Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 10-09-1984AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL October 9, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held September 24, 1984. 3. Citizens Commento/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints. Old Business 4. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the 1985 Budget and Setting the Tax Levy. 5. Consideration of Installing a Drain in Water Reservoir. Nov Business 6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Placing the Question of Whether or Not to Issue Bonds for a Municipal Fire Hall on the November 6 Ballot. 7. Consideration of an Application for a License to Sall Intoxicating Liquor, On -Salo - Applicant, Stuart Hoglund DBA Oakwood Inn. 8. Consideration of Ratification of Public Hearing Notices. 9. Consideration of Contracting a Portion of City Services. 10. Consideration of Final Payment for Project 02-2, Meadow Oak. 11. Adjournment. NOTE: The City Council mooting will be hold on Tuesday duo to Columbus Day on Monday. C MINUTES � - REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL L; September 24, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold September 10, 1984. 4. Public Hearing - 1985 Budget. As part of the adoption of the 1985 Budget, a public hearing was hold for the purpose of determining where the City's expected Revenue Sharing Funds would be used. The Preliminary Budget presented indicates $91,000 in expected revenue from Revenue Sharing with $91,000 in proposed expenditures for such items as equipment and community education payments. Hearing no comments from the public on the proposed uses of Revenue Sharing Funds, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to close the public hearing. A special meeting van acheduled for 8 A.M., Saturday morning, September 29, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed 1985 Budget between Council and Staff members. 5. Rezoning Request to Rezone from I-1 to 0-3, Applicant - Burger King Corporation. Burger King Corporation representative was present at the Council meeting to diocuoo their proposed restaurant to be built on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Lauring Hilloido Terrace Addition. The proporty in currently zoned Light Industrial, and Burger King Corporation requested that this property be rezoned from Light Industrial to B-3, Highway Commercial, to accommodate their now restaurant. The prop000d uno has boon reviewed by City Consulting Plannor, Howard Dahlgren 6 Anoociatoo, who indicate that•thavo should not be any problems with the proposed rezoning. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that the rezoning be approvad. Soma concerns were expressed by Council members over the increased 0 Council Minutes - 9/24/84 trafficthat will result along Lauring Lane due to the accesses being allowed from Lauring Lane rather than Cedar Street. It was noted that additional traffic of this nature may not be suitable for the area since numerous apartment buildings exist in the area. It was felt that the property in general was suited for light industrial or highway business of this nature since it did abut the freeway; and as a result, a motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2. Block 2, Lauring Hillside Terrace, from I-1, Light Industrial, to B-3, Highway Commercial. See Zoning Ordinance Amendment No.142. 6. Consideration of Preliminary Concept Approval of Plaza Partnere PUD, Applicants - Powers, Kjollberq. Kent Kjollberq and Jim Powers, developers of the Plaza Partners Planned Unit Development, submitted a preliminary Concept Plan for approval. The preliminary Concept Plan as presented calls for the construction of a Wandy-a restaurant along with an additional family restaurant, health club, and motel. The Planning Commission, in reviewing the preliminary Concept Plan, gave conditional approval to tho Plan provided the developers correct a number of deficiencies in their future plane. Thin conditional approval allows the dovalopers to proceed with their second phase, which is called the Development Stage of a Planned Unit Development. The developers were also instructed to complete their entire Development Stage, meeting all City Ordinances and requirements, prior to any future submission of plane for approval. Some concerns were expressed by Council members over approving a preliminary Concept Plan that doeon-t moot all of the City -o requirements. After further review, it wan the general consensus of the Council that the preliminary Concept Plan as presented wan basically acceptable provided the developers moot all deficiencies noted by staff and consultants in regard to the first stage. 7. Consideration of Installing Drain in Water Reservoir. Tho water reservoir located on Chalons Road in the Industrial Park was constructed without a drain line, and it was recommended by the water Superintendent that in order to physically clean the reservoir itself and avoid pumping the residue cleaned from the tank back through the water system, a drain lino should bo installed. It was recommended that a hydrant be Installed in the discharge lino from the water reservoir which could bo used to divert tho dirty water to an open ditch without pumping r the water through tho present system. Q -2- 4 v Counril Minutes - 9/24/84 The estimated cost of materials for the project was $1,700.00, iwith the cost of labor being quoted at $980.00. Consulting Engineer, John Badalich, noted to the Council that most water reservoirs do not have a separate drain, and he didn't feel the present proposal would adequately solve the problem. Mr. Badalich recommended that this item be tabled for two weeks to allow him to discuss the item with the Public Works Director. It was the consensus of the Council to table any action on this action until the next regular Council meeting. 8. Consideration of Bills for the Month of September. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of September as presented. See Exhibit 11. 9. Review of Fire Hall Building Plane. The Fire Hall Building Committee has met a couple of times with the architect, and the Committee has narrowed its choice of sites to Block 17 located directly west of the present Municipal Off -Salo Liquor Store. r It was suggested by Councilmomber Maxwell that the City should U conoider getting another appraisal of this site to determine what the cost of the property might be if the owner will sell. Motion was made by Blonigon, occondod by Maus, and unanimously carried to authorize the City Administrator to hire an appraiser to determine the value of this property, Block 17. Rick Wolfstoll Asoiatant Adm! atraCor .3- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 4. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the 1985 Budget and Setting the Tax levy. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Adjustments that were discussed at the Saturday morning work Bession have been incorporated into the Budget. All other things remain identical to the Preliminary Budget that was presented and discussed. October 10, ti,e day after the meeting, is the Statutory deadline for certifying a municipal levy. Thus, in order to meet the Statutory deadline, the resolution adopting the Budget and setting the levy must be accomplished at this meeting. The hearings have been held and all of the notices have been given. There really is little more to do than the formality of finalizing by resolution adoption. Since genuine alternative actions are extremely limited, I am not presenting any other than to adopt. Staff recommendation, in order to meet Statutory deadlines, is to adopt the Budget as revised. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption; Copy of the final Budget to follow under separate cover. Council Agenda - 10/9/84 ADDENDUM TO 1985 BUDGET AND TAX LEVY. (T.E.) On Wednesday evening, October 3, 1984, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority met In regular session to review and adopt their 1985 Budget. There are two changes they have adopted in their Budget and request the City Council to adopt as part of the overall Budget. The first change they would like is to levy 530,000.00 for general operating expense. As I had proposed in the Budget, the HRA would use up better than half of their surplus to avoid making a levy beyond the tax increment that is projected. The Preliminary Budget sheets that you have show a tax levy (tax increment) of $7,700.00. The HRA would like that amount changed to 537,700.00. This, they feel, had been tentatively agreed upon when the HRA and the Council met many, many months ago. This sum of money represents 4/10 of 1 mill. Roughly speaking, on today's evaluations, that levy would cost the owner of a 555,000.00 home approximately $1.80 per year after homestead credit. The same levy on the same piece of property, non -homestead, would be $3.94. I explained to the HRA that I had not built in a substantial levy because of my goal of hitting last year's levy figure. They felt they had received a positive indication from the City Council that they could levy up to 1 mill for operational expense. They also feel that their track record with respect to IX1, Metcalf and Larson, and Fulfillment Systems, indicates that they are not a frivolous or useless body, but rather have produced some very positive results which could conceivably be greater if they had a little operating capital. They also discussed and agreed that if the Council would concede to the levy this year, as the year progresses if they find that the levy becomes nonessontial, then they simply would not levy in the future. They, themsolves, have questions with respect to the amount of work they can do with the amount of funds they aro attempting to generate. Of course, they aro aware that as tax increment begins to roll in, their surpluses should begin to increase and need for a levy may loosen. However, with the outstanding debt, the surplus won't be forthcoming for several years. The other change in the Budget they have proposed is an increase In expenditures by S5,000.00 in the personal services category. In Juno they appointed Allen Pelvit their Executive Secretary in place of me. We felt at that time thoro could conceivably be a conflict of Internet with my representing both bodies. Because they have appointed Allan Executive Secretary, they wish to be rooponsiblo for some of his personal service and salary costa. While the calory figure that they budgeted, the $5,000.00, in not necessarily what they will pay him, that to what they wish to budget. Also, they aro wall aware that the personal corvicac total does not accurately represent a time division of labor for Allan's services. Their contention is, however, that as a fledgling organization, they would like to gradually increase their financial liabilities until they ease into accepting full responsibility for the time allocation. -2- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 After discussing the concerns of the HRA with them, I tend to concur with their requests. It would be easy to make a simple amendment to the tax levy figure prior to adoption of the resolution. The new numbers would then be reflected in the annual tax levy. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Amend the proposed Budget to include the HRA requests. 2. Adopt the Budget as amended and revised in its final form on Saturday morning. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HRA requests be honored and granted. I think the valuable work that they have performed can increase if they have some financial breathing room. I further think that their request is very reasonable, even nominal, and that the benefits will far outweigh the liability of the levy. D. SUPPORTING DATA: An amended copy of the HRA Budget page from the Preliminary Budget. -3- RESOLUTION 1984 0 ` RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1985 BUDGET AND l SETTING THE TAX LEVY WHEREAS, the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1985, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the same, and has made ouch changes therein as appeared to be in the beet interest of the City of Monticello; NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, that the budget so submitted by the City Administrator, together with the changes made therein by the City Council be, and the same hereby is, adopted as a budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1985, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Cotxncil of the City of Monticello, that there be, and hereby is, levied for the fiscal year commencing on January 1, 1985, the following sums for the respective purposes indicated therein, upon the taxable property of the City of Monticello to wit: REVENUE General .... ................. 525,065.00 Contingency ..................... 40,800.00 Library ......................... 20,100.00 Shade Tree ...................... 12,700.00 OAA ............................ 1,110.00 HRA ............................ 77,700.00 DEBT RETIREMENT Debt Service Fund ............... 551,250.00 ENTERPRISE Water Fund ...................... 11,050.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Capital Improvement Revolving ... 94,200.00 Savor Interceptor Construction .. 100,000.00 TOTAL TAX LEVY .................. 1,797,975.00 Resolution 1984 0 Page Two The above Resolution van introduced by Councilmember , was duly seconded by Councilmember with the following voting in favor thereof. The following voting in the opposition: The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota. DateC: 9 October, 1984 City of Monticello Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas A. Bidem City Administrator 0 RESOLUTION 1984 9 RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1985 BUDGET AND SETTING THE TAX LEVY WHEREAS, the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1985, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the same, and has made such changes therein as appeared to be in the beet interest of the City of Monticello; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. that the budget so submitted by the City Administrator, together with the changes made therein by the City Council be, and the same hereby is. adopted as a budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1985, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Monticello, that there be, and hereby is, levied for the fiscal year commencing on January 1, 1985, the following sums for the respective purposes indicated therein, upon the taxable property of the City of Monticello to wit: REVENUE General ......................... 