City Council Agenda Packet 05-28-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
i l Tuesday, May 28, 1965 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held May 13, 1985.
i
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Old Business
4. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract
for the Construction of the Monticolio Fire Hall.
5. Consideration of a Loaf Composting Site.
Now Business
6. Consideration of Variance Request Appeal to Allow an Additional
Sign to be Placed on an Existing Building Site - Applicant,
Davo Poterson's Ford.
7. Consideration of Preliminary Plan and Concept Plan for a Planned
Unit Development - Applicant, John Kornevlch.
B. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorizing
Advertisement for Bide for Sealeooting Project.
9. Consideration of Repairs to the Existing Water Towor.
10. Consideration Of Removing the Concrete Planters from Broadway
and Returning Ownership to the Monticello Rotary Club.
11. Consideration of Ratification of Mayoral Appointment(a) to
HRA.
12. Consideration of Bills for the Month of May.
13. Adjournment.
NOTE: THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY DUE TO MEMORIAL
DAY ON MONDAY.
n
With the expiration of the original tan year agreement between
the Township and the City regarding annexation. some recent
discussions have taken place between the Mayor and the Chairman
of the Town Board concerning the future course of the en-
tities involving the Orderly Annexation Area. The OAA area
is continually seeing development occur. primarily residential,
and it wag felt that the city is rapidly approaching the tints
where a decision should be sada concerning the annexation of
this area into the city to provide for orderly development
that would be suitable with the city's Comprehensive Plans.
-1-
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
May 13, 1985 - 7:30 P. M.
Members present: Mayor Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair,
Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1.
Call to Order.
2.
Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and
unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held April 22. 1985.
4.
Consideration of Awarding Contract for City Hall Roof
Repair Proiect.
Two bids were received and opened on Thursday. May 9, on
the city hall roof replacement project. The bids for the
complete replacement of the city hall roof were as follows:
Patton Roofing Company, Inc. $43.385.00
Fullerton Lumber Co. of Mpls. $36,160.00
�.�
The original estimate for the roof repair was estimated
to cost between $24.000 to $28,000, and as a result of the
high bids, it was the recommendation of the Building Inspector
that the city reject the two bids received and review
alternatives such as ra-bidding or the city becoming the
general contractor and bidding for labor only.
Motion was tmado by Blonlgen, seconded by Bill Fair and
unanimously carried to reject all bids received on the
city hall roof replacement project and to direct the building
Inspector to roview alternative actions available to the city.
S.
Consideration of Authorising the Mayor to Aeproach the Town
Board Concor nin% Certain Annexation, and Orderina Professional
i
Consultants to Commence Annexation Investigation.
With the expiration of the original tan year agreement between
the Township and the City regarding annexation. some recent
discussions have taken place between the Mayor and the Chairman
of the Town Board concerning the future course of the en-
tities involving the Orderly Annexation Area. The OAA area
is continually seeing development occur. primarily residential,
and it wag felt that the city is rapidly approaching the tints
where a decision should be sada concerning the annexation of
this area into the city to provide for orderly development
that would be suitable with the city's Comprehensive Plans.
-1-
Council Minutes - May 13, 1985
Additionally, the city is reviewing the possibility of
constructing a water reservoir which is currently being
proposed to be located in the OAA area and as a result
_
the time for considering annexation appears imminent.
Mayor Crimsmo and Councilman Blonigen felt that with the
existing development that is occurring in the OAA area, the
city should begin discussions on annexation of this area
to help control and regulate residential lot sizes, etc. in
order to provide for future utility expansion.
Mr. John Sandberg, partner in the Tyler East residential
sub -division in the OAA area and also majority owner of the
Halliger tree farm property adjacent to the city limits.
submitted a letter to the council indicating support for
annexation.
After further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair,
seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize
the Mayor to approach the Town Board concerning annexation
of the OAA area into the city and also authorize the city's
professional consultants consisting of city engineer and
city planner to begin the analysis of the area to be con-
sidered for annexation.
r'
6. Consideration of Change Order 03 on the County Road 75 Protect.
As part of the County Road 75 project, approximately 19 man holes
were to be removed during construction and re -act in concrete.
In order to facilitate easier readjustment of man hole covers
at a later date, it was recommended by the Public Works
Director that the city install new adjustable man hole
castings to replace the old castings which were set in concrete.
The cost of the castings is approximately $200 each which the
city would purchase separately, but an additional change
order would be requir6 for $75 installation for each man
hole with Buffalo Bituminous, the contractor.
Motion was made by Maxwoll, seconded by Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve change order 13 on the County Road 75 project
with Buffalo Bituminous in the amount of $1,623.00 for the
estimated 19 man holo coatings to be installed.
7. Consideration of Force Main on Chestnut Street from 3rd Street
through Broadway.
During the major 77-3 Street Project, Chestnut Street between River
Street and Broadway was left unfinished to allow for the
future construction of a 10" force main that would connect
I
the lift station with the anticipated Interceptor sewer line
south of Broadway. Because of the current Broadway re -paving
project, It was recommended by the Public Warks Director that
the the city consider installing that segment of force main
0
Council Minutes - 5/13/85
under Broadway at the present time while the street is torn
up to eliminate cutting up the pavement at a later date.
The Public Works Director has negotiated a price from La Tour
Construction of Maple Lake to install the force main at a
Lprice of $4,860.00 for equipment and labor. The city would
purchase the necessary pipe and fittings at a cost of ap-
proximately $4,900.00 making the total project $9,487.00.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and
unanimously carried to authorize entering into a contract
with LaTour Construction of Maple Lake to install the
small section of force main under Broadway in the amount of
$4,860.00 and to authorize the purchase of materials necessary
estimated at $4,924.00.
8. Consideration of Authorizing Increasing Payment to Corrow
Sanitation to Off -Set New Landfill Taxes.
Representatives of Corrow Sanitation, the city's garbage
contract hauler, approached the council requesting a rate
increase to off -set the cost of the newly enacted land fill
tax which Wright County recently imposed at 90C per cubic yard
of municipal refuse. In addition to the 90C per yard tax,
Corrow Sanitation requested an additional 60C per cubic yard
becnuse of increased land fill dumping charges that have
occurred over the past year and one half. The average
monthly cubic yards hauled from the city of Monticello to
the land fills was estimated at 720, which would result in
1 a total monthly increase of $1,080.
Mr
Although the estimated 720 cubic yards a month was accumulated
by using past records, considerable discussion was hold by
the council concerning future monthly records that would
establish a more accurate monthly total, especially since
the city to considering establishing a compost site which
may eliminate some yardage from leaves, etc.
It woo noted by the City Administrator that the agenda item
before the council was intended to deal strictly with increased
cost imposed by Wright County as a tax which was only 90C
per cubic yard, and suggested that if additional increases
were to be considered, a complete renegotiation of the contract
would be preferroblo. Although various methods were discussed
regarding how to accurately determine Corrow, Sanitation's
increase in cost, it was the general consensus of the Council
the $1,080 a month increase would be granted for a six month
period of time which would enable the council at that time
to review records to Indicate whether the Increnae granted
was excessive or not.
As a result, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill
Fair and unanimously carried to grant Corrow Sanitation an
Increase of $1,080 or $1.50 per estimated cubic yard hauled
per month for a six month period of time at which' time the
records will bo reviewed in regard to tonnage hauled and
pouslble ronegotintiong of their existing contract with the D
city.
-7-
Council Minutes - 5113/85
- 9. Consideration of Authorizing the Acquisition of a New
Photocopying Machine for City Rall.
Recently, the city staff has been evaluating two copy machines
from area vendors which included a Savin 7035 and a Ricoh
5070. The Savin photo copier is supplied by Marco Business
Products of St. Cloud and the Ricoh machine is supplied by
Metro Sales of Minneapolis. The machines are similar in
design and capabilities and actually the Savin is made by
Ricoh.
The cost comparison was presented to the council on both
machines under three options which included outright purchase,
a three year lease at which time the city would own the
machine for one dollar extra and one year rental agreements.
Cost -wise, the machines were very close In price, with the
Ricoh machine being cheaper to rent, but if purchased, the
Sevin would be slightly cheaper with an annual maintenance
agreement than the Ricoh model. Due to the relatively short
life span of copying machines, the city normally in the past
has only gotten three to four years use out of these machines
before major problems arise.
It is recommended by the staff that the city consider renting
the Ricoh machine from Metro Sales at a monthly cost of $430.79.
which would include all the supplies necessary. Outright
purchaso of the Ricoh machine with a maintenance agreement
would total $9,838.00 versus the Savin purchase price with
maintenance agreement of $9,796.00.
Since the post practice has been for the city hall copy
machine to be shifted to other various departments. such as
public works, wastewater treatment plant or senior eititens
center nfter large volume copying Is no longer economical, it
was the council's consensus they should continue to purchase
outright a new copying machine, thus allowing for future
filtering of the machines to other departments with lesser
usage requirements. A rental agreement would not provide
this option for the city.
Motion made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously
carried to authorize purchase of a Savin 7035 copy machine
from Marco Business Products at a coat of $9,046.31 with a
maintenance agreement totaling approximately $750.00 annually.
