a 0
C. Less Total Previous Payments s 32972.96
N. Approved for Pagment, This Report s 9932.60
I. Total Payments Including This Voucher 9 92905.56
J. Balance Carried Forward 9 -2897.86
f n'JVr15
CSCii!! EN-IWYEPON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
to o.rr field observation, as performed in accordance with our contract. we hereby certify that the materials
i satisfactory and the wort properly performed in aceordace with the plana and specifications and that the total
it Ito 1 completed as of November 19, 1982 I hereby recommend ppayrment ofthis vvoorher.
----- --- ----•• � Signed . 'i`-'C-`1'�(/��
is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the quantities acrd values of wail.
:ified herein is a fair appro::imate estimate for the Perim covered by this vv.cher.
r,:raetor : Dmxr. Construction, Co. Signed By
Title
ty of Monticello Approved for Pavvnt
•.ener
v:i M 8% , —».—_M•»» — 0.Ahnoriied Representative
Data .
: • 3253 ! of T --
.f.te VDxhpt No, 2 1 Fir.,!
Contractor I Atom Civikortion, Co:
atc NDvenzIe" 31., 198.
Qax 161•..-
.ihtbveri
Mirroscrt; Ml
.4 Construction and ApPurtenznt ko9
7
j of m3nt I cel 10, wri4it Cotnti, I"innesota
-evemer.1, No. S.-I
Date July 2E, 198"
Work Started
kv-1st 21 1982
to. leted November 19, 196.'
Completion Da-.e
September Is, IM
Drat
Contract
Total
to Date
go. Iter.
unit
Price
Ojantitj
Amoont
Guantitj
Amount
eft Cc-
.1stviction ( Base Bic!
TRe 'B' Catch Basins
Ea.
770.01
2
150.11
z
1540.14
12" RV Class V
Catch Basin Leads
L.F.
ZJ.IE
Is
251.01
is
25440
Common Excavation
E.Y.
1.51
IM
1511.11
1110
1505.01
12341 Bituminous Weir Cco.,rse
( Incl. Bituminous h1wWre I
Ton
24.8.1
211
4944.11
236
5657.52
12352 lack Coat
Cai.
1.25
111
137.Si
0.10
071331 Bitumirvis Lose Cause
( Incl. titunirois hwtute 1
Ton
22.41
271
6058.81
196
4173.84
kgregate Base Class 5
Tor.
5.61
$61
4854.41
938.6
5293.71
Concrete Curb " Cutter E-418
L.F.
5.11
650
Me .11
665
3323.01
S' Cum, eta
J,J.
5.75
M
1135.11
130
747.55
42341 Bituminous Driveway
Replacement ( Incl, Bitumirovs
"IxUre )
Ton
51111
Is
754.11
17
851.11
Adjust Gate Volvo
( All Sizes )
to.
25.11
4
119.11
1
111111
Advist Manhole
Ea.
11C.11
1
116.11
1
198.01
Sod
S.Y.
1.11
oil
petal
783
861.31
Renin I Relocate Sprinilor
System
L.S.
511.11
516-11
2
J0IC31
ctYl Item No. I l Cast Lid 1
1
5915.7;
1
25591.86
tirnate "A"
Stane Retaining Will
S.F.
9.59
1056
111611-51
1301
IMUN
,.L0 Alternate "A"
6
11161.9
1
13234.21
r . -Ow Or oer No. 1
3572.51
( -.1 to Cate
1
ZS91I5.21
f
424[5.56
Council Agenda - 12/13/62
9. Consideration of a Proposal to Construct Elderly Housino and
Utilize Tax Increment Financing for the Acquisition of Prooerty
Recently Purchased from the Monticello Development Corporation.
(T.E.).
Mr. Joe Poehler (Pronounced Pay -ler) is planning to come before
the Council Monday evening to give a general idea of the elderly
housing project that he has been trying to construct and to
possibly request an option on the land that the City recently
took an option on from the Development Corporation. Mr. Poehler
is an independent builder who has done other elderly housing
projects and whom I know from my time in Waterville. Upon my
arrival last April, he asked if there was a need or just a
possibility that elderly housing could be developed in Monti-
cello and we began discussion then. He has been to Monticello
several times, has visited at the Senior Center with the people
there, has been in contact with George DeMars, and has been
meeting with Farmers Home Administration. As a part of his
application procedure to Farmers Home Administration, he must
provide evidence that he has an option on land that would be a
suitable building site. My understanding is that he intends
to present to the Council some basic architectural drawings
of t:a:: he conceives the project and will request an option on
the land for a minimal fee. He explained that the minimal fee
is due to the fact that should the project be denied by the
Farmers Home Administration. then he has no use for the property
and as a result does not wish to tie up a great deal of capital
while the possibility of losing the property still exists.
In my last conversation with him, when he requested to tomo
before the Council, I suggested that he go directly to the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority, since he is interested in
tax increment financing and the HRA would eventually assume
title to the land from the City. lie noted that he would be
glad to do that but in the spirit of the keeping the Council
informed and abreast of his development, hie would like to just
make a preliminary presentation laying out his intent and since
the Council itself is still holding the option, he would approach
the Council at this time about an option for himself.
I spoke today (Thursday) with Gary Pringle about whether or not one
could got an option on a land that only has an option against it.
lie told me that a third party can take an option that there already
is an option on, but it would be contingent upon the satisfactory
completion of the land transfer that is laid out under the first
option. My recommendation, although it is very clumpy, would be
to refer Mr. Poohlar to the HRA for their January meeting. In the
- 6 -
Council Agenda - 12/13.82
meantime, since the NRA is the tax increment financing body and will
have to at sometime assume the ownership of the land in question,
an option could be entered into between the City and the HRA. Then,
if the HRA finds the elderly housing proposal to be a suitable pro-
posal, they can still look at a third contingent option that could
be awarded to Nlr. Poehler. it might also be possible before January
for the HRA to simply buy the City out of their option obligation
and thus, assume the obligation themselves for the property. This
would create a little in house work but would eliminate a string
of option agreements. Also, once the HRA had the option on the land
when the best development proposal came in, the HRA would be in a
position to act rather than have to make tentative agreemente. in
order to go back to the Council to make all of the land transfers.
I think the best position for the Council to take at this meeting
is to simply acknowledge the proposed development and refer Mr.
Poehler to the HRA for their consideration. Depending on how
desirable the development appears, the Council may wish to accept
the proposal and refer it under their own directive to the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority. I don't think,though, that Mr. poehlor
will have as extensive information as would be required for the
Council to make a determination. No references are attached.
- 9 -
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
10. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of Meadow Oak Subdivision. (R.W.).
Previously, Mr. Jim Boyle along with his associates, Dick Knutson
and Bob Bemboom, presented to the Council their concept plan for
the proposed development of approximately 177 acres of land into
what is to be known as Meadow Oak Subdivision. The original con-
cept plan contained approximately 95 executive home sites, 186
single family attached home sites, and 255 single family detached
home sites for a total housing unit development of 536. As part
of the original concept plan approval, the Council allowed the
developers to have up to 20% of their lots at the minimum 60 foot
width requirement and total square footage of 7,000 square feet.
The developers who will be present at Monday's meeting have now
prepared their general development plan which is similar to the
preliminary plat stage. Along with the preliminary plat, you
will receive copies of the preliminary utilities plan, drainage
and grading plan, landscaping plan, and a plan indicating the
scheduling of each phase of the development. As part of the
concept approval by the Council, it was agreed that the developer
would be allowed to have a variance on the side yard act back
distances for accessory cuiidings such as garages to a minimum
of 5 feet provided the adjacent lot had a minimum of ten foot
set back. As a result, no building would be closer to each
other than 15 feet on any particular lot. According to the
general concept plan as submitted, the average square foot of
of each manufactured detached single family lot would average
10,000 square feet, although some will be as low as 7,000
square feet.
The preliminary plat indicates that there will be 76 executive
home sites, 244 single family detached manufactured housing
sites and 204 tO 216 manufactured housing attached sites. In
addition, the devolopere aro proposing to schedule a develop-
ment of the plat in phases with the first phase consisting of
33 executive heave sites and 32 manufactured detached home sites.
The first phase of the development would coincide with the in-
otallation of utility services as requested. The preliminary
plat has boon submitted to the consulting engineer for their
comments along with the city planner, Howard Dahlgren 6 Ascoci-
atoo for their review. Both firms have reviewed the Plato and
have made their comments available to the developers in regard
to meeting city ordinancos, etc. The comments have boon ro-
coived from OSM regarding minor requirements that the developers
will have to include in their final plat, but at the time this
item is being prepared, comments from the city planner have not
yet boon received by us, but will bo included with the supple-
ment.
- 10 -
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
If the general development plan is approved by the Council, the
developers plan to prepare a final plat for submission to the
City Council in January of 1983. The developers are now in the
final stages of working out the ownership problem and as part of
the requirement for selling a limited partnership arrangement
with investors, a preliminary plat should be approved by the
Council. Once the preliminary plat is approved, it is my under-
standing that the limited partnerships will be sold and the
money will be used to release Mr. Hoglund from the title owner-
ship of the property.
The Planning Commission will be reviewing this preliminary plat
at a special meeting being hold on Monday at 5:30 P.M., and
their comments regarding the plat will be forwarded to the Council
on Monday evening.
The developers again will be requesting that the City authorize
the city engineer to prepare plans and specs for the utilities
to service this property and will be willing to enter into an
agreement insuring the City of all costs involved if the pro-
ject does not proceed as planned.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approving general development
stage of the Planned Unit Development for Meadow Oak contingent
upon any comments from the City Engineer and City Planner.
REFERENCESa A complete sot of preliminary plat plans and draw-
inge along with comments from OSM and Howard Dahlgron 6 Associ-
atoo.
it ORR•SCHELM-MAYEROMMOCIATES, E
Consulting Engineers Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
Land Surveyors
November 19, 1982
McCombs -Knutson Associates, Inc.