525,065.00 Contingency ..................... 40,800.00 Library ......................... 20,100.00 Shade Troo ...................... 12,700.00 OAA............................. 1,110.00 HRA ............................. 7,700.00 DEBT RETIREMENT Debt Service Fund ............... 551,250.00 ENTERPRISE Nater Fund ...................... 11,050.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Capital Improvement Revolving ... 94,200.00 Sower Interceptor Construction .. 100,000.00 TOTAL TAY LEVY .................. 1,367,975.00 0 Resolution 1984 0 Page Two The above Resolution was introduced by Councilmember , was duly seconded by Councilmember with the following voting in favor thereof: The following voting in the opposition: The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota. Dated: 9 October, 1984 City of Monticello ATTEST: Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator Arvo A. Grimemo, Mayor 0 HRA 1985 BUDGET REVENUE Ad Valorem (includes S7,700 increment) $37,700.00 Interest 3,000.00 Pay from Developers 2,050.00 Application Fees 2,500.00 545,250.00 TOTAL REVENUE 545,250.00 .....................................•.............................. EXPENDITURES Personal Services Salary, Regular S 4.450.00 PERA/Pension 200.00 Social Security 350.00 S 51000.00 Supplies Office Supplies 50.00 50.00 Other Services and Charges Professional Services 1,000.00 Legal Publications 250.00 Communication - Phona/Postago 50.00 Travel-Conforenco-School 250.00 Advertising 100.00 Insurance (Non-pornona 1) 250.00 Duos, Mombarahipa, Subscriptions 100.00 Miscellaneous 50.00 2,050.00 Debt Service Principal 6 Interest 40,400.00 40,400.00 TOTAL IIRA $47,500.00 G Council Agenda - 10/9/84 5. Consideration of Installing a Drain in Water Reservoir. W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This item was brought before you at the last Council meeting, September 24, 1984. It is my understanding it was tabled after a discussion with the City Engineer. I believe Mr. Badalich indicated that the pumps were so far off the bottom of the reservoir floor that significant amounts of clean up with an auxiliary pump would be needed to clean the reservoir. I discussed this with Mr. John Badalich on Wednesday, October 3. Since the time of the meeting, Mr. Badalich has had time to refer to the drawings for the reservoir and has removed his objection to the installation of the hydrant drain for the reservoir. The floor of the reservoir is so constructed as to provide a 2 -foot deep pocket beneath the booster pumps at the reservoir. I believe that the entire floor of the reservoir can be drained utilizing the booster pumps. The pocket itself could be significantly cleaned through the addition of a small extension to the suction pipe. The pumps would be shut down when they begin cavitating. At this point in time, a small submersible pump could be used to finish the cleaning of this pocket along with hand cleaning of the pocket bottom itself. / I believe the installation of thin hydrant to drain the reservoir would enable City employees to clean the reservoir themselves. It would aloo significantly reduce the cost of having outside contractors clean the reservoir and better protect the water supply system for Monticello during the cleaning operations at the reservoir. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The alternative actions would be as follows: 1. To construct the drain utilizing a hydrant which will enable the %later Suporintendent to clean out the roeervoir utilizing City employees. 2. Do not install the drain system and hire a profaooional company or organization to clean the reservoir and contract for services. 3. Alternative 43 would be to install the drain in the reservoir and contract for a profoaaional company or organization to clean the reservoir and contract for ouch services. 4. Alternative 14 would be to do nothing and loavo the reservoir as it in. -4- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 \_ C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that we construct the drain utilizing the hydrant as outlined in Alternative 01 for an estimated cost of $2,600.00. we have placed an amount into the Budget for the installation of the drain of 52,000.00. This would give us the option also of going with Alternative #3 if we are unable to schedule the work utilizing City employees. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -5- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Placing the question of Whether or Not to Issue Bonds for a Municipal Fire Hall on the November 6 Ballot. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Committee has completed its work in building selection. Not all of the data will be prepared to be submitted to you with your agenda packet. To accommodate full explanation, the architects will be present at the Tuesday evening meeting with the renderings of elevations and floor plans. Also, we will have as detailed as possible cost estimates on construction and bond issuance. We will not have the Americk site secured, but we will have the completed appraisal and an estimated cost of acquisition. The Committee has not spent much time in making decisions on what to do with the existing Fire Hall and with Security Federal. At this point, we prefer to leave it as an open question requiring its own independent study. We do, however, think that the other site is the most desirable and that the downtown site could be put to a better use. I should qualify that in that the Fire Department still has soma designs on the downtown building, but they did vote unanimously to support the Amorick site as first choice. I think the point that Fran, Dan, Gary, and myself wish to stress is that the Fire Hall bond issue must sell in and of its own merit, and not based on what the final outcome of the existing site is. The Committee mot on Monday, October 1, 1984, in its most productive session to date. All of the revisions made to the floor plan and other design features have been sent back with the architect to got ready for public viowing on Tuesday evening. It is because of thin short period of time that I cannot supply you with all of the detail well in advance. While coot was cut down substantially, we also fool it is important that we now maintain the integrity of the development to date. If the coot comes in higher than we think it should be. it is still a voters question as to whether or not it's too high. The question the Council has to answer is whether or not to offer the quootion to the voters. Thio in precisely the reason the law is written the way it is. A project of this size in meant to be taken to the voters to determine whether or not it is a wino development proposal. Again, I emphasize that what you aro doing hero is authorizing an election on the question, not authorizing the construction of the building. Action must be taken on thio resolution at this mooting if it Is to appear on the November 6 Ballot. There aro certain publication deadlines and requirements that I must moot for the question to legally appear on the November 6 Ballot. CIf action is not taken at thin mooting, I will be unable to CS:a Council Agenda - 10/9/84 meet those publication, posting, and submittal deadlines, and thus the question cannot appear on the Ballot. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution placing the question on the Ballot - this will take the matter and the final expense to the voters for their approval. Do not adopt the resolution - this will leave the question off of the Ballot and will not present an immediate resolution to the Fire Hall question. There still is the opportunity to conduct a special election at another time for the sole reason of passing a bond issue. The City is not bound by any regulation that says a special election has to be held in conjunction with a Primary or a General Election. The only disadvantage to holding a special election is that statistically it has been shown that primarily the "no" voters come out in special elections. The Committee is coming with a complete recommendation that the Fire Hall plan be approved as drafted with the exception that some minor changes may take place. We do not consider it to be a viable alternative that we start redesigning the Hall at this point unless, of course, you choose not to place it on the Ballot at all. If it does not go on the Ballot, we simply pay off the architects and go back to the beginning. If it is to be on the Ballot, we do not wish to have people other than Committee members getting involved with redesign, ro-allocation of space, and other modifications to the plan. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the resolution be adopted putting the question to the voters. The Committeo fools that the building is at a reasonable size to accommodate the added space but not ovor-built to a point that we aro paying for opaco that will not be used. The building design does have an expandable capacity, which we may need in the future. There is not any opulence built into the system, but there have boon soma conveniences added. The staff and the Committee aro at a point of being able to recommend that the question be put to the voters. I do wish to note that the Committee did not tako a formal vote to determine this but that it was a consensus of at least five of the nix mombers that it go to the bond proccas. The oixth parson was not opposed to this going to tho bond issue but simply wishod to withhold a decision until the final costo and information comes in on Tuesday. 0. SUPPORTING DATA: C- Resolution for adoption. -7- RESOLUTION 1984 0 RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby determined to issue Bonds for the purpose of providing money for the betterment of the Monticello Fire Department by constructing a now Fire Hall and acquiring appropriate fire fighting equipment; 2. The amount proposed to be borrowed shall not exceed S 3. The proposal to issue such Bonds shall be submitted to the voters oftheCity of Monticello at a Special Election to be hold concurrently with the General Election which shall be held on November 6, 1986, at the usual polling place for the City, to wit: Monticello City Nall 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota The polls shall open of 7:00 A.M. and shall close at 8:00 P.M. d. The City Administrator shall give two weeks published notice ( and ton days posted notice prior to the election. 5. The judges appointed to servo at the Primary Election and at the General Election pursuant to Council action of August 27, 1984, shall also serve no the judges for the Spacial Election. 6. The City Administrator shall causo ballots to be prepared in substantially the following form: OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION CITY OF MONTICELLO NOVEMBER 6, 1984 Instructions to Voters: Voters dosiring to vote in favor of the following question shall put an (X) in the square before the word "Yoe." voters dosiring to vote against the question shall put an (X) In the square before the word "No." Shall the City of Monticello Yea Issue its general obligation bonds in an amount not exceeding ❑ No 3 gG 3 QCD for the purpose C of proJiding money for the bottorment of the Monticello Fire Department by constructing e new Fire Hall and acquiring appropriato fire fighting equipment? O Resolution 1984 1 Page 2 7. The City Council shall meet at the City Hall on Ota 7th day of November, 1984, at A.M. to canvass the returns and declare the election results. Adopted this 9th day of October, 1984. Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator Arve A. Crimamo, Mayor (00 Council Agenda - 10/9/84 7. Consideration of an Application for a License to Sell Intoxicating Liquor, On -Sale - Applicant, Stuart Hoglund DBA Oakwood Inn. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Last spring Stuart was in to apply for a liquor license and put a check for $1,650.00 on hold with us. That check represented the pro -rated payment for the final two quarters of an annual license period. The Council also elected at that time to not cash the check and, in fact, to credit it to the next year's license when that became due July 1. When the July 1, 1984, renewal date came around, no check was issued by Stuart and, consequently, his license, in my opinion, was allowed to lapse. Therefore, he is required to reapply for a new license. I think it is essential that if a license is granted for Oakwood Inn at this time, we anticipate full collection of the license fee immediate upon acceptance of the license. If we do not charge the fee, even though he doesn't have a building from which he can dispense liquor, we are doing nothing more than agreeing to reserve licenses for future development. Since I have been receiving a number of requests about available liquor licenses, some of which may be unfounded, I think it is an unwise policy to got involved with set asides or reserving licensor for future proposals. In my estimation, the boat policy is to act on an application and either grant or deny the license. If the license is granted, then the fees should be expected to be paid and the license becomes effective. Since all information on the license application is identical to the earlier process, I don't sea any difficulty with the granting of this license. This is primarily a formality, but I think it is essential no that the granting of this license is not challenged by a competitor at some future date. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Grant the license. 2. Deny the license based on name substantial reason. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the granting of the license and the levying of the license foo immediately. I wish to also note that the motion can be contingent upon the receipt of the necessary insurance documents in final form. If you aro making a contingent motion. I furthor recommend that you plata a time limit or an expiration data into that motion such that if all forma aro not submitted and foes paid by a cattain data, than the granting of the licanso expires. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the license application. -8- CITY OF MONTICELLO LICENSE APPLICATION This application is being submitted for the following licanse(s): Set-up license Off -sale, non -intoxicating liquor On -sale, intoxicating liquor On -sale, wine On -sale, non -intoxicating liquor On -sale, wine/3.2 beer Applicant Name: Oaht000d Inn, Inc. Age: Date: Augtcat 16, 1494 Applicant Address: 200 Oabtuood puUe Phone: 245-1111 lionticetto, AN 55362 Name of Business: 0ahtuood inn iv6 J."­wui; 6.r.u.ve Address of Business: A1)nf ro PPy, Ill] SSib,9 t r r i i i i Business Phone; Describe nature of business operation: Lounge 6 Motet If Corporation: Officers: $tttaA.t Hoglund -PACs._ A'u.r.en nugfurid vice r.cro. Zona Jill Roanour sec. Directors: AudAey Hoglund -Roan Do you or does your corporation, partnership, ote., currently hold any iicenoe allwing the Gale of villa, inl:>xicating liquor, non -intoxicating liquor, or not -ups? yes JUS no If yeas Name of Business: Address u! Phone: Typo of Liconso+ Years held: s 0 ReforencesI Nerve Address Telephone Number Dwaine Stahtke Detano,.A(N 612-972-3483 M. v, wooa4u6. Nigh Point, NC 919-431-2889 v. n. LlL'l.OVII IV1n Y1V1{4 f1A4., NW OIL -474-074: Credit References (list at least one bank you do business with)1 Name Address Telephone Number fUnight County Slate Ranh Alont.ir_e/in, AW 0;12-205-2952 P,L,"t Ameftkcan Na.ttonat Sank St. CCoud, HN 251-3300 knount of investment, excluding land: $650,000. Estimated (only applicants for on -sale, intoxicating liquor must provide this information) Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or of violating the National Prohibition Act or any State law or ordinance relating to manufacture or transportation of intoxicating liquors: No •1. I declare that the above information is true and correct, to the bout of my knowledge. Ap icant Signs reg i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Por City Use Only Surety Bond Liquor Liability Cortificato of Insurance Application Fos eo 3l rjGG Liesnee Foo fir ff, Wright CedWy /o 3 - / P!/ Date Mayor; City of Monticello City Adminia U alor Council Agenda - 10/9/84 8. Consideration of Ratification of Public Hearing Notices. (A.P.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Recently, two separate developers have approached the City with proposals and request to have the City of Monticello finance the projects under Minnesota Statute 474 (The Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act). One proposal is similar to those the City has become involved with in the past. Gary La Fromboise, contact person for Washington Business Center West, also known as Construction 5, Inc., has proposed a 25,000 sq. ft. commercial office warehouse building to be constructed just east of Lauring Hillside Terrace. In fact, the project is the same as one proposed to you in 1981. The only change has been in the total cost of the project. This project could supply up to 50 jobs at an annual payroll of $925,000.00 or $18,500.00 per individual. The second project is one that has groat potential but lacks conviction. The proposal involves obtaining the old Met Stadium structure, disassembling it, moving it, and reassembling It on a new oitc. Monticello has been chosen as the first choice. The organizer is Dick Maw, who has a background in the sales and marketing areas. He chose Monticello as a site because it is located on I-94 midway between the Metro area and St. Cloud. The reconstructed stadium will have approximately 10,000 eeato and will host profeasional ooccor, baseball, as well as college or high school sports. Other events may include concerts and exhibition games. The total cost of this project is approximately 520,000,000.00. By Minnesota Statutea, we aro required to first set a data for a public hearing of proposals to be funded with Industrial Revenue Bonds; second, to liaton to proposals and/or public testimony regarding the projects and give preliminary approval to proceed with application to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development Authority (MEEDA). This agenda item is only concerned with setting the data for the public hearing. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. Sot public hearing for the next regularly scheduled mooting. 2. Sot a public hearing for October 15, 1984, at 7;10 P.M. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because the application deadline for the loot IRD allocations in 1984 is October 20, 1984, we had to publish the public hearing Cnotice in the paper at least 10 days prior to the hearing. -9- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 Not having a regular meeting falling between October 14 and 19, Mayor Grimsmo called a special meeting for October 15, at 7:30 P.M. Because of the nature and timing of application, we recommend ratifying the resolution for setting the public hearing, after the fact. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Because of the nature of the Met Stadium proposal, Mayor Grimsmo wanted the Council to have as much background information on this as possible. Attached is a draft of what has taken place and where the project stands as of this writing. Resolutions for adoption. -10- Approximately three weeks ago, Dick Maw called and inquired about Monticello. His main concern was the availability to locate a development on I-94. He wanted to know how aggressive Monticello was. Of course, I didn't want to sound hungry, But I did let him know we are an aggressive city with a progressive attitude. As we discussed Monticello and its various amenities, Mr. Maw explained that I-94 is, as we already know, the corridor to the central and the northwestern part of Minnesota. It was at this point that he began talking about the Metrodome not having ample parking and all the negatives you may have heard in the past. He told me that he has spoken to Tim Robbi, General Manager of the Minnesota Striker Soccer Team. Mr. Robbi stated that attendance for soccer games at the Metrodome is a losing proposition, and next season they will play outdoors where they can attract a younger crowd who like the outdoor facility and tailgating, etc. The original Minnesota Kicks had games where attendances reached the 45,000 mark. Attendance at the Strikers games is lucky to roach 20,000. The Strikers are looking for outdoor facilities but cannot find one. Dick's first mention of moving the old Not Stadium was. as most of you will undoubtedly think to yourself, a joke and may, in fact, be just that. But what if thin dream can be pulled off? Hie theory in to have the stadium structure dismantled, moved, and reassembled on a now site. Monticello in that site because it Is close enough to the Metro area (40 miles) and nearer to St. Cloud (10 miles) so that the events could draw from both the Metro area and outstato. This would have evolved long ago had it not been for the legal battle that was recently settled out of court. Nov the City of Bloomington can proceed with developing the property. The first process would be to demolish and clear the site for development. With