10. Review of let Qunrtnr Liquor Stora Financial Statements.
Mr. Mark trotter, manager of the municipal off -sale liquor
store, was present and reviewed with the council the let
quarter liquor financial statements for 1985. Mr. trotter
noted that the sales and resulting gross profit had decreased
!J slightly from 1984 tat quarter figures. A short*discuasion
was held regarding the pricing policies that may have resulted
In the lower groes profit pertentagee which Mr. Trott ar felt
were due to increasing consumption of loss leader items. a
a- ,pj
Council Minutes - 5/17/85
After reviewing; the statements, the report Was accepted as
presented.
11. Additional Department Head Quarterly Reports.
The following department heads Were present and discussed
With the council quarterly progress reports.
Karen Hanson, Senior Citizen Director
Mike Melstad, YMCA Coordinator
Cary Anderson, Building Inspector
Allen Pelvic, Economic Development Director
Officer Lindell, Wright County Sheriff Dept.
John Simola, Public Works Director
Richard Wolfsteller, Finance Directcr
After discussion With each department head, the reports were
accep ted.
Rick Wolfsteller
Assistant Administrator
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
3. Citizen Comments — Clarification of Recent Planning Commission
Variances Granted to Doug Stokes. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you may recall, Mr. Doug Stokes appealed the Planning Commission -a
denial of his request for a variance to allow a garage to be built
within his front yard at the April 22 Council meeting. The Council
reaffirmed the denial because of the setback being within 10 feet
of the front property line and also because the garage was larger
than 1000 sq. ft. Mr. Stokes was advised that if he wished to
revise his original request, he could reapply to the Planning Commission,
which he did at their May 14 meeting.
Mr. Stokes presented to the Planning Commission a revised proposal
still requesting that the garage be allowed in the front yard but
proposed to place the garage 4 feet from the house and 27 feet
from the front property line. During the Planning Commission reconsideration
of his request, a compromise was reached between the applicant
and the Planning Commission whereby the garage would be located
5 foot from the house and be down sized to a 26' x 38' structure
which would meet the 1000 sq. ft. maximum requirement; and as a
result, the front setback would be currently 32 feet according
to the figures provided by Mr. Stokes. The Planning Commission,
after considerable discussion, felt this would be an acceptable
solution in that the front yard setback would moot the current
City ordlnanca requirement of 30 feat, and the garage structure
would be loss than 1000 sq. ft.
The reason this item is now again being brought before the Council
under the Citizens Comments is that Public works Director, John
Simola, and Gary Anderson reviewed the site and took soma measurements
and did not tomo up with the Gama front yard footagoo that Mr.
Stokes indicated in his proposal to the Planning Commission. The
variance granted for the garage according to the figures provided
by Mr. Stokes indicated there was 96 fact from the front of hie
house to the front property lino; but in actuality, there is only
91 foot. If the 26 foot vide garage along with a 5 foot setback
from the house is granted, the setback will not be 32 foot as initially
thought by the Planning Commission but approximatoly 26 or 27 foot.
In an effort to eventually resolve this request, it is being brought
before the Council once again.
it Is still the opinion of the City staff that at least a 30 -foot
minimum setback should be required if a garage is going to be allowed
in the front yard because of the potential widening of County Road 39
by the County Highway Department in the near future. As you will
recall, the County is proposing to acquire approximately a 12 -foot
additional right of we)- which would bring the setback in the future
to only 20 foot; and if now the garage is placed at only 26 or
27 foot from the front property lino, that distanco will shorten
to 15 foot. It appears from the discussions John and Gary have
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
had with Mr. Stokes, he has not indicated whether he will reduce
the size of his garage to 21 fact or attach the garage to the house
to still meet the 32 -foot setback approved by the Planning Commission.
This discrepancy in Mr. Stokes' figures and in the actual footage
determined by the Public Works Director did not come to the City's
attention until Friday morning, and it was felt that this discrepancy
should be resolved prior to Mr. Stokes actually requesting a building
permit based on the Planning Commission's approval.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative #1 would be to allow Mr. Stokes to build a garage
according to the Planning Commission's variances granted requiring
the garage to be 5 feet from the adjoining house and 32 feet
setback from the property line, which would result in the garage
being down sized additionally to only a 21 foot width to meet
all of these requirements.
2. Alternative 02 would be to allow the garage to be placed 30
foot from the front property lino, 5 foot from the house, resulting
in a 24 foot wide garage structure.
3. Alternative #3 would be to require the garage to be attached
to the house, maintain the 32 -foot front yard setback distance
approved by the Planning Commission, which would result in
Mr. Stokes being allowed to build his 26 foot wide garage as
initially granted by the Planning Commission.
4. Alternative #4 would be to reverse the Planning Commission's
variances granted, including allowing a building to be placed
in the front yard based on erroneous information or any compromise
from the above alternates.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Relying on the information supplied by the applicant in regards
to his setback distances from his property lino, it was felt by
the staff that the Planning Commission had arrived at a suitable
solution for Mr. Stokes' proposal with the building being setback
32 foot from the existing property lino. Now that it has boon
dotorminod that there is approximately 6 foot lose front yard setback
than indicated by Mr. Stokes, the staff rocommands that if the
building is allowed in the front yard, it should either be attached
to the house if it remains 26 foot wide to provide the minimum
32 foot cotback, or Mr. Stokae should be required to reduce the
width of the garage to whatever is necessary to maintain a 32 -foot
setback. Anything placed much closer than 32 foot could eventually
cause problems since the City is aware of the County's plan to
obtain 12 foot of additional right of way from the property owner.
Additionally, it is recommended that Mr. Stokes be required to
provide a Certificate of Survey that would indicate exact placement
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
of the house in distance from the front property line before any
building permit is issued.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Planning Commission minutes of May 14; Copy of Mr. Stokes -
revised plot plan requesting a 27 foot setback; Copy of plot plan
prepared by Gary Anderson indicating dimensions necessary to meet
the minimum 30 foot setback, leaving 2 feet between the house and
garage.
C
W.S.5 ; s S. i Ilf i
L.'a
16
H IH
loo,
SiakeT
l
Car
zz
to
7-V
n.
CO. P14
loo,
Planning Commission'lMinutes - 5/14/85
V
G
r _
Public Searing_- A Variance Request to Allow 1) a Garage to be
Pieced in the Front Tard or -a Lot; 2) the Garage to be Placed in
the Front Setback Requiremeat; 1) the Garage to be Placed Within
10 feet of Another Building; 4) the Gara90 to be Built in Excess
of 1000 sq. ft. - Applicant, Douglas Stokes.
Mr. Stokes was present to propose his request for the 4 variances
noted above. Mr. Stokes indicated he had, from his previous request,
moved the garage back to within 4 foot of his house and also within
27 feet of the front property line. Mr. Troy Chapman, current
resident two properties north of Mr. Stokes' property, was present
to explain to Commission members that in 1980 he was allowed to
put up a garage in his front yard, and he didn't see any problem
with Mr. Stokes' request to build a garage in the front of his
property. Mr. Chapman also indicated he was in full support of
Mr. Stokes' request for the variance and that the garage he constructed
was not big enough to suit his needs. City Administrator, Thomas
Sides. indicated to Pleasing Commission seeders that even though
Mr. stoUs' property trusts on test County Road 19, the Mississippi
River really 1s the trent part of his house. Actually. Mr. Stokes'
request Is to allow a persue to be built on the rear of his property
with his hoose actually treating toward the Mississippi River.
• In good planning. you 60 not try to Obscure any wiilon from the
Mississippi elver if at all possible. Mr. Rides did Indicate he
could not support the Road for all tour variances, but he could
support possibly two of the variances It Mr. Stokes would reduce
his garage site to a 26' x 18' garage, which would be just under
the mximm 1000 sq. ft. allowed. In doing so, he would also maintain
5 feet from the adjoining house, and he would also be within 72
toot of the front property line. This information was proposed
to Mr. Stokes. He did not like to be undersized on his garage
to under t000 sq. ft., but he said he could live with the proposal
as submitted by Mr. Sides.
Motion by Dick Martie, seconded by Rd Schaffer, to approve a variance
request to 1) allow a garage to be built in the front yard of a
property; and 2) to allow a garage to be placed within 5 feet of
another building. Also, when the garage is constructed within
5 feet of the house, the walls within 10 feet of the property must
be shoetrockod and fire rated.
TMXTIONS TO_AMICANT
'"ll
►O" NCCO NOT O[ vaso NtCN KOT •LANA ORAVN TO $CAL$ AMC IACD VITN TN[ REKNIT APPLICATIOri.
10... f4IL0i N0l. 61,4410[ TNL t81LOVTnO iM/OtblATiONt LOCATION of ♦RD►O7C0 CONSTRUCTION ANO Cxt$TINO
1M/ROVCMtM7s. 7NOV 041LDIN0 71T[ AMC 7CTO/CR OINCHSIONa, $NOV CASNCNT7, rINISN CONTOURS OR ORAINAOC.
'"IRai ?LOOS CLCYA1/909. 714991 CL[YATION ANO OCVCR CLTTATIAN♦ .SNOv LOCATION O/ VATCR. ACVC.. MAL.
WO 'ClL CIAICAL 7[RY ICC LINCO. ONOV LOGATION7 O/ fURr" ►INR. !►[CIrY TN[ 4SC O/ CA.04 OUILOINO
,NO ACM NA.10R TONT ION TN[RCOt.
INOICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE EACH r,RAPH S)UARE EQUALS IOTA" IIY 10-.0"
m
µtrortc�s .,i1���;•
PERMIT Wall
lEGAL:••�: '•
N.00R ADDITION
',CSCRIPYION AOT'''
50. ET. Ot 31TE ARCA
44, n. Of ARCA OCCUPIED BY BUILOiNO
TMXTIONS TO_AMICANT
'"ll
►O" NCCO NOT O[ vaso NtCN KOT •LANA ORAVN TO $CAL$ AMC IACD VITN TN[ REKNIT APPLICATIOri.
10... f4IL0i N0l. 61,4410[ TNL t81LOVTnO iM/OtblATiONt LOCATION of ♦RD►O7C0 CONSTRUCTION ANO Cxt$TINO
1M/ROVCMtM7s. 7NOV 041LDIN0 71T[ AMC 7CTO/CR OINCHSIONa, $NOV CASNCNT7, rINISN CONTOURS OR ORAINAOC.
'"IRai ?LOOS CLCYA1/909. 714991 CL[YATION ANO OCVCR CLTTATIAN♦ .SNOv LOCATION O/ VATCR. ACVC.. MAL.
WO 'ClL CIAICAL 7[RY ICC LINCO. ONOV LOGATION7 O/ fURr" ►INR. !►[CIrY TN[ 4SC O/ CA.04 OUILOINO
,NO ACM NA.10R TONT ION TN[RCOt.
INOICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE EACH r,RAPH S)UARE EQUALS IOTA" IIY 10-.0"
i/WI ttrlllT tMi IAO CNOMIM OORit.YnWA �iO sR1Mw tO titt AtnNgNM i1U6 tlort RN.,.n NM.t Aro tn.t ti rnxryrs w n .w ry �.,....n
lotlMUNlIry tAAtw7L ., ,.
�TOtftT4tR"t7t'DU1RTr . .... ,...0'Oa 'NC1'0C6CRT'CTITC"
toot•.Gto.o.000GO.GAGGotN7CTGofoGOO.000tGO As* .toG.flo{ 60a@..ftea As.*$.tGoo.f.G 0 G. l.. tl tlf!l G.oG too/Goof!,
ITOA wtT uu wLT
!lN[O APIOVEO OT WE.
• 1 4-�
9
m
C
■
i/WI ttrlllT tMi IAO CNOMIM OORit.YnWA �iO sR1Mw tO titt AtnNgNM i1U6 tlort RN.,.n NM.t Aro tn.t ti rnxryrs w n .w ry �.,....n
lotlMUNlIry tAAtw7L ., ,.
�TOtftT4tR"t7t'DU1RTr . .... ,...0'Oa 'NC1'0C6CRT'CTITC"
toot•.Gto.o.000GO.GAGGotN7CTGofoGOO.000tGO As* .toG.flo{ 60a@..ftea As.*$.tGoo.f.G 0 G. l.. tl tlf!l G.oG too/Goof!,
ITOA wtT uu wLT
!lN[O APIOVEO OT WE.
• 1 4-�
9
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
4. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Bid and P.wardinq Contract
for the Construction of the Monticello Fire Hall. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On Tuesday, May 21, 1985, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
we opened five bids for the construction of the Fire Hall. TKDA
indicated that more than 20 firms picked up copies of plans and
specifications, and that as of the Monday prior to the bid opening,
12 firms indicated they would be submitting bids. At the actual
bid opening time, there were five bidders. At the insistence of
the Fire Hall Building Committee, the bid form included certain
additional information. The bidder had to state who would be the
subcontractors selected for mechanical, plumbing, and electrical
work. The bidder also had to submit a list of names of local potential
subcontractors who they had at least made contact with regarding
the job. We could not, under free enterprise laws, require that
a bidder use a local subcontractor, but we were able to ensure
that local contractors' were contacted with respect to the job.
All bidders met the requirement of contacting local potential subcontractors.
The summary of the bide is as follows: (Actual bid shoots are
included under supporting documentation.)
Fullerton Lumber Company $456,900.00
Paterson Construction $475,000.00
Torwiescho Construction, Inc. 5499,450.00
W. Gohman Construction Co. $525,180.00
Groat River Construction, Inc. $607,500.00
As you can sea, Fullerton Lumber Company appears to be the lowest
responsible bidder. At the conclusion of the bid opening, all
information was returned to the offices of TKDA to do a detailed
investigation. Debra Lonsky, the project architect , requested
the datailod statement of quantities in order to evaluate accuracy
of projections. She further requostod a complete rasumo on the
suporintandant who would be assigned to the job. She requested
a list of throo other buildings Fullerton Lumbar had crocted in
this approximate price range and the project architects for those
jobs. She intends to have the complete investigation done by Tuesday
night so that a dotormination of responsible bidder can be made.
At this point, wo do not anticipate any severe problems with them
being the lowest responsible bidder. Ono final nor -0: We originally
anticipated building construction to be in the $490,000.00 range,
and that figure escalated as the Building Committee made alterations
and changes and additions to the proposal. The last estieato of
the architect was projected to be approximately $515,000.00. This
bid figure does not, however, reflect the underground drainage
and landscape work which is being undortakon by the City, nor tho
carpeting and certain other amonitieo which will be bid ooparatoly
by the City. I anticipate we will still be substantially undor
lthe architoctla estimate even when wo have provided our own in-houso
00 co a.
an
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
l B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
'l 1. Adopt the resolution accepting the bid and authorize the execution
of a contract.
2. Make a finding and determination that the lowest bidder is
not the lowest responsible bidder, and adopt a resolution accepting
the next lowest bidder and authorize the execution of a contract -
The determining factor in responsible bidder is crucial. The
Council must be able to state clear and distinct rationale
why the lowest bidder is not also the lowest responsible bidder.
The investigation of lowest bidder's credentials must turn
up that data. we do not really anticipate that kind of a challenge.
3. Reject all bids and re -advertise - This does not seem realistic
since we have, in fact, come in under the budget projection
and seem to have reasonable bids based on all our preliminary
expectations.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be accepted and the contract authorized,
providing that the investigation does not turn up anything unusual.
Contract execution may take as long as two weeks, but certainly
no more than that, and we can anticipate conrtruction being underway
within 21 days. The lowest bidder at this point has stipulated
in its bid that the structure will be substantially complete within
240 calendar days (8 months).
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the bid tabulation shoot; Copy of the individual bidding
shoots; Copy of the resolution.
-2-
MONTICELLO FIRE STATION
Monticello. Minnesota I
1
)Bid Date: 21 -May -85 3:00r
AgGAndg , �utiateu►tla Blid ' ,
CONTRACTOR Received 2 Base Sid Alternate Complete 1Setwity Ramarkd:
gel's Construction Co.. Inc.
Fullerton lumber Company xx
N. Gohman Construction Co. xx
Gopher State Contractors, Inc.
Great River Construction Inc. xx
flew Creations Industries, Inc.
Peters Construction
Peterson Construction xx
Cy Reinert Construction, Inc.
Jim Schlei f Hone S Commerical Bldc
lerwissche Construction, Inc. xx
Veit Construction, Inc.
TABULATION OF
456,900.00 Bono 240 5%
525,180.00 pons 240 5% 1
607,500.00 Nona 240 5•
475,000.00 Nona
199,450.00 Non*
j
BIDS
240 A
150
I
5%
i !
I 1 "
ti:J COMMISSION NUMBER 8281
.TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, , ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATFn
RESOLUTION 1985 6
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A BID AND AUTHORIZING
THE ENTERING OF A CONTRACT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE MORTICELIq FIRE STATION
WHEREAS, pursuant to an Advertisement for Bids for the construction
of the Monticello Fire Hall, bids were received, opened, and tabulated
according to law, and the following bids wore received complying
with the advertisement:
Fullerton Lumber Company $456,900.00
Petorson Construction $475,000.00
Terwissche Construction, Inc. $499,450.00
W. Gohman Construction Co. $525,180.00
Great River Construction, Inc. $607,500.00
and; WHEREAS, it appears that Fullerton Lumber Company of
Buftalo is the lowest responsible bidder,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO.
MINNESOTA:
1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized
and directed to enter into the attached contract with
Fullerton Lumber Company of Buffalo, Minnesota, in the
name of the City of Monticello, Minnesota for the construction
of the Monticello Fire Hall according to the plans and
opocificationo therefor approved by the City Council and
on file In the office of the City Administrator.
2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed
to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with
their bids, except that the deposits of the successful
bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until
a contract has boon signed.
Adopted by the City Council this 28th day of May, 1905.
Arvo A. Grimemo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eidom
City Administrator
0
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
C5. Consideration of Leaf Composting Site. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Earlier this year, I discussed with the City Council the possibility
of a City owned leaf composting facility. This facility would
be used for composting leaf and grass clippings so that they may
be taken out of the waste stream which goes to our landfills.
In addition, the compost material, after a period of 18-24 months,
would be utilized on City projects and by reaidents as well. At
that time, the Council consensus was for the Public Works Director
to proceed along the linea of preparing drawings and cost estimates
for the site and also to begin working on the pick up and/or delivery
of materials to the site.