12800 Industrial Park Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55441
Attn: Peter A. Bishop
Re: Preliminary Plan and Report
Meadow Oaks
Monticello, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Bishop:
The preliminary report and accompanying plans, i.e., preliminary plat,
general development, grading, utility and landscape plane were
received by our office on November 12, 1982 and have been reviewed by
my staff. we offer the following comments based on Chapter 20 of
Mu„ilcello's Ordinance No. 10-20-1. These devoloprental stage plana
for PUD's are governed by Paragraph 10-20-3 (B) of the ordinance, and
our comments are based on these requirements according to the
Ordinance number.
Paraqraph(B)2 - Requires that 20 sets of preliminary plana be sub-
mitted. T is is a lot of sets to be made by the developer and may not
be needed. Normally, we are sent three seta, so we can mark up and
send one set back to the developer, one set to the City and keep a set
for our files. You will note that the enclosures are copies of the
smaller plane you submitted upon which we have made our notations.
Paragraph (B)2 (B) - Requires boundary dimensions of the property.
The preliminary plat indicates linear dimensions but not angular.
This as shown is 100the of a foot indicating that a complete boundary
survey may be available. we should have a copy of this.
Paraqraph tB)2 SC!- Aske for height of buildings in stories and feet.
This wag not notes.
Paraqraph (B)2 (D) - As for driveway size, location, parking stall,
curb cute, etc., Total site coverage for circulation can be determined
only by subtracting the residential and park use from the total.
Paragraph (B)2 (I) - The landscape plan shows existing, relocated or
new trees. some areas where existng trees are shown require from
three to eight feet of fill according to the street elevations you
have proposed on your preliminary grading plan. Examples of this are
Lot 4, Block 14, Lot 4. Block 3, and Lot 11, Block 2.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Min 55413
-. X12/331 8660
Page Two
McCombs -Knutson
November 19, 1982
1
Paragyraph (B)4 - The number of residential units is provided, however,
not by number of bedrooms and expected population profile is not
included.
Paragraph (B)5 - This is not applicable since no commercial area is
anticipated.
Paragraph (B)6 - The exterior renderings of at least ten different
housing types are shown, but no architectural floor plans, etc., are
included.
Paragraph (B)7 - Nothing suitable for recording in a county office has
been submitted. However, I am not sure of the requirements of the
ordinance. From experience, I feel the documents as submitted are
appropriate to fulfill the requirements of this part of the
ordinance.
Paragraph (B)8 - Grading plans show only preliminary street eleva-
tions. Preliminary lot grades are not shown to indicate change in
topography. Site treatment and alterations of vegetation shown is
minimal. See Paragraph (B)2(I).
Paragraph (B)9 - The final plat cannot and should not be prepared
until the development stage plans are approved.
Paragra$h (8)10 - The erosion control plan should be incorporated with
Item 8 (Grading Plan) to our satisfaction using recommendations from
SCS.
Section 10-20-4 Paraqraph (C) - This covers the procedure for
processing and further specifies that the development plan shall
refine, implement and conform to approved concept plan. This seems to
have been followed, although the configuration of the plat has changed
significantly.
Enclosed are two copies of your preliminary plat, which we made copies
of, indicating our commento regarding the utilities layout (proposed
water main and storm sever construction). Notations are in red on
these plans.
Starting with the water main plan, we have noted by color the water
main sizing we feel is necessary to provide a minimum fire flow of
approximately 800 to 900 gpm at the moot southerly end of your
l
i 1 ORR •SCHEIEN • MAYERON 0 ASSOCIATES, IML
Consulting Engineers Division of Kldde Consultants, Inc.
Lend Surveyors
November 19, 1982
McCombs -Knutson Associates, Inc.
12800 Industrial Park Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55441
Attn: Peter A. Bishop
Re: Preliminary Plan and Report
Meadow Oaks
Monticello, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Bishop:
The preliminary report and accompanying plane, i.e., preliminary plat,
general development, grading, utility and landscape plans were
received by our office on November 12, 1982 and have been reviewed by
my staff. we offer the following comments based on Chapter 20 of
%nticel:o's Ordinance No. 10-20-1. These developmental stage plane
for PUD's are governed by Paragraph 10-20-3 (B) of the ordinance, and
our comments are based on these requirements according to the
Ordinance number.
Paraqraph (B)2 - Requires that 20 sets of preliminary plans be sub-
mitted. This is a lot of sets to be made by the developer and may not
be needed. Normally, we are sent three Bete, so we can mark up and
send one set back to the developer, one set to the City and keep a set
for our files. You will note that the enclosures are copies of the
smaller plana you submitted upon which we have made our notations.
Paragraph (B)2 (B) - Requires boundary dimensions of the property.
The preliminary plat indicates linear dimensions but not angular.
This as shown is 100ths of a foot indicating that a complete boundary
survey may be available. We should have a copy of this.
Paraqraph (B)2 (C}- Aske for height of buildings in stories and feet.
This wag not notes.
Paraqraph (B)2 (D) - As for driveway size, location, parking stall,
curb cuts, etc., total site coverage for circulation can be determined
only by subtracting the residential and park use from the total.
Paragraph (B)2 ill - The landscape plan shows existing, relocated or
new tress. Some areae where existng trees are shown require from
three to eight foot of fill according to the street elevations you
have proposed on your preliminary grading plan. Examplee of this are
Lot 4, Block 14, Lot 4, Block 3, and Lot 11, Block 2.
r '
2021 East Honnepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneapolis. Mint�eSO)a 5413
Page Two 1
McCombs -Knutson
November 19, 1982
Paragraph (B)4 - The number of residential unite is provided, however,
not by number of bedrooms and expected population profile is not
included.
Paraqraph (B)5 - This is not applicable since no commercial area is
anticipated.
Paragraph (B)6 - The exterior renderings of at least ten different
housing types are shown, but no architectural floor plans, etc., are
included.
Paragraph (B)7 - Nothing suitable for recording in a county office has
been submitted. However, I am not sure of the requirements of the
ordinance. From experience, I feel the documents as submitted are
appropriate to fulfill the requirements of this part of the
ordinance.
Paraqraph (B)8 - Grading plans show only preliminary street eleva-
tions. Preliminary lot grades are not shown to indicate change in
topography. Site treatment and alterations of vegetation shown is
minimal. See Paragraph (B)2(I).
Par araph (B)9 - The final plat cannot and should not be prepared
until the development stage plans are approved.
Paraqraph (B)10 - The erosion control plan should be incorporated with
Item 8 (Grading Plan) to our satisfaction using recommendations from
BCS.
Section 10-20-4 Paragraph SC) - This covers the procedure for
processing and further specifies that the development plan shall
refine, implement and conform to approved concept plan. This seems to
have been followed, although the configuration of the plat has changed
significantly.
Enclosed are two copies of your preliminary plat, which we made copies
of, indicating our comments regarding the utilities layout (proposed
water main and storm sewer construction). Notations are in red on
these plans.
Starting with the water main plan, we have noted by color the water
main sizing we feel is necessary to provide a minimum fire flow of
approximately 800 to 900 gpm at the most southerly and of your
i
Consulting Planners One Groveland Terrace (6121377-3536
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55403
Howard Dahlgren Assodates / Incorporated
10 December 1982
PLANNING REPORT
SUBJECT: Meadow Oak
OWNER: Jim Boyle has a purchase contract for
the Subject Property
REQUESTED ACTION: PUD Development Plan Stage and
Preliminary Plat
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Compliance with Concept Auproval:
1. The average lot size is 10,000 square feet with 60 foot minimum frontage
except on cul-de-sacs. The following lots do not conform and cannot
meet the typical layout setbacks proposed:
BLOCK LOT
10 14
13 8
15 33
15 34
15 36
16 22
16 24
16 28
Setback lines should be placed on the plot.
2. Side yard setbacks as shown in the typical lot sketches are as
previously approved.•
3. The triangular shaped piece of land along County Road 118 should be
provided with a point of access from this development. This would
eliminate the need in the future for driveways fronting directly onto
the County Road.
0
SUBJECT: Meadow Oak
10 December 1982 Page 2
4. The utility easements shown seem to encumber the following lots
excessively rendering them undevelopable.
BLOCK LOT
11 2
13 9
16 1
5. County Road 118 is shown with a 66 foot right-of-way which should be
increased to meet the future right-of-way requirements in this area.
6. Lots backing onto County Road 118 have two street frontages on both the
front and rear of these lots. The lot depth should be increased to help
buffer the future homes and to provide ample room for the proposed
banning and landscape screening along the County Road.
Parks and Landscaping:
1. The preliminary landscape Plan and the Preservation Plan appear to save
all existing trees except in roadways. it also shows that. trees will be
relocated into buffer areas along County Road 118 and into park land. P
buyuud Lhi6 tiw ru i5 vuty liLLiu de Lnii Lu iuviuw.
A street boulevard planting should be included as well as planting in
the proposed trail system.
2. The tot lot area should include the apparatus to be installed by the
developer.
3. The proposed park dedication looks good both in diversity of activities
Possible and linkage with a trail system. However, tho trail corridor
need only be 30 feet to 40 feet under the existing powerline and should
be undulating in nature and not a long straight line.
4. Each proposed park should have adequate utilities provided for future
improvements. The developer will be installing landscaping, six foot
asphalt trailo, and tot lot equipment for park land.
5. Detailed landscape plans will be reviewed at the time of Final Plat for
troa preservation, trail, and boulevard plantings. street trees should
bo a minimum of 25 inches in caliper.
6. Areas not directly served by trails should receive sidewalks.
m
SUBJECT: Meadow Oak
10 December 1982
Other Comments:
Page 3
1. The multiple housing area does not have a Preliminary Plat proposed
and will have to go through the platting procedure at some other time.
2. Deed restrictions and covenants should be submitted for review prior
to Final Plat.
3. An evacuation plan should be prepared and included in each deed package.
MEMO
TO: City Council Members
FROM: John Simola
DATE: December 13, 1982
SUBJECT: Regarding Change Orders, Agenda item 011.
The price of Change Order #73 in your agenda supplement should
be $2,395.00. This was not included. The price on the change
order face sheet is incorrect.
In addition, the price of Change Order R79 in the supplement is
I wrong Ansi shrnild he $7,162.on.
Also the contingency fund balance shown as $70,844.00 is a minus
figura.
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
11. Consideration of Change Orders 472 through 478 with the Paul
A. Laurence Company on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Con-
tract. (J. S.).