the high coats of union workers, the coat to demolish would be vary high. Dick claims he can purchase tho structure for $1.00 and than relocate it. Our first few conversations Involved typos of financing available, financial incentives, and parcels of land that would be suitable. The property should be located in the City limits no that services aro nearby and no that it can be soon easily from I-94. Other events that would be pursued for the stadium are a (AAAI baseball franchise, regional college sports, professional exhibition games, country western, etc., concerts, festivals, and area high school sporting events. Aftor talking about this on the telephone, I Invited Dick to visit Monticello and discuss this further. Upon arriving, I -1- asked for more detailed information. Ho,started with the purchasing of the stadium, which might be obtained for $1.00. He then indicated how mechanically the structure could be dismantled and put back together at a substantially reduced amount compared to the cost of a new stadium. He indicated that the project would be corporately owned by 3-6 heavy weights, and estimates would run approximately 520,000,000.00 to complete this redevelopment project. He further indicated that the City would got a percentage of the parking, concessions, or both in return for their help. Following several conversations with Dick, I told him I was going to present this to the City Administrator, asking for direction. After explaining this to Tom, he grinned and advised me to be careful but go for it. I proceeded to check with several of the people that Dick said he knew and some who were going to be involved in this project. Dick's background is in the Bales, marketing, and promotion areas. He has been involved in movies/theater, etc., and is related to people who are involved in pro sports. As time passed, I contacted Jim Boyle, who also chocked into Dick's past. The next players brought into the picture were the iron workers and architects. They discussed the feasibility of disassembly and reassembly of the structure. He has met with people from Bloomington in hopes of arranging the purchase. They seam to think it would be about 90-100% possible to purchase the atodium for 51.00. Bids for the demolition of the site will be opened on the 25th of October, and the alto must be cleaned and ready for development within six months. Now that the game plan has evolved, and you may be thinking that such a project is possible, assuming Dick is sincere, he gets to the heart of the problem. Money. Dick will be the first to tell you he Ien't a heavy hitter, but a promoter or a concoptualieer. As he began talking money, he stated that it might take as much as $25,000-550,000 up front money to complete the feasibility study. Without this study, the baseball and soccer people would not commit. At first he suggested the City contribute the upfront money in return for a percentage of the action. When told the City's philosophy was not to participate in this type of transaction. Dick suggestod either one heavy buainees person contribute $25,000 or 25 people contribute $1,000 each. I told him that I would help in whatever way I could but would not give him names of contacts or information about them. The entire time I had boon dealing with Dick this was supposed to have been in confidence. Only Tom and myself ware aware of this project. As I found out later, there ware others who vara contacted for financial support, while I was keeping this quiet. when Tom and I discussed this project, it was our contention to draw some of Dick's no -called heavy weights out into the open. we suggested having a meeting with hie development team (backers). At this time, we have not. I have only heard names of companies, sports teams, and various individuals, some of which checked out and others could not be contacted. At first he hesitated and then stated that it might be possible around the 10th of October. Although we have not met with the development team. Dick did explain his game plan. The project will consist of three corporate entities. 1. The Monti Stadia Development Corporation - this will be a private corporation, (4-6) individuals owning up to 51% of the original stock. Later there may be as many as 10-12. 2. Little Mountain Development Corporation - would develop the peripheral area with restaurants, motels, and retail shops, etc. 3. International Cafes, Inc. - Run concessions, parking, day -today operations, promotions, and bookings. The first two corporations will need approximately 2 million shares of contributors stock. The three types of stock are as follows: 1. Conceptionalitors .25/share 2. Contributors (insiders) .50/share 3. public Offerings 1.00/share The contributors stock could be for those area individuals/firma investing in the down stroke. Khan the project would be completed, they could redeem their stock for the public offerings. I have contacted three individuals concerned with Industrial Revenue Bonds. The first is with the State of Minnesota, who felt the debt service of a 20 million Issue would be too high. The second is with Millar 6 Schroeder, who stated that an IRD issue for thio project would be similar to the race track in Shakopee. He further stated that even though It is legal and can be packaged, it is extremely difficult to Boll. The interest rates are high and moot likely will not be guaranteed by a largo bank ouch an Norwest. The third person was Dan Nelson of Holman and Craven. He stated that an issue could be packaged. I will be contacting him again. Dick's figures indicate that between 150-200 event• will be poaaiblo throughout the outdoor season. With an average attendance of 10,000/ovent, the first year should gross approximately 3ti million to < million without parking. After the facility is in full operation, Dick expecte it to groes approximately dy million to 5 million/year. I will be receiving a debt retirement schedule for your review prior to the meeting. Estimated employees are 30-10 full-time and 100-150 part-time. RESOLUTION 1984 9 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO UNDERTAKE AND FINANCE A PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 474.01 at seq. (the "Act"), authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds to finance projects; and WHEREAS, the term "project" is defined by Section 474.02, subdivision 1a, of the Act to include "any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterpiise"; and WHEREAS, a representative of Washington Business Center West, a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer") has presented this City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Monticello (the "City") with information concerning a proposed project (the "Project") to be acquired and constructed within 4r the City; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City resolve to Logue revenue bonds pursuant to the Act to finance the Project and has presented to the City Council a form of preliminary resolution concerning such issuance with a request that such preliminary resolution, attached hereto as Exhibit A, be considered for adoption by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that