During the last meeting, it was noted that Corrow Sanitation indicated
that leaves and grass clippings could amount up to 208 of the waste
stream for the City of Monticello. I feel this figure may be somewhat
inflated and realistically, we could hope to remove lees than 108
from the waste stream with a well-run leaf and grass clipping compost
program. Mr. Corrow indicates that we have about 8,640 cubic yards
of refuse each year from the City of Monticello. It is my opinion
that a compost facility with the capacity of 700 cubic yards per
year, or approximately 88 of our waste stream, would be more than
adequate for the City of Monticello. The facility would need enough
storage for a three pile system, or a capacity for three years
of storage.
As discussed oarlior, we have selected a piece of property at the
City material storage site off West River Street for the proposed
loaf compost site. The western portion of our dump site has a
66 foot public road right of way and is bordered on the west by
a donso growth of evergreens. We originally anticipated utilizing
a central gravel access road with pilau on both aides. After taking
measurements at the site, it appoara that we would only be able to use
a ono aide access. With the configuration shown on the anclosod
drawing, we would be utilizing a strip of City property approximately
80' x 400', and a piece of County property approximately 80' x 173'.
We would have to relocate some existing fencing at the site and
install come of the City's salvaged fencing from other projects.
In addition, we would need to place about 4 inches of Class V on
the roadway to provide an all weathor surface for our access in
the early spring and late fall. This accoou road would also Incorporate
a turn around or cul-de-sac at the north and for turning around
trailers and ouch.
Our expected costs for Class V, signing, and fencing aro approximately
31 200.00. utilizing salvaged materials whore possible. In addition,
it would take approximately five or six days of City manpower to
complete the project. At this Limo, we request the Council's formal
Cacceptance of the site selection and roquast that the City request
QED
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
a lease of a portion of the County park, 173' x 80% for the purposes
of operating a leaf compoeting facility.
Upon acceptance or approval by the County, we will begin further
work in the area of transportation of the leaves to the site.
Work could begin in August on the site so that it would be ready
for the first fall pick up.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative #1 would be to build the leaf composting site as
proposed using a portion of the City property and a portion
of the County park property.
2. Alternative #2 would be to select an alternate site someplace
in the City for the composting facility.
3. Alternative 13 would be not to construct a leaf composting
facility and continue hauling the leaves to the landfill.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that we proceed
as outlined in Alternative 41.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map of proposed leaf compost site.
-4-
n
O
n �
T
ri
OU
�r
Lr t:1 Yr -� C
/ r3Ort \ / o
el 70A CUbrC YA ROS } 1 700 CUBIC Y4F05� l 700 CUr IC YAFOS
�.-` f*--GRAVEI ACCESS ROAO�h ` I!
U) '< \..i
y l n
-{ _n C
n
0
u � v
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
`l.. 6. Consideration of Variance Request Appeal to Allow an Additional
Sign to be Placed on an Existing Building Site - Applicant, Dave
Peterson's Ford. (G.A.)
C)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Dave Paterson, owner of Dave Peterson's Ford, is proposing
to place an additional pylon sign on his property. The location
for the proposed pylon sign would be immediately to the right,
approximately 10-15 feet north, of the main driveway entrance.
On November 7, 1977, a public hearing was held and a variance was
granted to allow two pylon signs on the proposed now Monticello
Ford building site. Mr. Peterson is proposing the additional sign
to display the "Ford Truck" sign. Mr. Peterson is proposing the
amount of signage that other Ford dealerships have in the area.
The proposed now pylon sign would be very close in size to the
existing Monticello Ford Mercury pylon sign.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow an additional pylon sign
to be constructed on an existing building site.
2. Deny the variance request to allow an additional pylon sign
to be placed on an existing building site.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends denial of the variance request for the following
reasons: 1) City staff, Planning Commission, and City Council
have gone to groat lengths to establish the sign ordinance. By
allowing additional pylon signs or additional sign footage merely
makes the ordinance more non -conforming. 2) We would, however,
suggest that we go with one pylon sign to accommodate his existing
Monticello Ford pylon sign and incorporate into it hie Used Car
pylon sign and his proposed Truck pylon oign. A combination of
all three signs on one pylon would seem more appropriate then allowing
three separate pylon signs. 3) We could also look at some type
of variance for additional square footage of the pylon sign should
those three signs be incorporated into one.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the variance request; Copy of
the site plan showing the location of the proposed now Truck pylon
sign.
-5-
I C44 WAY
LIM
-RA
MO. 94
r �� �ti � ice, -�'• t' / r �••� �• /
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/14/85
6. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow an Additional Sign
to be Placed on Existing Buildinq Site - Applicant, Dave Paterson Ford.
A axle—n from Dave Peterson Ford was present to propose an additional
pylon sign request. He indicated they currently have a leased
sign from ford Motor Corporation which indicates the Ford Mercury
dealarehl.p, and they also have an additional pylon sign which has
"Used Aurowblles• on it. He in requesting an additional pylon
sign on which to put `Ford Trucks.- The dealership before Mr.
Paterson bought it was granted a variance for an additional pylon
sign. Conmisalon members questioned no to why the signs could
not be incorporated into one sign, and the gentleman indicated
that the main Ford Mercury sign Is owned by Ford Corporation and
will not allow any other signs to be attached. The gentleman indicated
other dealerships around which do have two or more pylon signs,
and he in not asking for any more than what the other dealerships
have. A major pert of their business is the visual signage, and
they would like to attract people from east and wast on the freeway.
Motion by Dick Marti$, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to deny the variance
request to allow an additional pylon sign. Motion carried unanimously,
with Joyce Dowling absent.
0
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
7. Consideration of Preliminary Plan and Concept Plan for a Planned
Unit Development - Applicant, John Kornovich. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. John Kornovich is proposing to replat the existing unplatted
land adjacent immediately west of the existing Northern States
Power building, which is adjacent to our City Maintenance Shop.
In replatting this land, he is proposing a Planned Unit Development
which would consist of 3.94 acres. He is proposing to build five
buildings, of which four will be 12 -unit buildings and one will
be an 8 -unit building. All buildings will consist of one 2 -bedroom
handicapped unit, with the remaining units in each building being
2 -bedroom units. On the concept plan you will note the proposed
locations of the five apartment building sites with the garage
spaces and the open parking areas. Each apartment building unit
contains the minimum number of garage spaces with the minimum number
of open parking spaces as required by ordinance. City staff has
reviewed the entire concept plan which has been submitted. Enclosed
you will find further detailed information on each of the apartment
unite and how they are run. This is explained in the enclosed
packet as part of their concept stage requirement.
We will be receiving by Tuesday night a copy of a newly proposed
concept plan request in which they are reducing the total number
of unite to 48 total unite, which will consist of four 12 -unit
buildings. The reason for the now proposal is to allow more green
area around the buildings to facilitate more openness within the
development. City staff will be reviewing those on Tuesday, and
any comments will be brought up at the meeting Tuesday night.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plan and the concept plan request for
a Planned Unit Development.
2. Deny the preliminary plan and the concept plan request for
a Planned Unit Development.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan and the concept
plan for a Planned Unit Development. City staff has reviewed the
entire preliminary plan and concept plan of this proposed Planned
Unit Development. Wo have found everything to be in order for
the concept stage and have already made suggestive comments to
them on what we would like to sea for a proposed development stage
should they got to that point. We will be reviewing the now proposal
from the dovolopors down scaling of the project from 56 unite to
48 units and will got that information to you on Tuesday night.
CD. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed preliminary plan and concept plan; Copy of
the site plan showing location; Copy of the report from Dahlgran,
Shardlow and Uban, Inc.; Copy of report from OSM; Copy of minutes
of the Monticello Planning Commission.
-6-
I ' I
CONCEPT PLAN
KAW PA
I � / •��� � .\ w u M w�� rw.. r�r u r� r...�. rr
1—IIT - COUNTt Mt`J-
39
••s� w
_ RUYBCR
I ' I I I I ••��' wuhAlWM-mvratrn.Ota
I I I ..o m ran.,,os
00
I
`� l
CONCEPT PLAN
NUMM 39
� � � -�. �..+�... 1fe11e n�`lILTf aMle • -
I
M.
CONCEPT PLAN
C"Prit a APPLICANT
ATTO."lly
A,CYw Mi
cl
A
AAAAA..
WRMANSOM-KOMMON,
cmmcn -
It aoum
C. i
A Concept Plan an4 prolloinary -Plan a Iqu"t
for a Planned Unit DevslcPbmt-
JohnIoMoviCh-
C',
m
MEMO FROM JOHN USAN
The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be single family
and the area adjacent to the west and to the south are existing
single family; in fact that the area is served by a single family
public road, namely Kampa Circle. This road abuts the property.
This particular plan beforth for the Golf Course Road apartments
backs into that area and does not gain any access on Kampa Circle.
it gains access only from County Highway 039. We think that the
city needs to look at whether or not they want apartments in this
area, and how the existing and not completed Kampa Estates is
completed should portions of this property be single family so that
we have a roar yard single family running into a rear yard multiple
family which is the preferred situation versus having an entrance
to a single family area having them share the back aide of a bunch
of garages with the apartments. I think that's a basic concept
program which will have to be revued. It will include additional
land to the cast and what will be the eventual use of the subject
property.
Aftor making that decision on whether or not this area should be
single family or multiple, the next question in compliance with
various parte of the building ordinance. The area is zoned . I believe
R-2. i know the city has been contemplating some changes, so I don't
know if I have the latest Information on that which allows a certain
amount of multiple, and actually maybe it's zoned R-3. I'm not sure
about that. Their plan says R-3, and maybe I mis-read my own map,
but it's either R-3 or R-2.