Chane Order 472 - This change order involves the first and
second stage digesters. As built, the tanks must be full be-
fore the operators can draw off the semi -clear liquid called
supernatant from the sludge and return it to the head of the
plant. In addition, the rate of draw off is dependent upon
adding more new sludge to each tank to force the supernatant
out by gravity. This change adds one 6" valve, two tee -s
and one elbow and would allow the operators to remove the
supernatant by pumping as needed, which the staff feels is
a necessity. Cost of this change is $2,174.00.
Change Order 473 - This change involves funding the cost of
supplies for such things as chemical reagents, filter paper,
scoops, funnels and thermometers, etc. in the full scale
start up of the laboratory.
Change Order 474 - This change provides a concrete landing
cutcide eight (2) doors at the treatment plant. These pads
or stoops are required for code and safety reasons and were
omitted in design. Cost of this change order is $850.00.
Change Order 475 - This change corrects an error in the
total contract figures from change ardor G9 to 70. The con-
tract amount on 470 reflects $1,000 more than shown on 469.
so a deduct of $1,000 is necessary to balance figures.
Chango Order 476 - This change order involves semi-automatic
flow control for the return activated sludge pumps. As you
may remember at the staff's recommendation, the Council ra-
jocted change ardor 446 which would have provided automatic
flow control, but would have resulted in erratic stop and
start flows. This now change order provides flow control
thru electrically operator throttling valves. The valves
are act from the control room while observing actual flow
rates. Cost of change order 446 was $2,699. The coot of
the now change ardor is $2,553.
Chanqo Order 477 - This change ardor provides 15 sample
ports at various locations on the sludge and supernatant
lines. Thorn are currently no ports whatsoever to obtain
a sampla from. The day to day operation of the plant ro-
quiros sampling and tenting of sludge and supernatant
and without places to samplo the plant cannot run offec-
tivoly or economically. Coat of this change in $2,628.00.
- 12 -
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
Change Order #78 - The final placement of the grit removal
system is in conflict with the odor control duct work. This
change involves raising the odor control duct work in the pre-
liminary treatment roam so operators may have safe access to
the grit removal system. In addition, an exhaust damper is
necessary in the lab fume hood to prevent cold air back flow.
Total cost of these changes are $215.
Chane Order #79 - The small seal lubrication filters on the
4 raw sewage pumps and 4 equalization transfer pumps contin-
ually plug with solids found in the incoming untreated raw
sewage. St is impractical to continually clean and replace
these filters. It is possible that should a plugged filter
go unnoticed for a small period of time that a pump shaft and
seal could be damaged. This change order provides for clear
non potablo water lubrication of these seals as provided for
other pumps in the plant. Cost of this change order is $2,612.
Change Order 480 - Duo to the delay in the delivery of materials
and additional change orders and the work prohibiting weather,
the contractor, the Paul A. Laurence Company, has requested a
contract extension to June 1, 1983. Mr. Jerry Corrick, the
project engineer, will provide additional iufuusaliun as Lu
the bonef its and ramifications of such an extension.
If change orders 72 thru 80 aro approved, the total cost would
be $12,977. Thin would leave a contingency fund balance of
$70,844.
- 13 -
4
Y Y
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
anmtwc ucunu
wL wm.ea
OUR SCHELLN•aIAYERON 8 ASSOCIATIES, INC.
D..IS.O. O• ..DO[ CO.Su11aw101 hwC
M: � L.±I vel wMl nw •.1 su�tl !]■ Yiwwl.w01i3 Yw Whi aihh 17r O7 less s90Y1
Contractor Paul A. Laurence Co. Change Order No. 72
Address P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 Nest field llodlf. No. 119
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 project No. 068-2746.01
Jot, Location Monticello, Minnesota EPA trent ta,C270855-03
In accordance wlih the teres of your contract dated November 20 1980 with
City of Monticello oYner for WATp Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
toi are heraby re0ueste3 to corp:, with the following changes fresh the eontraC? plans and specifications:
Description and Justification: - Refer to field ■lodif d 119(Atteched)
In order to provide greater flexibility in the operation of the digesters,
City personnel have requested that an additional line be added between the
sludge supernatant draw -off pipeline and the return flow drain line.
,naldown of Costs this Change Order:
Labor Eau l peen, imaterlAa profit l Overhead Total Add Total Deduct
5930.00 I $960.00 I $284.00 I $2,174.00
Amount of Original Contract: 1 4,704,000.00
Total Contrect
Contract Tnru C.O. /_3 Total Addition Total Deduct Thru Thls C.O. d 72
54,904,066.07 $2,174.00 $4,906,240.07
Original Contingencies 171) 1
bt Re■ I .1 %
Colt, ihru C.O. / Add This C.O. Deduct %It C.O. Contingencies
There •III be an ehffens Ion of 0 days for completion.
The date of the ca■plef Ion of Contract was December 311, B2 end aide will be December 31 19 82
tooted by Data Signed
coDi®r Aetaeeended br Eai
We sloped 1� a 1
At pr otad by '`—O.ner Date Sldeed
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
wsuhrmt teautaf
Ws euntom
pIfR SG1/EILN e1/1YERON ASSOCIATES, INC.
a.o.w a .cot co45.nh.rrt11, w.c
ou, S.eh n1 w41 n. .vl W -111a Yh441.rphs Y4 WUeha chemo t.hw, 1900 1
Contractor Paul A. Laurence Co. Change Order too. 73
Address P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 West fleld %Wlf. No. 117
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Project ND. 068-2748.01
Job Location Monticello, Minnesota IPA grant IbC270855-03
In accordance with the terms of your Contract Oat•d November 20 1980
with
City of Monticello Owner for WWTP Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
You are hereby reauested to comply with the fol local ng Changes frca the contract plans and specl flostlons:
Description and Justification: - Refer to field 1lodlf 0'117 (Attached)
In order to assure quality control of the laboratory program a number of
basic sinqle use, day to day supplies for the initial full scale start-up
of the laboratory are required. ,
Dwown of Costs "is Change Order:
Labor Eaulpewnt (mater c all ftof It I OYerbead Total 100 I
Total Deduct
I S11995.00 I 6300.00 ( 82,295.00
Amount of Or Ipinal Contract: 1 4 , 704 , 000.00
Tpf01 Contrecf
cantreet Thr. C.O. / 72 (Total Addltlon Total Deduct Thr This C.O. /j 1
54,906,240.07 i 6 .00 S4.9
2.295
Original Contingencies 1311 1
at Raglalaig
cont. Thru C.O. / Ads This C.O. I Deduct TNIs C.0. Contlegencles
I
There will be on eliteAdnan of 0 data for completion.
The date of the completion of Contract was December 3119 82 end am will be December 31 19 82
Accepted by oat• 1laned
Cont dor T I I
Recommended by et• {lend
l ngl i4 —
•spcowed by Oat* 1lonad
Owner
% Y 1
i CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
.vawlnr leofsllea
amo werltoas
OUR-SCHEIEN,MAVERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
koAlv)anWrpbl
ie or aGOMWIf•Nrs. H C
to" lea' Niwnf wN "I .Intl Ion mrwNlaeOle, YM WIl}hon 7V1 also "w"DCH.
Contractor Paul A. Laurence Co. Change Order No. 74
Address P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 West Field Modit. No. 121
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Project No. 068-2748.01
Job location Monticello, Minnesota EPA Grant bS270855-03
In accordance with the terms of your contract dated November 20 Ig BO rlth
City of Monticello Cramer for WWTP Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
Ta are hereby requested to caaply with the following Changes from the contract plans and spec) f lcat Ions:
Dowrlptlon and Justification: - Refer to Field labdlf / 121 (Attached)
In order to conform with the Uniform Buildinq Code Section 3303 (i), a door
entrance safety requirement for operating personnel requires adding concrete
stoops to thirteen (13) exterior doors.
eekdam of Costs this Change Order:
Labor Eaulpsent (material Profit 6 O•erh led Total Add Total Deduct
5464.00 I $275.00 I 5111.00 1$850.00
Amount of Original Contract: t 4,704,000.00
Tetsl Contract
Contract Thru C.O. I 73 Total Addition Total Deduct Thru lhls C.O. /7 4
4,907,537.07 $850.00 1$4,908,387.07
Original Contingencies (35) f
Irf Rasa) ft no
Com. Thru C.O. / Add This C.O. Deduct This C.O. Cant l lfglaactes
here •111 be en ewlenslon of 0 days for completion.
the Bete of the cab let ion of Contract ■es December 1119 82 sad ea •III be Decembor 31 19 82
accepted by Date Signed
f Contractor
"-o onmended by Date Signed
Eng l new
APP,ored by Data Signed
Owner
Y \ E
dem CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Dwswitlas les+elltl
We 1141XV110 !
OWSCHEUN•NAYERON is ASSOCIATES, INC.
d
Q,:loco+�bullewll. n,C
107+ l+S+ Yl NYln+,Yl $y"". r�rwlm,olq, u„ sMue,n WOODY— Mae '
Contractor Paul A. Laurence Co. Change Order No. 75
Address P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 West Field wodlf, No. N/A
Minneapolis, Minnesota $5440 project No. 068-2748.01
Job locatlon Monticello, Minnesota EpA Want N.C270855-03
in eccordence with Ina terms o+November 20 8Q
your contract dated 19 wish
City of Monticello Ornerfor WWTP Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
toy are hereby requested to empl, with the following changes from 1M contract plans and specifications:
Dasr:rlptlon and Justification: - Refer to Field Modlf ON/A (Attached)
Balancing Change Order to correct a computational error of S1,000.00 made in
transferring the total contract price thru C.O. /69 from C.O. $69 to C.O. 470.
areakdorn of Coat$ this Change Order: + ✓
labor toulpeent profit 6 Overhead Total Add TofeI Deduct 1
000.00 +11
Amount of Original Contract: f 4, 704 , 000.00
TA#I ContractCO75
Contract Thru C.O. 0 ? 44 Total Addition Total Deduct The Tbla .. /
S4,908,387.07 1 sl,onQ.oQ S4,907,3e7.07
Original Contingencies (31) 1
OW VNio0 ping
Cont, Thru C.O. I Add This C.O. Deduct This C.O. C401"gancies
Thera will be an #wt#a$lon of 0 day$ for Coaplet Ion,
Ike data of tn* comp,#+la^ of Ca*ran ems December 31t4 82and Ace will pa December 31 ig B7
Accepted by _ Date tuned `
CO ct
reor �IttY�t a .r
fiacomwr+med by j+6 1 4ate sinew
(deg I nar 1
ApproYid by - - - -- /" Dote blamed
n:nbr
IF r I 1
38M CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
onuues usmno
wa e,nntoo
1 OUR SCNELEN•NAYERON s ASSOCIATES. INC.
o+a.a.ol
-�v ,owec CO, AIANTS wC
1W9.s,w-IKXIS
r,. wu lewd 3314M TM. SHOW
-.,arrector Paul A. Lauience Co. Change Order No. 76
AOdr•ss P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 West dela Noah. No. 80 (Rev.)