the City Council must conduct a public hearing on any proposal to undertake and finance a project; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that notice of the time and plata of such public hearing and stating the general nature of the project and an astimato of the principal amount of the bonda or other obligations to be Issued to finance the project must be published at laaot onto not lose than tan (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the data fixed for the public hearing In the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, oubdivinion 7b, of the Act provides that the notice must state that a draft copy of the proposed application (the "Application") to the Minnosota Energy and Economic Development Authority for approval of the Project, todather with all attachments and exhibits, is on filo with the City and available for public inspection; and WHEREAS, the Developer has prosontod to the City a form of public notice, attached horeto as Exhibit B, with a request that the City Council establish a data for a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project and authorize publication of the form of public notice provided by the Developer; Resolution 1984 i Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO THAT: 1. The City will conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project on the 15th day of October, 1984. 2. It is the present intention of the City Council to adopt the preliminary resolution in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A after completion of the public hearing on October 15, 1984. 3. The City Administrator of the City is hereby authorized to cause a public notice, substantially in the form of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B, to be published in the official newapaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 4. The City Administrator of the City is hereby authorized and directed to have available for public inspection in the offices of the City a draft copy of the proposed Application, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto. Arvo A. Grimamo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator G RESOLUTION 1984 0 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO UNDERTAKE AND FINANCE A PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 474.01 at seq. (the "Act"), authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds to finance projects; and WHEREAS, the term "project" Is defined by Section 474.02, subdivision Is, of the Act to include "any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise"; and WHEREAS, a representative of Monti Stadia Development Company, a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer") has presented this City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Monticello (the "City") with information concerning a proposed project (the "Project") to be acquired and constructed within the City; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City resolve to issue revenue bonds pursuant to the Act to finance the Project and has presented to the City Council a form of preliminary resolution concerning such issuance with a requent that ouch preliminary resolution, attached hereto as Exhibit A, be considered for adoption by the City Council; and WHEREAS. Section 474.01, oubdiviaion 7b, of the Act provides that the City Council must conduct a p•ablic hearing on any proposal to undertake and finance a project; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that notice of the time and place of ouch public hearing and stating the general nature of the project and an estimate of the principal amount of the bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the project must be published at least once not lose than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (10) days prior to the data fixed for the public hearing in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that the notice must state that a draft copy of the proposed application (the "Application") to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority for approval of the Project, together with all attachments and exhibits, Is on file with the City and available for public inspection; and WHEREAS, the Developer has presented to the City a form of public notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B, with a request that the City Council establish a data for a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project and authorize publication of the form of public notice provided by the Developer; Resolution 1984 e Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTI:CELLO THAT: 1. The City will Conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project on the 15th day of October, 1984. 2. It is the present intention of the City Council to adopt the preliminary resolution in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A after completion of the public hearing on October 15, 1984. J. The City Administrator of the City is hereby authorized to cause a public notice, substantially in the form of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B, to be published in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 4. The City Administrator of the City is hereby authorized and directed to have available for public inspection in the offices of the City a draft copy of the proposed Application, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto. Thomas A. Eldem City Administrator Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor 0 MEMO TO: Mayor, City Council Members, and City Administrator FROM: John Simola, Public Works Director RE: Additional Man for Public Works Department vs. Municipal Contract I have recently learned that the City Council, at the special budget work session on Saturday, September 22, voted to not approve the proposed 1985 Budget sum of $24,000.00 for an additional worker for the Public Works Department. It is further understood that no significant amounts wore added to the Budget so that the City could contract for various municipal services. I was not able to attend that meeting and feel that the discussion at the meeting may have gotten slightlyoff track and centered itself more on the actual replacement of a 12 year old City vehicle rather than the importance of continuing municipal services at a level currently enjoyed by the residents of the City of Monticello. I wish at this time to provide, through this memo, some additional information and possible insight to the rationale behind the request for additional manpower for the Public Works Department. At the meeting on September 22, Roger Mack, Street Superintendent, presented information to you indicating how much the City of Monticello has grown since the last permanent additional employee was hired for the City of Monticello. By referring to this shoot, it can be soon that the City has nearly doubled in sire. This in not only in regard to the number of lane miles, parking lots, parka, but also in other utilities ouch as storm saver, sanitary sower, and water. I believe, it was pointed out at the meeting that there Is no direct relationship from the site of the City