The first thing, there is a vet -land - it shove a wot-lend to the
north in the property - adjacent to the rail road track, wh 1ch forma a good
buffer between the rail road and any future buildingo. I understand
that this is not an official wet land in which case It does not have to
adhere to the various outbarko and other erosion control and other measures
that are talked about in the ordinance.
The pian itself the shows buildings on the steep wooded slopes backing
into this vet land in dutall that treatment grading the con otructlon
of those buildingo should be carefully looked at to prosory o as much
of the wet land system and control of erosion as much as poosiblo.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
By ordinance, accessory buildings cannot exceed 1,000 square test. and
we have many that exceed over 3,000 aq. ft. which means that moat of
th000 garagoo can only be clustered in a to 6 stalls depand ing On the
actual size. So one of the goragon in particular should be broken up
Building heights by ordinance 3 three story buildings, which I believe
all of theme will be, aro allowed only by conditional use permit and
must have a fire extinguishing system inside the building. This has to
be noted that the conditional use permit process has to be adhorrad to
{ and all those requirements and reviswsby the city.
Lei
Also, they are proposing what appears to be all 2 bedroom apartments
which by square footage on a per unit basic they are under sized so
as detailed plane are made available adherence to the minimum sized
unit should be viewed and a decision for any kind of variance from
that should be quite specific and there should be a specific reason,
low rent or something - some sort of a reason for it.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION
There are a variety cf things here. There really seems to be a lot of
road that is not very efficiently used. The lay out of the buildings
and the garage and the parking, really the whole plan should be re-
viewed and tackled again, I think and a better plan certainly could be
developed for this parcel. Some of the problem we found was for
instance the distance between parking stalls and garages. The care
backing out of the garages would pull right out into lanes of traffic
that are circulating within the development searching for parking stalls.
People, an they pull out of the garage, are blinded on both sides, and
of course can't see until they are fully out of the garage itself.
This causes safety problems both for pedestrians and cars moving in that
area, so we think that there needs to more area in front of each one of
the garages for the safe movement of traffic. The other thing is there
are some parking stalls between garages and those people have the came
problem -- not enough room for doors to open against the garage and also
they will be blinded as they try to pull out from behind the garage
Into traffic. The parking stalls -- some of them on the cant aide, in
particular, when they are doad-ended, being that there is no through
✓) circulation within the parking system. There is soma difficulty for
the last stall to back out and turn to get out of that parking area;
there in no extra area for turning movement. The slopes on come of
the parking areas on the north and arc steep and will cause slippery
conditions when covered with ico and snow. There is no walk detailed,
but in many casae It appears that care will pull over - over hang of
the car will impair movement to pedestrians between building and parked
care. This relationship seems to quite tight. In come areas whore
parking comes together - whore front ends of parked caro aro parking
against the sides of care -- this Is not a gond practice. Cars should
either touch front and to front and or have enough planting area or
curbing to separate them completely -- you got a lot of damage to care
that way.
GRADING
Looks like moot of it - the whole sight - is graded without catch baeine
to the north and and then just dumps off In come fashion across the atoop
slopes and than into the wet land. we foul that there in a groat deal
of potential for erosion and for icy opots within the development.
SET -RACKS
My review of the ordinance shows a not back required along the aide
property, especially when it is zoned R-1 adjacent to this area for
parking of 20 foot along aide yard and in soma areas it gets down to
1 to 2 foot. The relationship between the buildings should be looked
at between acc0000ry garages and the units thcmoolves. It would be
best if It could be arranged no that the garages had direct walks
C
C
that led to each unit that It served which isn't the case in all
respects here, so people don't have to croon through parking iota,
etc. to get to their units after they park their car.
We have measured the driveway and we think we will have over 500 feet
of under utilized driveway that could be converted to a more attractive
design or more open space and still meet the basic requirements of
the ordinance. I guess the general comment would be rather than to
Just put buildings in sort of an asphalt ring to try to consolidate
the asphalt in one place - maybe one single parking area - with the
buildings surrounding it. This may work out a little better for
this kind of apartment building.
Those are general commenta: I think on the concept I'll follow this
up with our memo and we understand that more information will come
in the future.
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
May 13. 1985
Mr. Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Concept Plan
Montt Partnership
Dear Gary:
The concept plan for the Monti Partnership located on C.A.S.H. 39 consisting of
five (5) apartment buildings has been reviewed, and I offer the following
comments.
The plan, as presented. Is very basic in nature with little detail provided at
this time. General drainage is shown as well as basic contours. The driveways
and parking areas will need to be refined at the preliminary and final stage of
development to show curbing and how the drainage will be conveyed across drive-
ways to the drainage swales at the north edge of the property. Storm sewers and
catch basins will need looking into, and probably outlet piping from the site to
the railroad ditch and existing culvert underneath the railroad. Increased
runoff from the site will need to be evaluated to see what effect this may have
on downstream areas.
At this point, I see no problem with the concept plan as presented. and the
concerns I have stated above can be properly addressed in the preliminary and
final stages of plan preparation.
Yours very truly.
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
8;J,?"Wp
ASSOC I�ATENC
. Badalich, P.E.
C Vice President
JPO:nIb 0
2021 1.-nsr Ncrmrydn Avrnvro - Saile 2,7.4 - M.innenpnlrs, Minneenrn 55413 • 612/ 331- 8660
`- Planning Commission Minutes - 5/14/85
3. Public Hearing - A Prelimin" Plan and a Concent Plan Request
for a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, John Kornovieh.
Lionel Kull and Stave Upgren. partners in Monti Partnership. were
present to explain their proposal for an apartment Planned Unit
A Development. They outlined their intent of development of the
y property with apartment buildings, the number of unite within the
buildings, and that they meat the minimum setback requirements.
Questions were raised by Chairman Jim Ridgeway which addressed
the driveway alignment. Zoning Administrator Anderson answered
that the driveway alignment Is adjacent to the property line which
separates this property from the NSP property. Fir. Ridgeway also
addressed the number of unite and the square footage of each apartment
unit. M.C. Lionel Kull, partner in Monti Partnership, ansvered
that the total square footage of each unit would be 829 q. ft.
Chairman Ridgeway then opened the meeting for public testimony.
Mr. Roger Pribyl questioned It the square footage requirements
oran't what they proposed an the plot, than more than likely they
don't have enough quare footage to meat the minimum requirements.
Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that they meta than exceed
the total amount of square footage required for each unit. Mr.
Doug Stokes questioned if the planned Unit Development could and
op with the mass problems an Jim Boyle to currently having with
the Meadow Oak Development. This was just a point of Information.
Mr. Roger Pribyl then questioned as to what they vera intending
to do with the low area to the rear. Mr. John Kornovich. the owner
of the land and builder of the apartment units, explained to Planning
Commission members that they intended to fill the low area in back
with excess fill taken from the lower level of each of these apartment
building_atten. Mr. David Matuaka questioned if there was an area
proposed for a play area for the kids that would be involved in
this proposed apartment complex. Mr. Kull replied that they are
proposing to have an area to the back doui.Jnatod as a play area
and would develop it accordingly. Mr. Jerry Danson questioned
as to the amount of aquaro yardage for the ploy area. Finance
Director. Rick volfateller, a navered by indicating the amount of
land area that was sat aside for the proposed play area or green
area. Kra. Moody van present and questioned an to whore all of
the off-street parking was going to occur and if there was going
to be any fencing installed along the property lino. The developers
indicated to her that they have accommodated the off-street parking
as required by ordinance; and they would, if requested, put in
a fenced area between their property and the adjoining Keeps Zstates
properties. Mr. Roger Pribyl questioned aa to the clientele of
people. The developers answered that they cannot oegragato the
type of people that would be moving in there, but predominantly
the people that would be living there would be the &Ingle parent
family and possibly families with children. Mr. Jim Ridgeway concluded
all public testimony and cavorted back to the question at hand.
Motion by Richard Carlson. seconded by Dick Martis. to approve
the concept plan request for a Planned Unit Development., Motion
carried unanimously. with Joyce Dowling absent.
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
l B. Consideration of Aj2proval of Plane and Specifications and Authorizing
Advertisement for Bide for Sealcoating Project. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
C�
As part of the City of Monticello -s Comprehensive Street Maintenance
Program, the Public Works Department is involved in crack sealing,
patching, and the scheduling of overlays and Sealcoating. The
City Sealcoating program began in 1979 and has continued with approximately
$28,500.00 worth of work each year.
In 1986, however, we down sized the project Slightly to try the
granite chip aggregate in place of the rounded pea rock. The two
areae completed with this aggregate were Lauring Lane and the parking
lot north of Harry's Auto Parts. Over the winter it was noted
that the traffic in these areas was experiencing better traction
than other parts of the City, and we found no areae where stripping
of the aggregate was evident. We are, therefore, recommending
this soalcoat be used again this year with a Slightly higher oil
application rate.
The areas to be sealcoated this year include the following:
1. Country Club Estates
2. Prairie Road and north Marvin Elwood Road.
3. West River Street from County Road 75 to 1-94.
4. Dundas Road within the Monticello Industrial Park.
We had intended to do the commuter parking lot this year, but because
of budget restrictions, it was dropped during preparation of the
1985 Budget. It is expected that we will do the sealcoating in
the commuter parking lot in 1986.