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Project MD068-2748.01
Job locetIon Monticello, Minnesota V* grain., IbC270855-03
In accordance with the tortes of your contract dated November 20 19 80 elth
City of Monticello owner for WWTP Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
You era hereby requested to Compiy with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications:.
Doesrrlptlon end Justification: - Refer to ilold 1lpolf 080 (Atteclhod)
(Rev.)
Personnel staffino requirements have rendered manual operation of the return
activated sludge pumps infeasible. This change order provides for the neces-
sary hardware and software for automatic adjustment of return flow.
( eandown of Costs this Change Order:
�L asorEquipment (materia )'roflt t Overhead Total Add Total Deduct ,290.00 I $930.00 1 5333.00 I $2,553.00 I
Awount of oreglnel Contract: s 4.704,000.00 1
Tafel Contract
Centree Tnru C.O. 175 Total fhddltlon Total Deduct Thr u This C.A. /,U
54 , 908, 385. 07 I 52, 55 3.00 I S4 , 910, 938.07
Original Contingencies (31) 1
My Rooal•lag
Conf. Tnru C.O. 11 I Add This C.O. I Deduct This C.O. ContIage" a
Ther• 6111 be an eetenalon of 0 days for eompletlon.
The deet• of the complet Ion of Contras, was December 3110 82 end „a will IJe December 31 1. 82
•lepted by I Date signed
Conti, �10'
w•ranoweMea Or A/ " ' � "� We slanae �2 •� TL
lagIneer
Approwed by Dots Slowed
Owner
Y Y
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
]sSemrMa 11{lelltl
WO WerlroO
OHR'SCMELEN•MAYFRON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ia.a.o. own ..Ooh consm+.w+s, +c
ids 151 Ml Nwl hr. ,vl SVn1 711 ..mwl.woln, YM Yahsehsl yh �l9 iww. a►a.l 1
Contractor Paul A. Laurence Co. (Tango Order No. 77 -
Address P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 West FieldRodlf. le. 120
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 project No. 068-2748.01
Job Location Monticello, Minnesota EVA (rant C270655-03
In accordance with the tartar of your contract dated November 20 1980 .Ifh
City of Monticello owner for WWTP Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
You are hereby requested to curply with the following dhenges tram the contract plans and Specifications:
Oescr lot Ion and Justifycat Ion: - Rafe, to Field Nodi} 0120 (Attached)
In order to allow collection of samples necessary for effective day-to-day
operation of the solids handling processes of the treatment plant, plant
personnel have requested the addition of sampling ports on sludge and super -
Breakdown of Costs this Orange order: 11
Labor toopient(mate rial Profit 0 Overhead Total Add Total Deduct
51,250.00 I 51,035.00 , S343.00 I S21:28.00 I
Amount of Original Contract: 1 4,704,000.00
Toter Contract
Contract Thru C.O. 076 Tater Addition Total Deduct Tlru Tris C.O. 077
S4,91n,938.07 52,628.00 I 154,9131566.07
Original Contingencies (31) 1
Not (twaslnlfig
Cont. Thru C.O. i I Add This C.O. I Deduct This C.O. Contlepenetas
I
There will be an amens ion of 0 days for tosplefton.
The date of the couplet Ion of Contrema was December 3119 82end wor ell, be December 31 ti 82
Accept ad by _ Data flamed
tont acts �
Recommended by t " Data Cloned
[ngTli war -
Approvdd by / Date {lamed
Owner
IF r I
DemCONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
:0131,1111119 leslalla3
WO N11r11eO
OHII'SCNEIEN'NAYERON A ASSOCIATES, INC.
w
....S,0.0. uppl 10
nlulTaWT9, we
7W � 1.51 wl ..1..a.l Wnl 7f riWrl aaMhl, Yw Y.tl aha ohaeeo T9\. NaM/
infractor Paul A. Laurence Co. Change Order No. 78
Address P.o. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 West Field NWif. ►o. 124
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 project w. 068-2748.01
Job location Monticello, Minnesota Eft Grant NoC270855-03
In accordance With the term of your contract dated November 20 19 80 Wlth
City of Monticello Owner tar WWTP Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
V
You are hereby requested to canply With the following changes from the contract plans and specifications:
Descrlptlon and Justification: - Refer to Field Nodlf 11124 (IlttaOhed)
The discharge duct in the Preliminary Operatinq Room must be raised to Drovide
head room clearance for the 12/10 odor control discharge duct.
l "easdo— of Costs this Change Order:
l abor (SubContr.)
tau IPont
prof It s Overhead
Tafal Add
Torah Deduct
$205.00
I
I 610.00
I
5215.00
I
haunt of Original Contract: 1 4,704,000.00
Total Contract
Contract lhru C.O. 0`77
total Additlontotal
I
Deduct
I
Toru This C.O. /-U
I
$4,913,566.07
5215.00
$4,913,781.07
Original Contingencies 4)11 1
1rt Raaslnl11lg
Cont, 1hru C.O. I
I Add This C.O.
I Deduct This C.O.
I Coolllgencl as
There 9111 be an @.mens lon of 0 days for completion.
The date of the canplel Ion of contract was December 3119 820,,d nog 911 I ba December 31 19 82
'�cepted by
oats sloped
1 Con♦ ctor
r �y/^•' �'
Recommended
Recommended Or 1�/1' -�
JO
Dat@ sldn@d 9
(ng I nee• \ ��
Adpro.@d by
Off@ slowed
Y Y 1
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
wanes umstao
as aanrou
OUR SCISEILN M -WE CO III ASSOCIATES. INC.
ro
n•n+ o•- wNsust•wts, w..c
aars•sw aw ^^f n. •n sun, ty w•w..a•.a�s, er ea.,a awh alarm tw. a►s.t 1
:antroctor Paul A. Laurence Co. Change Order No. 79
kddress P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 West Field"Wif. No. 125
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 project w. 068-2748.01
.bb Local Ion Monticello, Minnesota EPA grant lbC270855-03
In accordance with the terms of your contract dated November 20 1980 alta
City of Monticello Owner for WWTP Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
mu are hereby re0uested to cor.;Iy with the following charges trap the contract plans and specifications:
dacrIpiIon and Just I t I cat Ion: - Refer to field Plod if /125 (Attached)
rhe City of Monticello operations staff has reauested water lubrication in lieu
)f self lubrication for the raw sewaae pumps and the equalization transfer
lumps. This will prevent the filters from plugainq, exposing the pumps to in— D
ldequate luUrlCOLiun.
Breakdown of Coats this Change Order:
Labor EOulpa..t(Matertal Profit l Warhead Total Add �Tatsl Oaduat
51,260.00 I 5620.00 1 $282.00 I 52,162.00
Aaou,tt of original Contract: 1 4,704,000.00
Total contract
:ontrect Thr. C.O. 07B Total Addition Total Oeduct Thru This C.O. 179
54,913,781.07 I $2,162.00 $4,915,943.07
Original Contingencies (31) (
me RamalAlfp
Cont. 1hru C.O. IT Add Tata C.O. I watt This C.O. Coatlagaacias
I
There will be an ewtenslon of 0 days Ior C011101010n,
The data of tae caaaplet ion of Cantron bas December 3110 82 eat ew ell) be December 31 Ip 82
Accepted by pate Vaned
Coni veto•
Recommended by ��~� ('" V " G Oate {IeaeO I2/_
Lag I npr
Approwad by 00s slaked
^WaN _ _
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
otlulnNol 04.110
wuo tosnrsn
ONR SCHULN•MAYERON A ASSOCIATES. INC.
a -SON Or Rippt COMSULTAWS, WC
3W. meat wi wwt hw erl W11 ria ad,ated T— 3000
%,ontrac+or Paul A. Lauience Co. Orange Order Iso. 80
Address P.O. Box 1267, 10000 Highway 55 west yield Slodlf. m. N/A
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Proj«t 1b. 068-2748.01
Job Local lon Monticello, Minnesota EPA grant No S270855-03
In accordance with ane term of your contract dated November 20 19 80 rI?h
City of Monticello owner for WWTP Upgrading and Appurtenant Work
You are hereby requested to canply with the following Ounges frow the contract plana and Specifications:
Description and Justification: - Rater to field Iaodlf %d�A (A"achad)
Contract time extension due to material delivery delays„ anticipated additional
work required by the Citv and completion of landscaoing work which has not been
finished because of construction restrictions and inclement weathgr.
i sakdowl of Costs this Gunge Order:
ILabor (dui psent Prof It A Overhead Total Add Total Deduct
N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A
Amount of Original Contract: 1 4,704,000.00
Total contract
ontract Thru C.O. 01i Total Addition Total Deduct Thr u This C.O. /8 Q
IC
$4,915,943.07 I S4,915,943.07
Original Contingencles 931) 1
sort Iraelftlp
ICon1, Thru C.O. d I Add This C.O. I Deduct THIS C.O. Cosrflegancles
I
There sill dee an ertenslon of _15.L T days for completion.
ion of
December 31 82 Nov 31.
The date e1 the caplet Cdr+redt .35 10 and dee■ will W
cepted by Data (lofted
Cont doctor
Recommended by _J
(llglftear
Appre.ed by
�1J Data slafted
1 ' / Date Vaned
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
12. Reconsideration of a Request for John Sandberq to Reimburse
for Sewer Backup. (T.E.).
