Loading...
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