With the above areas, we expect the bids to come in in the area
of 55-60c. This would put us at or slightly over the budget figure
of 828,500.00, depending upon bids received.
It is our intention to have the bids returned on Juno 19 for approval
at the Juno 20 Council meeting. Work would not be started until
after the 4th of July and would be in place and complete by August 16.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative 01 would be to do the above areas as outlined with
the granite chips.
2. Alternative 02 would be to switch back to using the buckshot
typo of soalcoat.
-7-
Le
`. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
C
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
It is the staff recommendation that we go with the chip type of
sealcoating as outlined in Alternate #1 and continue our evaluation
of this type of sealcoating.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Plans and specifications are available at City Hall for your review;
A copy of the areae is enclosed for your review.
-e-
NF -
CIL
clkoi - 7
I
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
9. Consideration of Repairs to the Existing Water Tower. (J. S.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As we had discussed at earlier meetings and as was touched upon
in the preliminary water study, the existing water tower may be
in need of repairs. During the fall inspection in 1984, the Water
Tower Paint and Repair Company of Iowa noted some rivets and pitting
that have deteriorated to the point that it could cause leakage.
They recommended repairs be done with the 1985 cleaning.
I was notified on Wednesday, May 22, that the crew from Water Tower
Paint and Repair Company would be in Monticello on Tuesday morning,
May 28, to clean and again inspect the tank. At this time, their
inspection will result in a quote or estimate of the :,ecessary
repairs. I will have this quote by Tuesday evening's meeting for
your consideration.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
There are definitely several alternatives in regards to the repairing
of the water tower. Several alternatives hinge upon the construction
time table for the now reservoir on Monte Hill.
1. Alternative #1 would be to sandblast those areae needing repairs
( and perform only enough repairs as needed to increase the longevity
of the tank until the ground reservoir at the Monte Hill is
completed. This would include rewaxing of the tank after the
repairs and scheduled demolition of the tank at a later date.
2. Thio alternative would involve making all of the repairs to
the existing tank and rewaxing it so that it may continue to
be a part of the City of Monticello's water system.
3. A third alternative would be to make all of the necessary repairs
to the tank and in addition apply an epoxy coating to the inside
surface of the tank so that it may be taken out of service
with the construction of the above ground reservoir at the
Monte Hill. It would, however, remain intact at the site to
be used during periods of emergency or when problems develop
with the long lines loading to the Monte Hill or the above
ground reservoir located there.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Depending upon costo, it appears that Alternatives M1 or 02 would
fit into the City's plans more rowdily than Alternative M3. If
the repairs were made as outlined in Alternative 02, than we could
switch to an epoxy coating later on if, indeed, we decide to leave
the tank empty but in place. Ono of tho things we would have to
weigh against the coat of leaving the tank in place is the fact
that it may coat $15,000 or 920,000 to remove the tank.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Please, rofor to your copy of the preliminary water study.
-9-
WATER TOWER REPAIRS
Estimates Rased on Unit Prices
To Cot By
Rivets S 336.00
Seams 648.00
Up Seams 388.00
Pita 1,365.00
2,737.00
Wald Clean 500.00
3,237.00
Ext. Touch Up 1,500.00
$4,737.00
Full Weld Repair with Wax COatinq:
All Seams 6 Rivets 6
Pita in Bowl $7,408.50
Clean for Wald 1,000.00
$8,408.50
Ext. Touch Up 1,500.00
$9,908.50
Pull Wold Repair with Epoxy Coatinq:
Complete Repair
$7,408.50
Blast 6 Paint Inside
7,808.00
$15,216.50
Ext. Touch Up
1,500.00
516,716.50
C4
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
10. Consideration of Removing the Concrete Planters from Broadway and
Returning Ownership to the Monticello Rotary Club. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Approximately two weeks ago at a regular Rotary meeting, it was
suggested by one Rotary member that Rotary sell the concrete planters
lined up along Broadway rather than go through the headache of
planting them again. They acknowledged that the City was undergoing
a downtown rehabilitation study and that the effort that went into
keeping the planters attractive was virtually wasted shortly after
the work had been done. The Rotary member who brought it up indicated
that a number of people had already expressed an interest in buying
the planters and having them removed. At that point, it was interjected
by yet another member that the planters were given by Rotary to
the City several years ago, and that they were not the property
of Rotary to sell. I indicated that I would bring the matter to
the Council and felt fairly confident that whatever the final determination,
we would probably see the removal of those planters this season.
The conflict that areas for me is that as the City Administrator,
I like to see the City get every dollar it can. If we sold all
16 planters at $25.00 each, we would gain an extra $400.00 for
the General Fund. However, I am also a member of Rotary and think
it would be beneficial for that club and the community services
they perform to have the extra funds. Consequently, the final
decision is being thrown in the lap of the City Council since I
wish to disqualify myself from making the determination. We did
discuss it amongst staff, and we do have one solution that seems
preferential.
In discussing the matter with John, we're prepared right now while
the street is under construction to go out and got all 16 planters
and take them over to the City property adjacent to Jones Manufacturing.
Once there, we suggoat the City return ownership to the Rotary
Club and lot them sell the planters for their own club funds.
Some of our concerns about the City handling it had to do with
aooioting the buyers loading them and the kind of time demands
that would put on City otaff, as wall as the possibility that damage
could be done to personal vehicles while the City was assisting,
and we might be hold liable. We simply don't want that kind of
liability or responsibility. The reason we're willing to relocate
them all to a single area is as that the individuals who purchase
the planters aren't out in the middle of Broadway trying to load
them at some inopportune time. Ono other concern Is that the purchaser
may rant or hire a okid loader to aooiat with the movement, and
ouch a piece of equipment would or could substantially damage the
brand now surface of Broadway. We fool we have better equipment
to simply got them off the sidewalk and got them to a remote alto
at which time we will Inform Rotary that they have 30 days to soil
and have them removed from City property. Rotary, who has agreed
to contribute $250.00 plus man hours to the softball field, would
got back the planters they originally donated to the City and could
-10-
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
raise some community service funds. While it would take a little
time for City staff to go load them and move them, it would free
the City from the responsibility of individual loading as well
as eliminate any potential liability and damage to private vehicles.
We feel that forfeiting the $400.00 to Rotary is inconsequential
in light of the time and protection we are giving to the City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Direct City staff to remove all planters from public streets
and situate on City property on the back of Block 51, and turn
back ownership to Rotary. This, in staff opinion, is the preferred
alternative for the reasons explained above. We do think that
there should be a time limit for total removal from our property,
perhaps 30 days. Any planters not taken after the deadline
will simply be destroyed by City and hauled away.
2. Advertise the planters for sale and assist with removal. Because
it's City property, we have to advertise anytime we are willing
to sell public property. We could accept offers for one or
more planters from any individual, and arrange for a time that
our loader will put them in a private vehicle for removal.
This is not particularly desirable because we assume certain
liability for the individual's private vehicle, plus it could
conceivably create 16 individual trips to assist the buyers.
3. Advertise for sale with the instruction that each buyer shell
be responsible for their removal within a given period of time.
This is loss desirable for the reasons that individuals may
1) confuse traffic patterns on Broadway (and we have enough
trouble with that already), or 2) they may, in fact, damage
the now road surface if they use improper equipment.
4. Retain the planters as part of the downtown. Thin perhaps
is the least desirable since the planters aro not maintained
vary wall on a yoar round basis. Periodically, they aro cleaned
up and a fav of them aro taken care of wall by the merchants
nearby, but they do not present a consistent pattern of downtown
landscape. I really think it would be beneficial to the City
to have them removed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As I noted above, my recommendation in somewhat tainted because
I am involved with both organizationo discussing thio matter.
It in largely the ponitfon of John simolo,in light of Public Worka
deciniona, to simply got them off the streets and than wash our
hands of the responsibility and lot Rotary have both the profit
and tho obligation. I support John in his recommendation. Added
to that rocommondation, we think, should be a prohibition that
downtown morchanto may not be tho purchasers of the planters if
cm
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
they intend to leave them in front of their store. If we're going
to remove any of the planters, I think it is essential to remove
all of them so that we don't have an inconsistent pattern of planters
being scattered unsystematically.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-12-
Council Agenda - 5/28/85
11. Consideration of Ratification of Mayoral Appointment(s) to RRA. (A.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Last December we accepted Don Cochran's resignation when he accepted
a position on the East Coast. This left his remaining 2 -year term
vacant. we were fortunate to have Ken Maus appointed to fill that
vacancy.
During the past six months, Jack Reeve's duties with his job have
taken him out of town quite often. Jack felt that it was not fair
to the Authority in missing that many meetings. On February 27,
1985, Jack resigned. His remaining term expires on December 31,
1988.
With the Authority searching for possible candidates to replace
Jack, Vic Vokaty asked that he be replaced as well. He had wanted
to step down for almost a year but had not officially resigned.
As a result, we are faced with two vacancies. This term expires
on December 31, 1985.
At the April 4, 1985, HRA meeting, I was asked to have two possible
nominations submitted to the Mayor and hopefully ratification by
the June 6 meeting. At this time. I have mot with several individuals
and briefly explained the HRA and the responsibilities to it.