Our attorney, Gary Pringle, has advised me that Mr. Sandberg
was in touch with him recently and let him know that he is
not accepting the partial payment that was offered by the City
a couple of meetings ago, but rather continues to insist that
he be reimbursed for the full $860.00 or he will bring suit
for all expenses which he estimates to be in the area of $2,000.
Pringle's recommendation is that the Council take absolutely
no action at this time other than authorizing the attorney to
prepare a legal opinion as to whether or not the City should
consider itself liable or should prepare themselves
to go to litigation over the matter. Basically, I guess I
agree with Gary that that should be the process we follow.
While I do think that we have sound reasons for taking the
action we did and perhaps we could be considered to have been
mora generous than necessary, I do think it is wise to get a
legal opinion before making any now decisions. Thus, the only
action that is required at this time is a motion to authorize
the City Attorney to do the necessary work and prepare a legal
opinion for Council review on January 10, 1983.
=L=
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
13. 1983 Sewer Pates (J. S.)
The sewer user ordinance which the city enacted some time ago
takes affect January 1, 1983. This ordinance provides formulas
for determining the 1983 sewer rates so that the users will pay
proportionately and fairly for the operation and maintenance of
the waste water treatment facility and sewer collection system.
Based on the 1983 budget, we need to raise $200,490'in revenue
from an estimated billable sewer usage of 110,000,000 gallons of
flow for 1963. Of the $200,490, 16.2% is accountable to the
collection system and 83.8% is accountable to the wwTP. Of the
83.8% accountable to the WWTP, 40% is flow related, 30% is BOD
related and 30% is suspended solids related. The following is a
tabulation.
$200,490 x 16.2% collections system (flow) _ $ 32,480
$200,490 x 83.8% WWTP (flow, BOD 6 TSS) _ $166,011
of the $168,011 -- 40% is flow related 67,205
's0% is BOD related 50,403
30% is TSS related 50,403
Total flow cost - $32,480 + $67,205 - $ 99,665
Flowc are estimated at 110,000,000 gallons per year, there -
fora flow coats are as follows:
599,685 . (110M : 7.5 gal/cu. ft.) x 100 . $.68/100 c.f.
Total BOD costs are $50.403.
With the total yearly BOD loading to the plant estimated at
380,000 lbs. this relates to a cost of:
$50,403 = 380,000 lbs. a $.133 par pound
Total suspended solids costs are $50,403.
With the total yearly TSS loading to the plant estimated at
275,000 lbs. this relates to a cost of:
$50,403 c 275,000 . $.183 per pound
The ordinance provides that industry be monitored and charged
based on individual rates for flow BOD and SS. Such an industry
is Wriyhtco Products.
Old figures (no recent figures available) show Wrightco discharging
12,220,000 gallons of flow, 69,060 pounds of BOD and 57,305 pounds
of total suspended solids par year. Based on those old figures,
Wrightco's yearly billing would bo as follows:
Flow 12,220,000 gal. = (7.5 x 100) x $.68/100 cu. ft. - $11,079
BOD 89,060 lbs. x 5.133/par pound - $11,845
TSS 57,305 lbs. x $.183/por pound - $10,467
$33,411
• NOTE: Excluding capitol outlay, special customers, hook ups,
penalties, otc.
- 15 -
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
The remaining non -industrial users will pick up the remaining revenue
needed at a combined rate for flow BOD 6 TSS. This is computed
as follows:
Flow 110,000,000 gal - 12,220,000 Wrightco 97,780,000 gallons
non -industrial flow
Original 0 M 6 R needed $200,490
Less Wrightco's 33,411
Revenue needed $167,079
$167,079 = (97,780,000 gal. (7.5 x 100) ) $1.28/100 cu. ft.
The new non -industrial rate is $1.28 per 100 cu. ft. This is 21.9%
increase over the old rate of $1.05 per 100 cu. ft. The new rate
schedule will read as follows:
1983 SANITARY SEWER RATES
Effective Jan. 1, 1903
NOTE: All declining scales are hereby discontinued. Billing
will continue to be quarterly.
Residential: water meter usane for winter quarter. Jan.- March
shall be used for computation. Billing as follows:
First 0 - 500 cu. ft. - $8.00 minimum billing - par quarter
Over 500 cu. ft. - $1.28 per 100 cu. ft. - per quarter
Commercial, Institutional, Governmental:
Actual water meter usage or measured flow for each
quarter shall be used for computation. Billing an
follows:
First 0 - 500 cu. ft. - $8.00 minimum billing - per quartor
Over 500 cu. ft. a $1.28 par 100 cu. ft. - per quarter
Industrial: Actual water motor usage or moasurod flow and measured
total BOD • and total Suspended Solids* per each
quarter. Billing as follows:
Flow: 0 - 500 cu. ft. a $8.00 min. billing per qtr.
Over 500 cu. ft. $.68 par 100 cu. ft. par qtr.
BOD: 5.133 par pound par quarter
TSB: $.183 per pound par quarter
-NOTE: By tasting as proscribed in dLac hargo/pro-treatment permit.
=1T11C
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
r 14. Sewer Discharge and Pretreatment Ordinance. (J. S.)
\ As part of the EPA regulations, the city is required to develop and
enact an ordinance to control sewer discharges and industrial
pretreatment. This regulation requires that the ordinance be
drafted in rough form by the 908 payment level at the WWPP project.
This requirement has been met. The ordinance is then required to
be in final form and enacted into law by the end of the grant
budget period, which is December 31, 1982.
The ordinance would take affect January 1, 1983. The ordinance is
designed to control pollutants which may cause problems with the
WWTP, prohibit pollutants which we cannot treat and finally
improve opportunities to reclaim and recycle wastewater and sludges.
The ordinance affects all users, large and small, in that they may
be asked to file periodical discharge reports. The ordinance
requires all industries which are now, or propose to discharge into
our sewer system, to obtain a discharge permit. Existina industrial
users are expected to apply for a permit within 60 days after this
ordinance is in effect. Now users shall apply 180 days prior to
connecting or discharging.
Each permit shall not exceed 5 years in length and shall be re-
applied for 180 days in advance of expiration. The fees are pro-
portional to use and are based on a point system. A typical
industrial user discharging up to 50,000 gallons per day with a one
point discharge would pay a fee of $300 for the permit which may
run as long as 5 years.
In addition to the above, the ordinance also requires the industrial
user to provide and operate monitoring facilities for each discharge
point. The ordinance also imposes civil penalties for users
found violating the ordinance from $100 to $1,000 for each day on
which a violation occurs.
Encl000d in the agenda is a letter from Charles A. Lepsk which also
details the ordinance. A copy of the ordinance is available at
city hall for your review.
- 17 -
ORR-SCHEIEN • MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
Land Surveyors
December 8, 1982
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 777
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Sewage Discharges and Industrial Pretreatment
Dear City Officials:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the City of Monticello to
develop an Industrial Pretreatment Program pursuant to the Clean Water
Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217). It is the intent of that law and
supporting regulations to:
a. Control pollutants which may interfere with treatment plant
operations or contaminate sludges.
b. Prohibit pollutants which cannot be treated at the treatment
plant.
C. Improve opportunities to reclaim and recycle wastewater and
sludges.
A major component in this Program is an effective legal authority for
the control of discharges to the municipal sewage collection system.
The proposed City Ordinance, Title 14: Sanitary Sewer Discharge con-
trols, provides this authority and is briefly summarized as follows:
CHAPTER 1: General Provisions sets forth the objoctives of the law as
previously stated and also defines numerous terms used in the text of
the Ordinance. Of major importance is the definition of a 'Significant
Industrial User' because the Ordinance has a substantial impact on any
industry so defined, An industry may be automatically so classified
by virtue of its flow or loadings, or the City or the State may so
designate it.
CHAPTER 2: Reggula tion of Discharges prohibits explosive, toxic,
noxious and malodorous substances and limits temperature, ph (between
5 and 10), fats, greases, oils, BOD5 groator than 1,000 mg/l and
suspended solids greater than 500 mg/1. General roquiremonts for pro -
treatment facilities are precontod in this chapter.
2021 East Honnopin Inco • Suito 238 • Minnoopolis osola 55413
r
_131-Q60 TELEX: 29.094 _ .
Page Two
Letter to City Officials
Re: Sewage Discharges and
Industrial Pretreatment
December 8, 1982
CHAPTER 3: Charqes and Fees establishes a schedule for individual
wastewater discharge permits. Also it provides that all costs in-
curred by the City and associated with monitoring a specific user
shall be charged to that user.
CHAPTER 4: Administration specifies operational and waste discharge
information required in general user discharge reports. Wastewater
Discharge Permits will be required of all industrial users with
permits specifying limitations on discharges, wastewater monitoring,
monitoring frequency, pretreatment requirements, compliance schedules,
disposal of sludges, etc., and other conditions deemed appropriate by
the City.
CHAPTER 5: Enforcement provides the Director with the authority to
order an immediate stop to a discharge or to make an immediate
severance of the sewer connection if deemed necessary to protect the
wastewater system, individnAls or receiving waters. nischAr,e vPrmits
may be revoked through proper legal proceedings. Legal and/or
equitable relief may be sought for violations of this Ordinance.
Decisions of. the Director may be appealed as outlined in this Chapter.
CHAPTER 5: Penalties allows for the recovery of civil penalties of
not less than $100.00 nor more than $1,000.00 for each day of a
violation of. this Ordinance plus any legal and administrative costs
associated with litigation. Costs assessed to cleaning, repair, or
replacement due to a discharge which caused deposit, obstruction,
damage or impairment of treatment shall be charged to the responsible
user, violations of this Ordinance or of a Discharge Permit are
deemed misdemeanors as is falsification of evidence.
CHAPTER 7: Effectuation ostabliahos the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
ORR-SCHF.LEN-MAYERON
6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
Charles A. Lopak a P.E.
CALlmin
enclosure
0
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
15. Consideration of a Request by Property Owners to Have Special
Assessments Reamortized. (R.W.),
Enclosed with the agenda you will find a copy of the petition
recently received by the property owners assessed under the
78-1 and 79-1 Improvement Projects. The petition, in effect,
is asking for the City Council to reassess the properties in-
volved in the 78-1 and 79-1 project from a 5 year period and
10 year period of assessments to 20 years.
In regard to the petition, a few corrections should be noted,
while the 78-1 Improvement Project did assess property owners
over a five year period, only residential property that was
homesteaded at the time of the improvement received a 20 year
assessment, while any undeveloped residential land received
a five year assessment. It is also noted in the petition that
the 78-1 and the 79-1 projects require that the assessments be
paid in full upon the sale of any affected commercial or in-
dustrial properties which is not entirely correct. The current
city ordinances do indicate that the 76 projects and any pro-
jects thereafter do require that the assessments be paid in
full nrinr to Any aertifirnta of nrrunnncy heing grnnt,±d for
a new building constructed. In other words, the City has not
been demanding payment on these assessments if the property is
just sold without a building being erected.
Although the petitioners may have valid concerns in regard to
the current economic situations, etc. the City Council is some-
what tied to the present 5 and 10 year assessment periods due
to the fact that bonds were sold and payment schedules were
constructed on these bonds with the anticipation that the 78-1
project would be assessable over 5 yearo and the 79-1 project
over 10 years. In addition, the Council would have to consider
what effect any adjustment would have on other assessments in-
cluding the 80 and 81 improvements which wore also assessed
over 10 years. Certainly, a precedent would be ostablishod and
would leave the City open to a request of a similar nature from
those assessed under the 80 and 81 improvements.
It would be the staff's recommendation that, at the present
time, the City Council take the petition under advisement but
not take any action regarding the possible extension of the
aooessmento over a longer period of Limo. The reason this
suggestion is being made is that many factors would have to be
determined ouch as whether the City has sufficient funds avail-
able to extend the assessment period over a longer length since
our bond schedule still requires paymnnto from the City over a
shorter period of time. Also, if the aoaossmonta wore extended
over a longer period of time and the City did not have suffi-
cient funds to pay off its current bond achodulos, the City would
rave to ro-finance and sell now bonds to cover the longer assess-
mont period. In addition, the City would incur more legal foes,
- 18 -
�i
CI
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
bond consulting fees, etc. and more than likely the assessment
interest rate would be much higher than the property owners are
now paying under the 78 and 79 projects. The current interest
rate being charged to the property owners under the 78-1 project
is 6�% with the 79 project interest rate at 79. Even if changes
were made in the assessment length, I assume the City Council
would want to charge any of the additional expenses incurred back
to the property owners, thus increasing their original assess-
ments.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of accepting petition from
property owners and acting upon their request or accepting
petition and deferring any action for further study and re-
view.
REFERENCES: A copy of petition and copy of letter from Wright
County Auditor.
- 19 -
- PETITION -
We, the petitioners, petition the Monticello City Council as follows:
Whereas the 1976-1 Improvement project allowed assessment payments
tgbe paid over a 20 year period for residential property; and
Whereas the said 1976-1 project required assessment payments to be
paid over a 5 year period for commercial and industrial properties; and
Whereas the 1979-1 project required assessment payments to be paid
over a 10 year period for commercial and industrial properties; and
Whereas the said 1976-1, 1979-1 projects required the assessments
to be paid in full upon the sale of any of the affected commercial or
industrial properties; and
Whereas the economic situation that existed at the time of the said
assessment has drastically changed since then; and
Whereas the County Auditor, David Douglas, has indicated his approval
of a change in the assessment policy and willingness to cooperate in the
change as outlined below. See attached letter from David Douglas; and
Whereas the present assessment policy is extremely onerous to the
petitioners;
Therefore, it is the request of the petitioners that the Monticello
City Council adjust the 1976-1, 1979-1 improvement projects assessments
so that the assessment will be changed from 5 and 10 years, dating back
to the beginning of the present 5 and 10 year assessments. Dave Douglas
�. has agreed to then adjust the penalties and interest as if the assessments
based on a 20 year payoff had not been paid.
It is also the request of the petitioners that the assessment policy
be changed to allow the annual assessment payments to be assigned to buyers
of the properties in question instead of requiring that the assessments
be paid in full at the time of sale of any of the affected properties.
It is requested that these changes be made immediately so that fore-
closures and further delinquencies can be avoided and make it possible
for many of the owners to pay their assessment on a current basis.
Respectfully Yours,
i
DAVID S. DOUGLAS
WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR
10 N.W. 2 ST.
BUFFALO. MINNESOTA 33313
Pmorrc: (612)682-3900
November 24, 1982
Larry Flake
C/O MONTICELLO FORD
Interstate I-94
P.O. Box 68
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Larry:
The County Auditor's office will go back to 1979 and change any
amounts in the delinquent taxes that would be changed because
of a reassessment roll that would come from the City of Monticello
for any improvements that might have been made to the property.
The delinquencies will be reduced to reflect any change from the
'yre&4nL a.GGaG=Cnt a=04ntS to the2c, that W^fila be Ae,e"I, by
a new assessment schedule. Further, it would seem to be advise_
able to let the purchaser assume any unpaid assessments when the
property is transferred; otherwise, you are drastically restrict-
ing the sale of property and forcing tax forfeiture by not selling
property that might otherwise be saleable.
DSD.gg
S ncerely yours,
David glaa
WRICNT COUNTY AUD A
Council Agenda - 12/13/02
16. Consideration of Proposals for A Water Tower Maintenance Con-
tract. W.S.) .
Gur contract for water tower maintenance with Watertower Paint
6 Repair Co. of Iowa has expired. This past contract included
cleaning and touch up every year with a new interior wax coating
and exterior paint job every 5 years. The old yearly cost was
$927.00. The Iowa firm is now asking $2,135 per year for the
five year contract. This is a 5 year value of $10,675.
I have talked with other firms about similar maintenance contracts.
One such firm (H s A Water Tank -- Lake Norden, S. D., a small
firm) has given me a price of $1,475 per year for a five year
contract totaling $7,375.
There are several things to consider in these maintenance contracts.
1. The wax coatings are becoming out -dated as they do not offer
the protection or longevity of the now epoxy coatings. The
wax flakes off continually exposing the metal to rust,
corrosion and pitting which can eventually lead to leaks.
The wax coatings therefore require constant maintenance and
periodical complete replacements. Our new sample contract
with the Iowa fine includes an added clause that states
weare aware of this corrosion and pitting and that it now
exists in our tank.
2. The now epoxy coatings can provide more protection at a
lower yearly cost due to the longevity of such coatings.
3. While it is advisable to have long term interior maintenance
contracts which pin point costs it may be just as advisable
to contract for exterior painting only as needed. This would
keep the yearly payments lower and the exterior painting
could be done when needed and budgeted for.
Figuring painting costa is the difficult part. Current costs are
from $3,500 to $4,000 for a complete paint job. For a contractor
to figure the cost 5 years in advance is difficult. Most often
contractors add enough to he safe and the cities lose through
loot interest on paying in advance and through inflated prices.
It is a staff recommendation that we enter into a contract only
to maintain the interior wax coating and clean the tank annually.
It is further recommended that we consider switching to an epoxy
interior coating within the next 5 years and contract for painting
of the water tower only as needed.
- 20-
Council Agenda 12/13/82
Prices for consideration are as follows:
Co. k1. Watertower Paint 6 Repair -- Iowa
A. Epoxy coating $7,766 (price before wax).
B. Annual interior maintenance on epoxy coating based on
5 year plan at $450 per year ($2,250).
C. Annual interior and exterior maintenance on wax coatings.
New aluminum paint every 5 years based on 5 year plan
at $2,150 per year ($10,675).
C. Annual interior maintenance on wax coating, based on
5 year plan - $1,355 yearly - ($6,775).
Co. q2. H 6 A Water Tank Specialists -- South Dakota
A. Interior and exterior maintenance annually, on wax
coating with new aluminum paint every 5 years based
®on 5 years at $1,475 per year ($7,375).
Interior, annual ma;ifte nee on wax coating - 5 year
plan $ /�ljy�
Co. q3. Maquire Iron -- South Dakota
( A. Epoxy coating -- $7,2uu -- 20 year guarantee.
B. Every other year interior maintenance of epoxy coating,
based on 20 year contract -- $595 every 2nd year.
51,487.50 - 5 year; $2,975 - 10 years $5,950 - 20 year).
Co. 44 �Elevated Tank Service -- South Dakota
Interior maintenance of wax coating annually, now coating
ovary other year based on 5 year plan at $700 per year
(53,500 - 5 year).
-21-
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
17. Consideration of 1982 Budqet Transfers. (R.W.).
The purpose of this item is to consider the following transfers
that should be made prior to December 31, 1982:
Item Amount Transfer Fro® Transfer In
Wastewater Treatment Const.
Allocated 9/22/80 $112,929.00 Revenue Sharing Sewer
Allocated 9/28/81 87,151.00 Revenue Sharing Sewer
-Fire Department Tank Truck
(City Share of Costs) 12,939.77 Capital Outlay Fire
This amount is for chassis
only. Balance of transfer
wil 1 be done in 1983 when
truck is delivered.
-Pole Barn@ maintenance Bldg. 21,974.81
Capital
Outlay
Street
1982-1 Const. Fund 56,033.89
Capital
Outlay
1982 Const.
(-7th St. Tnprev)
Fund.
Wan from City to HRA for 73,501.67
Capital
Outlay
General
purchase of Oakwood Lot - TIF
-AD noted above, an additional transfer will be necessary to cover
tho balance of the costs associated with the fire truck when do-
livorod in 1983 (Approximately $30,600). Alec, the polo barn costs
licstod above are thru 11/30/132 and an additional tranafor may be
noc ossary when all wiring, otc. is completed.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS Consideration of a motion to approve the above
tranafers.
- 22 -
Council Agenda - 12/13/82
18. Administrator's Report on the Effects of Action Taken Durinq
the Special Session of the Minnesota Legislature. (T.E.).
I have included this item on the agenda solely for the purpose
to answer questions that you may have. On occasion, through
the League of Cities, I have information available to me that
has not been published in the paper or broadcast on the radio
or television. Thus, anticipating the occurrence of some
events between now and next Monday night, I will do my very
best to keep abreast of the legislative activities. I cannot
say, at this time, that I will even have special information.
Depending on what the legislature does, budget matters may have
already been decided by Monday and the media may have pro-
vided us with all the information we need. That really makes
this agenda item rather tentative depending on what there is
to report and the availability of data as of Monday afternoon.