Roger Hodtko has agreed to servo on the HRA if appointed and fulfill
✓ the remainder of Jack Reeve's term. I have briefly discussed the
HRA with Kermit Benson, but because the school year is ending,
he would like to discuss it further during mid -Juno.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Ratify the appointment of Roger Hodtko to the HRA and fulfill
Jack Roovo'e 2 -year term.
2. Do not ratify the appointment of Roger Hodtko to the HRA.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the discussion of the other HRA members at the April 4,
1985, meeting, I recommend the ratification of the Mayor's appointment
(Roger Hodtko). I further recommend that upon further discussions
with Kermit Bannon in regard to the HRA and its duties, the Council
consider his appointment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Nona.
-13-
GENERAL FUND - MAY - 1985
AMOUNT
CHECK
U. S. Postmaster - Stamps
280.00
20497
Security Federal Savings 6 Loan - C. D. purchase
60,000.00
'20498
Commissioner of Revenue - Ist Qtr. sales tax
225.47
'20499
Lorell 6 Ruby Hass - Purchase of residence
45,000.00
20500
Wright County Surveyors - Reimb, by Const. 5
64.00
20501
Wright County Treasurer - Taxes on Block 50, Lots 1,2,3
213.04
20502
M.N. State Treasurer - License Center - Dep. Reg. fees
250.00
20503
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
36.00
20504
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library
172.92
20505
Mary Ramthun - Animal control expense
212.50
20506
.lames Preusse - Cleaning city hall
308.35
20507
North Central Section AWWA - Reg. fee for W. Mack seminar
45.00
20508
Humane Society of Wright County - Reimb. for 13 dogs
65.00
20509
Corrow Sanitation - April contract payment
4,737.50
20510
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
18.00
20511
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
233.00
20512
KN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
1,460.37
20513
PERA - ins. Premiums - reimb.
18.00
20514
MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H
2,724.05
20515
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - April
2,478.00
20516
Internal Revenue Service - Payroll ded.
150.00
20517
Wright County State Bank - FWT - April
4,261.00
20518
State Capitol Credit Union - W/H from payroll
160.04
20519
Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
20520
Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
20521
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
20522
Mr. William Fair - Council salary
125.00
20523
Mr. Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
20524
YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment
458.33
20525
Mrs. Joseph Johnson - Animal control payment
250.00
20526
Celeste Dahlstrom - Reimb. for mail box repair (damaged)
16.60
20527
U. S. Postmaster - Stamps
220.00
20528
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
420.00
20529
MN. State Trensurer - Dep. Reg. fees
36.00
20530
Wright County State Bank - Housing 6 Redev. Project pymt.
2,256.29
20531
N. S. Slower - Utilities
9,367.86
20532
Thomas Eidem - Mileage allowance
300.00
20533
North Central Public Service - Utilities
2,166.04
20534
Mary Ramthun - Animal control expense
212.50
20535
.terry Hermes - Janitorial at Library
172.92
20536
Internal Revenue Service - Payroll ded.
150.00
20537
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll W/H
160.04
20538
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/11
1,456.80
20539
Wright County State Hank - FWT
3,069.00
20540
State Treasurer - FICA W/II
3,718.62
20541
Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages
1,566.00
20542
Tom Eidem - Travel expenses
139.55
20543
Industrial Develop. Comm. - Ticket for Ind. banquet
75.00
20544
VOID
-0-
20545
MN. State Treasurer - Dap. Rog. fees
90.00
20546
MN. State Treasurer - Dop. Rog. face
711.00
20547
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Rag. fees
1:.00
20548
Audio Communications - Radio repnlr - Civil Dat.
34:.00
20549
Rick Wolfstollar - Misc. mileage
88.00
20550
Chapin Publishing Co. - Adv. for bide - Piro b Sever
185.64
20551
Wright County Press - Adv. for bide for city hall roof
190.80
20552
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
American Legion - Flags for City Hall, Library, Parke
460.35
20553
Fyle Backhoe -'W/S hookup at Par West - K. Jensen
263.00
20554
Foster Franzen Agency - Ina. Bond for Hwy. rite-of-way
30.00
2055:
Fidelity Bank 6 Trust - Parking bonds of 1974 - P 6 1
17,221.73
20556
Central Eyewear - Classes - Reimb.
104.00
20557
Communication Auditors - 2 portable radios - Fire Dept.
1,431.00
20558
TKDA 6 Assoc. - Fire hall architects expense
20,807.34
20559
S.M.A. Construction - Printing
46.00
20560
Wright County Highway Dept. - Sand/gravel
961.60
20561
McCarthy Well - Well testing and inspections
129.00
20562
Seitz Hardware - Misc. supplies
204.06
20563
Water Products - Meters, valves, etc.
630.41
20564
Mobil 011 Corp. - Gas for Fire 6 Water Depts.
164.40
20565
Midwest Chemical - Nitrite test kit for WWTP
580.00
20566
National Chem Search - Supplies for WWTP
222.60
20567
MN. Bearing Co. - Equipment maintenance for WWTP
93.00
20568
EPL/MBL - Water testing for WWTP
49.00
20569
Ranger Products - Supplies for WWTP
229.95
20570
SAGA - Shrubs zipatone suppliea
27.90
20571
Schillewnert Landscaping - Grinding tree stump in Park
100.00
20572
Ruff Auto Parte - 2 wheels and rims
10.00
20573
Stokes Marine Service - Bar, chain, tractor repairs
107.15
20574
State of MN. - Division of Boiler Insp. - WWTP
35.00
20575
State Treasurer - Surplus Prop. Fund - Welder suction unit
88.00
20576
St. Cloud Rest. Supply - Supplies for City Hall 6 Parks
103.73
20577
Wright County Sheriff Dept. - Contract payment for May
9,782.08
20578
Power Process Equip. - Equip. repair at WWTP
58.90
20579
Truemon Welter - Fan for WWTP
36.94
2058(
Phillips Petro. Co. - Gas - Water Dept.
40.86
20581
Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Depts.
132.42
20582
Conway Fire 6 Safety Equip. - Pants, leather knees, cuffs,
1,042.40
20583
air bottle brackets, - Fire Dept.
J. C. Body Shop - Repair and painting Fire Dept. Van
1,040.00
20584
Fair's Carden Center - Trees, grass seed, spray - Parks
521.01
20585
Curt's Sales - Black dirt for Parke
200.00
20586
Broadway Rental Equip. - Rental of tree spode
212.00
20587
Earl Andersen 6 Assoc. - Paint - St. Dept.
770.50
20588
Continental Safety equip. - Air tanks for Fire Dept.
1,516.00
20589
Eull Concrete Products - 8 concrete rings
92.00
20590
Bergstrom's Lawn 6 Garden - Park equipment
118.96
20591
MacQueon Equip. - Spray nozzle
19.13
20592
Hoglund Hue Co. - Parts and repairs
103.10
20593
Gordon Link - Gas
1,970.30
20594
National Bushing Co. - Supplies
406.51
20595
Harry's Auto Supply - Supplies
178.53
20596
Dick's "66" Service - 011 for WWTP
1.80
20597
Marco Business Products - Repair copy machine 6 supplies
334.78
20598
Monticello Timas - Misc. publishing and printing
676.85
20599
Monticello Offico Products - Misc. office supplies
117.54
20600
Maus Foods, Inc, - Supplies for all Depts.
111.91
20601
Burner Service 6 Combustion- Equip. repair at WWTP
545.95
20602
Na-Churl Plant Food - 200 gall. liquid fertilizer
793.70
20603
R 6 C Associates - Soap and repellent
34.50
2060'
J M 011 Co. - Gas - Street Dept.
119.46
2060;
Maus Tiro Service - Repairs
13.00
20606
Could Bros. Chay. - Fire Dept. repairs
52.98
20607
First Bank Mpls. - Public fund charges
16.00
20608
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK N
Feed Rite Controls - Cylinder
7.50
20609
Davis Electronic - Repairs for Fire Dept.
142.09
20610
Centra Sots - WWTP supplies
62.00
20611
Central McGowan - Gas for WWTP
10.95
20612
Karen Doty - Mileage'expense !.'
11.50
20613
Gruys. Johnson 6 Assoc. - Computer services
C870.00
20614
Walter Mack - Travel expense to seminar in Duluth
184.46
20615
Banker's Life - Group Ins.
4,226.12
20616
Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban - Planning fees for April
2,126.83
20617
National Life Ins. - Premium for Tom Eidem
100.00
20618
A T 6 T Information System - Fire phone charges
3.59
20619
Paul Weingarden - Legal for OAA meetings
175.00
20620
Monticello Printing - Misc. printing for all Depts.