- 23 -
minnesota cities
P "_,F 1)iFORMATION OULLETiN: STATE -LOCAL FINANCIAL
Negotiators representing the Governor, the Legislature, and the Governor -elect recessed
Friday night without producing an agreed upon program to deal with the state government
budget defici t.
The group will meet again on Saturday in another effort to solve the problem. The question
of whether there will be a special session of the legislature on Tuesday is undecided at
this time.
As of this writing, all agreements are tentative and subject to change. The p romoseo oay
cut to all (teachers, state, and local) public employees (including city employees) is
sufficiently significant and confusing that it is presented here. Remaining issues criti-
cal to cities include the size and allocation of cuts in payments to city governments.
This is unresolved although the size of this cut is currently relatively low --a talking
figure of $4-8 million --because the cut to employees generated $70-90 million. it appears
that all the negotiators approve of the proposed employee pay cut.
The Cut to Employees: The proposal is to shift the major part of pension costs for the
next six months from the employer to the employee. The savings in the employer's cost
would then be forwarded to the state. For example, on a gross salary of $100, the employee
under the social security- coordinated plan contributed $4.00 to PERA while the city pays
$5.50. The proposalwould have the employee contribute $9.00 to PERA; the city would,pay
$.50 to PERA. The city then saves $5.00; this $5.00 would then be paid by the city to
the state's general fund. The end result is no direct effect on the city or PERA: the
employee has $5.00 less and the state has $5.00 more. (in practice, rather than deducting
the additional 5% from the employee's salary for six months, the city would instead
deduct 2�.,% for the next 12 months).
Members of the PERA police and fire fund, and "basic" PERA members would be treated the
same way; i.e., they, too, would contribute an additional 2.5% of their gross salary to
PERA for the next 12 months. It is not yet clear what the effect would be on members
of local police and fire relief associations.
The League is recommending that the plan, if it is enacted, be structered so that the
employee's contribution would be deductible for federallincome tax purposes. If this
is possible, it would mitigate somewhat the effect on city employees.
Should the negotiators resolve the balance of the issues on Saturday or Sunday, including the
size and allocation of the cut in payments to cities, the League will publish an Action
Alert on Monday with the details and recommendations.
163 university ovenuo oust, oc. Paul, minnoo 55101 (612)227-5600
C
I
I I
I
GENERAL FUND - DECEMBER - 1982,
i
AMOUNT
CHECK N
Petty Cash - Reimb. petty cash fund a
36.74
16638
Wright County Sheriff - October police contract
7,349.33
16639
Monticello Dep. Reg. - Application for title - 81 Int. cruck�
5.50
16640
Monticello HRA - Loan to Housing 6 Redevelopment Authority
73,501.67
16641
MN. State Treasurer - pep. Reg. fees
152.00
16642
Monticello Development Corp. - Purchase of Lots 13,14 6 15, Blk.
51 6,854.00
16643
Tom Eidem - Mileage.
66.12
16644
Corrow, Sanitation - Contract payment
3,761.50
16645
Gerald Hermes - Janitorial services at Library
115.00
16646
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll deductions
179.04
16647
Mr. Arve Crimsmo - Mayor salary
125.00
16648
Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary
! 100.00
16649
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
100,00
16650
Mr. Ken Maus - Council salary
100.00
16651
Dr. Phil White - Council salary
100.00
16652
James Prousse - Cleaning city hall
220.00
16653
YMCA of Mpla. - Monthly contract payment I258.33
16654
Monticello Firemen's Relief Assoc. - 22 State aid 8 Contr. from
Cirtyl7,598.81
16655
Wright County State Bank - Purchase C. D. !!
179,215.89
16656
Wright County State Bank - Purchase C. D. i,
120,000.00
16657
Wright County State Bank - FWT - Nov.
3,095.20
16658
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
1,642.55
16659
Tom Eiden - Mileage to St. Paul - TIF
32.00
16650
North Central Public Service - Utilities
3,468.32
16661
Road Machinery 6 Supplies - Truck rental for Christmas decorations
363.15
16662
Weldor Pump b Equip. - Shearpin sets - Sever Dept,
72.00
16663
lot Bank Mpla. - Public fund nctivity cl:argC
4,OU
166614
Feed kite Controls - 1000 lbs. polyphosphates
890.98
16665
Harold Frolichman 6 Assoc. - 20 throw rugs - Sever Dept,
35.00
16666
Maintenance Eng. - 12 traffic signal bulbs
41.45
16661
Curtis industries - Nuts and bolts - Street Dept.
124.10
16668
Earl F. Andersen 6 Assoc, - 1 sign 6 bulbs for road flashers
62.44
16669
LaHass Mfg. - Snow plow repairs
125.41
16670
Rick Wolfsteller - Misc. mileage
14.50
16671
Voss Electric - Light bulbs for all Depts.
275.83
16672
Marlene Heilman - Misc. mileage for 1982
28.75
16673
J M Oil Co. - Oil, hyd. fluid, etc.
572.65
16674
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. - Nov. fees
152.00
16675
Bridgewater Telephone - Utilities
727.17
16676
Leef Bros. - Uniforms
108.00
16677
Local #49 - Union dues
84.00
16678
National Life lns. - Tom Eidem's pension payment
85.00
16679
St. Paul Pioneer Press - Adv. for WTP laborer/mechanic
93.60
16680
MN. Valley Testing - Testing at WWTP
90.00
16681
Miller Davis - Legal forms
16.20
16682
Northern States Power - Utilities
6,544.18
16683
Fyle backhoo Service - W/S hookup at 4th St. park, cleaning
sewer at dog pound
1,400.00
16684
Mrs. Marjorie Gootake - 6 OAA meetings 6 clerking same
120.00
16685
Mr. Dan Herrboldt - OAA meeting
25.00
16686
Mr. Tom Salkowski - 4 OAA meetings
100.00
16687
Dr. Philip White - i OAA meeting
15.00
16688
Mr. Arve Crimsmo - 4 OAA meetings
60.00
16689
Mr. LeRoy Engstrom - 4 OAA meetings 6 mileage
110.40
16690
Mr. Franklin Dean - 6 OAA meetings
96.00
16691
Z9
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
I CHECK N
i
VWR Scientific, Inc. - Lab equip at new WWTP i
7.00
1(-`42
Envirex, Inc. - 14' drive chain at WWTP
214.00
1
Mobil Oil Co. - Gas !
6.88
16694
Viking Industrial Center - Gas/oxy, monitor repair for WWTP
206.86
.16695
Wright County Auditor - Police fines b assessing fees 1
10,794,85
16696
Jim Hatch Sales - Gloves, hard hat liners, safety gogles,
88.95
16697
Michael O'Connor - Legal advice - personnel policy 6 union neg.
765.00
16698
Mr. Al Nelson - Sub.
11.70
16699
Our Own Hardware - Misc. supplies - St./W/S/Gen. Depts. I
421.30
16700
H 6 R Distributors - 26 tans salt
894.40
16701
MonLiCella Office Products - Ring binders, daters, etc.
49.47
16702
Maus Tire Service - Tire repair - 72 Chv. P. Up, switch tires on
sludge truck
68.50
16703
Fair's Garden Center - Planter b rock for Library * labor
356.63
16704
Buffalo Bituminous - Gravel - 24 c.y. - stock pile
84.00
16705
Central McGowan - Cyl. rental
2.48
16706
Marco Business Products - Copy machine repair 6 supplies' ;
165.04
16707
Maus Foods - Paper towels, election supplies, dog food, etc. !
135.85
16708
National Bushing - Floor dry, new revolving light for truck, etc.
215.18
16709
Hoglund Bus - Gaskets, etc, for 75 Intl. t
1 12.56
16710
North Star Waterworks - 4" iaddle for water at 4th St, park
39.29
16711
VOID
0
16712
Senior Citizen's Center - Reserve salary from inf. Center salaries
739.20
16113
Monticello Fire Dept. - Dues, tot -finders stickers, reimb. for
Fire school i ' '.
565.30
16714 M
Bowman Sheet Metal - Service call on furnace at city hall
51.50
167'.5
Monticello vrinting - Envelopes
50.35
16.
Independent Lumber - Anchor bolts for WWTP
4.13
167,
Harry'a Auto Supply - Shop supplies, tools 6 vehicle repr, parts!
295.61
16718
Wayne's Red Owl - Library expense
36.65
16719
Tom Eidem - Mileage to seminar in St. Paul
54.00
16720
Viking Pipe Service - T. W. sewer lines I
1,904.03
16721
Diane Jacobuon - Misc. mileage for 1982
25.00
16722
MN. State Treasurer - Monthly FICA !!
3,635.47
16723
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Nov. fi
1,796.00
16724
Wright County Sheriff - Monthly contract payment - November 1
7.349.33
16725
MN, State Treasurer - Dep. Reg, fees I
251.50
16726
Payroll for November I
19.093.31
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR DECLMBER
$480,899 .13
C
LIQUOR FUM
DECEMBER DISBURSEMENTS - 1982
AMDUNT
CaCE
50.
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - October
3,609.97
10499
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
1,245.47
10500
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
3,197.78
10501
Ed Phillips 6 Sona - Liquor
8,724.48
10502
Wright County State Bank - 6 month C. D. purchase
80,000.00
10503
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. - Mark Irmiter
20.00
10504
Wright County State Bank - FWT - November
499.90
10505
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
194.18
10506
North Central Public Service - Utilities
290.04
10507
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
4,943.25
10508
Twin City Wine - Liquor
2,707.62
10509
Rich's Heating - Electric motor
106.75
10510
Dept. of Public Safety - Retailer's I. D. Card
5.00
10511
Maus Foods, Inc. - Misc. supplies for Store
24.62
10512
Leifert Trucking - Freight
338.69
10513
Foster -Franzen Agency - Add'l. prem. on liab policy
83.00
10514
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
18.64
10515
Johnson Bros. - Liquor
50.07
10516
Yonak Sanitation - Contract
82.50
10517
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse.
604.05
10518
Croeslein Beverage - Beer, etc.
13,191.20
10519
7 Up Bottling Co. - Misc. mdse.
398.10
10520
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse..
11.1 .54
10521
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse.
403.05
10522
Day Dist. Co. - Beer
258.32
10523
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer
3,319.90
10524
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
2,204.30
10525
A. J. Ogle - Beer
159.05
10526
Dahlheimer Dist. - Beer
1,162.66
10527
Midland Beverage - Wine
19.90
10528
Northern States Power - Utilities
378.02
10529
Oliver Electric - Re -hang track lighting
57.00
10530
KMOM - Radio adv..
110.00
10531
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
51.03
10532
Payroll for November 3,316.72
TOTAL DECEMBER DISBURSEMENTS
$137,916.80
MEMO
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Eidem
DATE: November 30, 1982
TIME: 6:30 P.M.
PLACE: Monticello City Hall
RE: 1983 Salary Deliberations
As you will notice, approximately 15 minutes at the beginning of the
meeting has been set aside for introduction. This is because I wish
to take a little time to go over how I arrived at the figures I have,
certain assumptions that I made, and recommendations I have on the
best way to precede. I intend to cover most of that also in this memo,
but plan to further address them in the beginning of the meeting.
1. Job Classifications - For the non-union personnel, I have created
baaiC juu CiaeniL iCaLii,un L;, L iu Lui U, ybnaiia: ...aia'aan.. za-
sponsibilitios. For lack of batter terms I have used the follow-
ing:
Clerical - Lynnea Gillham, Marione Hallman and Diane Jacobson.
Duties - Self Explanatory.
Supervisory - Roger Mack, Walt Mack, Jim Miller.
These are the positions that have supervisory
responsibility, but are mainly limited to single
aspects of city operations. Their subordinates
aro limited in number, and are usually required
to do tanks of a similar nature on a daily basis.
Middle Manaqement - John Simola and Mark Irmiter.
These are positions responsible for the supervisor's
performance and indirectly for the rank and filo.
The liquor store is a self sustaining enterprise
that must oporato wholly unto itself. Public works
is a major division that must account for all op -
orations of the physical aspect of the City. Both
have major budgetary responsibilities. Neither are
responsible to anyone oleo but the Administrator,
but yet are responsible for all beneath them. Public
C Works especially requires flexibility and a multi-
faceted background.
Memo - Mayor and Council Members
November 30, 1992
Page 2
Top Management - Tom Eidem and Rick Wolfsteller.
The administrator is clearly in this category, since
he is responsible for all municipal activities, but
is accountable to only the appointing authority. I
did have a bit of a struggle with Rick. If he were
exclusively a finance director, I would have classified
him as middle management. However, my determination
was made primarily based upon how we work together
rather than a "job description". While,in fact, I am
ultimately responsible for operations, in my view, Rick
and I operate more like a team. We consult frequently.
He works independent of any directives, easily exercises
authority in my absence and maintains a comprehensive
background on most city activities. Although he and I
are not at the same level of the chain of command and
responsibility, he is above the middle management per-
sonnel, so I have no difficulty classifying him where
I have.
2. calp.v Increas�q - Cnet of T.ivinn - Tt in my contantinn that within each
job classification, if the performance is similar, each employee should
receive an equal dollar amount, as opposed to an equal percentage.
Usually, the reason employees in similar jobs have salary discrepancies
is because of sonority or experience. I hold that that variance should
not increase due to cost of living increases. For instance, Lynnea
currently makes $6.82 par hour: Marlena makes $5.95 per hour. This
is a difference of $.87 per hour, if each were to receive a 109 in-
crease based upon their own salary, there would then be a difference
of $.95 par hour. Each year, this difference would become greater,
based solely upon the fact that one person was hare longer rather than
on the individual'a job performance. I maintain that for COLA's the
difference between persons should not change. If, in fact, performance
differs, this then should be addressed under merit increases.
For the coat of living increases, I did the followings
Clerical - I took 10% of the highest paid employee (Lynnoa): Granted
that dollar amount to each person. I used 10% because, in my esti-
mation, each of the positions have boon given added duties for a
heavier work load. For instance, deputy registrar has incrosood their
transactions by 1,870, from 13,890 in 1981 to 15,760 this year. This
effects both Diana and Marlena. Indirectly, it also affocts Lynnea
as well. Also, sower and water billings aro up, increasing Lynnoa's
work load.
Memo - Mayor and Council Members
November 30, 1982
Page 3
Supervisory - Used 8.49 of Jim Miller's salary. Because we are limited
to an 89 increase in levy limits, I used this figure. Also, the union
people agreed to 99 and 79 over two years for an average of approxi-
mately 89. Further, since inflation has been in double digits but the
CPI is up only 5.59, I elected to pick a middle ground.
Middle Management - Used 8.49 of John Simola's salary for the same
reasoning as above.
Top Management - Used 8.49 of Eidem's salary for the same reasons
as above.
3. Salary Increases - Merit or Adjustment - With respect to the COLA's,
I have agreed upon a rate with all the employees. Those figures are
on the separate sheets. I told each employee that, at least for this
year, I would neither support nor oppose merit increases. I simply
do not have a past performance by which to judge. I suggested they
approach the Council individually concerning merit or duty adjustment.
I think it is crucial that if merit is given, it be given in a sepa-
rate motion. This makes both the Council and the employee accountable.
For example, suppose you give "X" a 29 merit increase (over the COLA)
but not "Y". "Y" can then ask the Council on what grounds did "X"
got the increase, and the Council should be able to say. It elimi-
nates the possibility of arbitrary decisions, of favoritism, or
enmity. Further, it tells "Y" what is required of him/her to get
a merit increase the next year. It eatablishes the type of ineen-
tivo that is rewarded. It promotes employee improvement and that,
in the and, is what we are seeking to achieve.
I have also considered union negotiations when recommending that
merit increases be given in a separate motion. At the past union
negotiations, the union continually referred to the fact that
other employees were given 12, 10 and 149, while we were offering
the union personnel only 99. If we grant COLA'a in the neighbor-
hood of 89, than when tho union raises the question the next time,
we can say "no, the cost of living was up only 89, but in some
cases, individuals received merit increases. The union done not
have a provision for merit increases, therefore you received none."
It in simply a matter of trying to protect ourselves in future
union negotiations.
C
Memo - Mayor and Council Members
November 30, 1982
Page 4
As a final note: I am comfortable with the COIR s agreed upon. 1 am a
firm believer that as a City, our only real true asset is the employee.
we are not in a profit making endeavor. Thus, our only objective is
the delivery of municipal services, and ultimately it is our employees
who do just that. I contend that an employee who is unhappy with the way
he/she is treated will cost the City more than what the City might have
saved by cuttiry salary increases to a minimum.
pS: Albert Meyer is out of town attending a school, so he will not
attend this meeting. Further, John S. and Jim M. have expressed
some serious misgivings about granting Albert the promotion/re-
classification. I would like the Council to delay all action on
this matter until I have had an opportunity to talk to everyone
and assemble the data for a final recommendation.
C'
1.
Introduction by Tam Eidem
6:30 P.M.
2.
Lynnea Gillham
6.45 P.M.
3.
Marlene Hellman
7:00 P.M.
4.
Diane Jacobson
7:15 P.M.
S.
Karen Hanson
7:30 P.M.
6.
Walt Mack
7:45 P.M.
7.
Roger Mack
8:05 P.M.
8.
Jim Miller
8:25 P.M.
9.
Sean Hancock
8:45 P.M.
10.
John Simola
9:05 P.M.
11.
Mark Irmiter
9:25 P.M.
12.
Rick Wolfsteller
9:45 P.M.
13.
Tom Eidem
10:05 P.M.
14.
Deliberation and Confirmation
10:25 P.M.
15.
Adjournment
10:45 P.M.
U
C
Lynnca Gillham
Receptionist/Payroll - Clerk
Present Salary $6.82 par hour
Suggested Increase .68 par hour
Now Rate $7.50 per hour
Years of Service - 12 years and
9 months
9.97•
Marlene Hellman
Clerk-Typiat/Secretary
Present Salary $5.95 per hour
Suggested Increase .68 Per hour
Now Rate 66.63 per hour
Years of Service - 1 year and
7 months
11.42%
Diane Jacobson
Deputy Registrar
Present Salary $6.65 par hour
Suggested Increase .68 per hour
NOW Rata $7.33 par hour
Yearsof Service - 2 years and
8 months
10.22%
Karen lianson
Senior Citizen Center Director
Present Salary $ 920 per month $11,040 per year
Suggested Increase 80 per month 960 per year
Now Rate $1,000 per month $12,000 per year
Years of Service - 10 years
id
8.6%
Walt Mack
Water Superintendent
Present Salary $1,729 per month $20,748 par year
Suggested Increase 150 Per month $ 1.800 par year
Now Rate $1,879 par month $22,548 par year
Years of Service - 14 years and
10 months
8.6%
Rvgor Mack
Strout Superintendent
proaent Salary $1,771 per month $21,252 par year
Suggested Inc roaso 150 per month 1.600 par year
Now Ante $1,921 par month $23,052 per year
yoars of Service - 14S yoora
8.46%
Jim stiller
Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent
Present Salary $1,775 per month 21,300 per year
Suggested increase 150 Por month 1,800 per year
Now Hate $1,925 par month $23,100 par year
Years of Service - 10 months
8.45%
John Simola
Public works Director
Present Salary $2,201 par month $26,412 per year
suggested Increase 185 Per month 2,220 par year
Now Rate $2,386 per month 628,632 per year
Years of Service - 3% years
6.40%
Mark Irmiter
Liquor Store Manager
Present Salary $2,044 per month $24,528 par year
Suggested Increase 165 Per month 2.220 Per roar
New Rate $2,229 per month $26,748 per year
Yeara of Service - 7 yoara
9.05♦
Rick Wolfateller
Finance Director
Present Salary ,$2,233.34 par month $26,800 per year
Suggested Increase 205.00 par month $ 2,460 per voar
Nov Rate $2,438.34 par month $29,260 per year
Years of Service - 7 yeara and
9 montha
9.17%
( Thomas Eidem
1 City Administrator
Present Salary $2,416.66 per month $29,000 per year
Suggested increase 205.00 per month 2,460 par voar
Now Rate $2,621.66 per month $31,060 per year
Years of Service - 95 months