109.17
20621
Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rental for April
153.60
20622
Orkin Exterminating - Contract payment for WWTP
106.00
20623
Local 1149 - Union dues
126.00
20624
Willard Farnick - Travel expense - North Branch. Cokato
80.25
20625
David Bitzer - Fire school - Duluth
281.78
20626
David Kranz - Fire school - Duluth
204.28
20627
Douglas Pitt - Fire school - Duluth
295.10
20628
Gene Jensen - Fire school - Duluth
217.60
20629
Woody Haalond - Fire school - Duluth
295.10
20630
James Maurice - Fire school - Duluth
295.10
20631
George Leifert - Fire school - Duluth
223.00
20632
Morn Flicker - Fire school - Duluth
295.10
20633
Jay Morrell - Fire school - Duluth
290.66
20634
Bradley Fyle - Fire school - Mankato
328.66
20635
Tom Liefert - Fire school - Mankato
66.56
20636
Bridgewater Telephone - Phone for April
878.79
20637
OSM - Eng. foes for April
8,580.67
20638
Suburban Gas - Gas purchases
204.75
20639
Marco Products - Maintenance agreement for typewriter
175.00
20640
MN. Stato Treasurer - Dap. Reg. fees
206.00
20641
Gary Andareon - Misc. milange
93.75
20642
Walter Mack - Travel expense
22.50
20643
Taylor Land Surveyors - New fire hall site survey
335.00
20644
Davie Water Equipment - 4.hydrant wronches
52.10
20645
Olson 6 Sone Electric - Repair fixtures 6 WWTP expense
826.81
20646
Payroll for April
26,247.77
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - MAY
$265,700.70
LIQUOR FUND
LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - MAY - 1985
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for March
£d Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H
Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H - April
Wright County State Bank - Fed. W/11 - April
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
Twin City Wine Co. - Wine purchase
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine purchase
Internal Revenue Service - Retail liquor license fee
Northern Stntes Power - Utilities
North Central Public Service - Utilities
Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
MN. State Treasurer - P£RA W/H
Wright County State Bank - Fed. W/H
State Treasurer - Social Sec. - FICA W/H
Ed Phillips 6 Sona - Liquor
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - April
Coast to Coast - Supplies
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
Gruys. Johnson - Computer service - April
Frito-Lay, Inc. - Misc, mdse.
Viking Coca Cala - Misc. mdse.
Thorpe Dist. Co, - Beer
Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer
Seven Up Bottling Co. - Misc. mdse.
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse.
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
VOID
Yonak Sanitation - Garbage contract
Dahlhelmer Dist. Co. - Beer
Monticello Times - Adv.
Maus Foods - Misc. supplies
Lelfert Trucking - Freight charges
City of Monticello - Sewer/watur charges
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco -Misc. mdse.
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repair sign 6 broken pipes on pole
Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse.
Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
American Cancer Society - Donation
Payroll for April
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - MAY
5,408.78
1,870.23
967.41
2,746.96
167.00
285.40
237.00
408.00
20.00
1,689.89
617.80
492.59
54.00
497.14
121.04
4,354.17
254.81
60,000.00
20.00
2,520-96
172.65
258-00
401.68
66.64
1.2 94.13
5.701.75
3.60
48.73
330.00
166.48
359.60
4,479.25
15,4 27.45
400.85
12.48
65.87
2,988.10
-0-
62.50
17,341.42
72.00
24.31
460.69
157.73
603.92
100.96
988.35
2,620.38
50.00
1,621-69
1141,036,19
CHECK
90.
H743
11744
11745
11746
11747
11748
11749
11750
11751
11752
11753
11754
11755
11756
11757
11758
11759
11760
11761
11762
11763
11764
11765
11766
11767
11768
11769
11770
11771
11772
11773
11774
11775
11776
11777
11778
11779
11780
11781
11792
11783
11784
11785
11186
11787
11788
11789
11790
11791
101
0
IIiDIVIDUAL PE.PiIT ACT iVHY REPORT
. MONTH OF APRIL 1 1985
J
I I ) I
TOTAL REVENUE I S 6,812.64
FFOG II
SURCHARGE IPLUMB ING SURCHARGFI
S 48.70 5 45.00 $1.00
33.05 27.00 .50
.70
4.75
.70
10.00
1.50
.70
2.00
22.80 23.00 .50
.70
30.00 i 25.00 .50
70.00 29.00 .50
12.50 23.00 .50
367.95 137.00 .50
.70 i
.70 1 j
5607.45 $309.00 $4.00 i!
i 1
ERMIT
I DESCRIPTIC11
TP I NAME/LOCATION
VALUATION
LUATION
I F
PERMIT
85-735
Two Family Dwelling
fD lKathleen Klemz/212 6 214 Kevin Longley
S 97,300.00
5 424.90
Drive
65-736
Single Family D❖elling
ISFIGary 6 Diane Anderson/784 Acorn Circlet
66,100,00
331.30
65-737
Basement Remodel
ADlSteven Peterson/920 Meadow Oak Drive1,430.00
14.30
BS -738
Drive -up Window
East Oakwood Drive
9,500.00
77.50
65-739
House Reshingle
ADIDean Tinges/7 Linn Street
IAD!Willia-
1,430.00
14.30
85-740
Cold Storage Building
C •Ruff Auto/700 Elm Street
20,000.00
140.50
85-741
Enclose Porch Addition
Malone/610 Fallon Street
3,000.00
38.50
85-742
Reside House
AQ Diana Osowski/518 East River Street
1,430.00
14.30
85-743
1 Attached Garage
IRG!Ralph Mack/114 Balboul Circle
4,000.00
44.50
- 85-744
1 Single Family Dwelling
�SF�Quintin Lanners/310 Linn Street
45,600.00
1 263.20
- 85-745
i Patio Deck
Gary Mutchler/101 Matthew Circle I
1,430.00
( 14.30
85-746
11 Office Remodel
�AG
Ad Bridgewater Telephone Co./316 Pine St!
60,000,00
I 313.00
85-748
Gas Station/Convenience
:C Curt 6 Anna Hoglund/1548 East County
140,000.00
403.00
Store
Road 75
i
85-749
Repair Garage
'C Patrick Townsend/101 Thomas Park Dr. '
25,000,00
170.50
85-750
18 unit Apartment Building U_' Construction 5, Inc./707.Lauring Lane,
735,900.00
2,022.75
65-751
Reshingle House 6 Garage
IAD Roger Gau/1110 Cedar Street
1,430.00
14.30
85-752
Parts Room Remodel
iAC Wrightco, Inc./206 West 4th St. I
1,430.00
14.30
I
- TOTALS j
51,214,980.00
54,315.45
•
I PLAN REVIEW
i
I
• 85-748
Gas Station/Ccnvenience
C 'Curt 6 Anna Hoglund/1548 E. County ,
5 261.95
_
I Store
Road 75
65-750
18 unit Apartment Buildinn
• Construction 5, Inc./707 Lauring Lane:
1,314.79
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW
S 1,576.74
J
I I ) I
TOTAL REVENUE I S 6,812.64
FFOG II
SURCHARGE IPLUMB ING SURCHARGFI
S 48.70 5 45.00 $1.00
33.05 27.00 .50
.70
4.75
.70
10.00
1.50
.70
2.00
22.80 23.00 .50
.70
30.00 i 25.00 .50
70.00 29.00 .50
12.50 23.00 .50
367.95 137.00 .50
.70 i
.70 1 j
5607.45 $309.00 $4.00 i!
i 1
j
CITY OF M)NTICELI.O
\" Monthly Building Department Report
Month of April 1985
PFRMIIT3 end USES
Leet
This 'Same
Month 'Last Year "This
Year 1
PUIMiITS IMM Month march
Month April
Last Year To Date
To Date
RSIDENTIAL
Number • 9
11
16 29
23
Valuation S 560, 190.00
S 959, 050.00
f 387 ,000.00 $1 , 510, 500.00
$1,584,170.00
Fees 2,954.70
4,511.44
2,358.55 7,867.01
7,849.94
Surcharges 279.95
479.50
193.50 745.15
791.90
OOM M RCIAL
Number 2
6
2 12
10
Valuation 93,000.00
255,930.00
399,200.00 660,900.00
365,360.00
Fees 724.45
1,380.75
2,249.71 4,205.26
2,230.00
Surch arge3 46.50
127.95
199.45 330.30
182.65
IN LUSTRI AL
Numbe r
1 1
Valuation
720,000.00 720,000.00
Fees
3,271.95 3,271.95
Surch arge O
360.00 360.00
PWISING
Number 7
Fees 291.00
7
309.00
12 22
453.00 833.00
15
612.50
Surcharges
4.00
6.00 11.00
10.00
OTHERS
Number
Valu ation
Fees
Surcharges
TOTAL NO, PERMITS 18
24
31 63
as
TOTAL VALUATION 653,190.00
1,214,980.00
1,506,200.00 2,891,400.00
1,949,530.00
TOTAL FM 3,970.15
6,201.19
8,333.21 16,199.22
10,692.44
TOTAL S URCHARGES _ 33?, 45
611.45
758.95 1.446.95
984.55
WTaam HIM
P��yg�jAg�
Number to Dnte
PMMIT NATURE Number
Valuation This year LASL yenr
PERMIT
Singla Family 2
S 594.50 f
55.85 f 1 11,700.00 6
13
Duplex 1
424.90
48.70 97,300.00 2
1
Miopi-family 1
3,337.54
367.95 735,900.00 2
1
Commercial 3
975.95
92.50 185,000.00 4
5
Indust ft al
0
1
Res_ Garages 1
44.50
2.00 4,000.00 1
6
Signs
0
0
Pub lic Buildings
0
0
IALTElll.mON OR REFA1R
Dwellings 6
110.00
5.00 10,150.06 12
8
Conanercial 3
404.80
35.45 70,930.00 6
6
Industr-1 al
0
i
PWMIIlII1C
All types 7
309.00
4.00 15
22
ACCESSORT STRUCTURZ9
Sw1251no Poole
0
0
Do cls
0
0
I TEMPORARY VZRKIT
0
0
OEMOL ITIOM
0
0
T(7TA13 24
6,201.19
611.45 1,214,980.00 48
63