or the growth of the City to the number of employees necessary to complete the municipal functions within its boundaries. However, it in illogical to assume that growth can continuo without additional burdens being placed upon the government to provide and maintain municipal services. We have attempted over the past nine years since 1975 to maintain an acceptable level of service. We have done this in several ways. We have trained our people, we have developed City vide management techniques which enable those people to be more productive, and we, have updated and purchased now equipment where necessary. The updating and purchase of our equipment has not been without foresight and thought. We have strived to gain the best value for the dollar. We have, revised some of the purchasing techniques and experimented with different bidding processes to obtain the lowest possible costa for materials and services which the City purchases. Nemo Mayor, City Council Members, City Administrator Page 2 In the past where there has been significant cost savings or where the City cannot perform the work, we have contracted as a viable alternative. We have looked at contracting vs. manpower and equipment not on a short-term, immediate savings basis only but also on a long-range cost reduction plan. This is absolutely necessary in preventing costs from increasing and maintaining an acceptable Leval of service for an acceptable price, thereby getting the best value for the dollar. When we look at 'the addition to our staff, we look at many things. In this ease, we are proposing an addition to the Public works Staff dealing with the areas of Streets and Alleys, Public Parking Lots, Snow and Ice, Parke and Recreation and Cemetery, City Street Lighting, and the City Tree Program. Not all of these areas have specific line items for salary, but each of them are affected by manpower changes in the general Public Works Department. In addition to these departments, the Public Works personnel are often called upon to assist the other departments due to manpower shortages, equipment shortages, or expertise In a specific area. These tasks are not related to any of the wintertime snow removal or ice removal; and excluding Tom Schumaker or Jerry Herman, in the past have ranged from 15-201 of one full-time employee per year. These tasks can be such things as building repair at the Library, work on the pump houses, patching near some of the buildings, work on equipment for the Nater Department, Installing doors for the Senior Citizens Cantor, work on the dog pound, maintenance at City Hall, assisting the Sower Department with construction and/or equipment repairs and maintenance. Already in 1903 I had noticed a difficulty in the Public Works Department in maintaining an acceptable loyal of service. This difficulty is directly related to the overall growth of the City. This growth has occurred not only in the area of the rooponsibility for the Public Works Department, but in the other departments as wall. Thin in demonstrated by the more frequent calls for assistance from the other departments. I requested an additional person in the Public Works Department to begin January 1, 1980. I had no opportunity to explain the situation to the Council, as I understand the decision was clearly made during the meeting setting salaries for 1986 In November of 1983. During 1984, the problem has not diminished. with the introduction of now streets and more parka and other growth, the problem has only compounded itself. You may on asking yourself what we consider as an acceptable loyal of service, as I have mentioned it several times. To me, it is one that protects the average Memo Mayor, City Council Membars, City Administrator Page 3 citizen's investment in the City of Monticello. It is a level of service that is not particularly conspicuous to the general public but more a part of life and living in that the maintenance or public Works is well run on a day -today basis. Although some may disagree, I feel today that there is a great pride in individuals who make Public Works happen without a lot of acknowledgements, rewards, or pats on the back. Clearly, an acceptable level of service is one that cannot totally satisfy all of the people in the City of Monticello all of the time. But it is also one that is well run and well planned so that there are no catastrophic surprises that can devastate the community' as well. It is a matter of timing of Public Works to the growth of the City of Monticello. Over the past two years, I have seen no catastrophic incidents that have happenod to the City of Monticello. However, there have been many little items that I believe begin to eat away at the acceptable level of services. One may be only that a few manholes took several months longer than expected to got adjusted. Another may be that the moving In behind schedule. Another may be that some Dutch Elm Diseased trees had to stand several weeks longer than they shoule have. Other areae of alight drops in services may be that a sign does not got replaced as soon as it should be, crosswalks are a few days late in getting painted, fertilizers and crab grass controls do not always got applied exactly on time as they should be, the stain on soma of the park boncheo gets a little more discolored than it should be before being restained, the groes tendo to got a little higher in soma areas than it should before getting mowed. At soma times there appears to be more paperwork than there are days to complete the jobs. Yet even though we try to cut the paperwork to bare minimum, we realize that some paperwork in government is essential such as this report I am writing now. Other drops in services are that outfalls or other City utilities or properties don't gat inspected or taken care of as they should be. Excellent realistic projects and goals are not that cannot be mot because of manpower shortages. In the poet, we have attempted to use ovary governmental agency that will assist us with some sort of a grant to acquire help, including over 400 man hours of court instructed community service work through Wright County. We have found that part-time people are normally not capable of doing the work a full-time person could do without a significant amount of training. We have also realized that you got to e point where you do not have enough full-time people to suporviss the temporary pooplo to got the job done productively. It In my belief that an adequate work force for the City of Monticello should leave a minuto amount of flexibility. ?here should onto In a while be a small amount of light at the and of the tunnol. Memo Mayor, City Council Members, City Administrator Page 4 when John Doe average citizen calls and makes a realistic request, it is difficult to tell that individual that he will have to wait, as he is rather low on the priority list. I, in no way, am trying to say that the Public works Department is falling apart or that the level of service performed by the Public works personnel is completely deteriorated. I am only attempting to state that I have seen signs that additional staffing is needed and that we can not totally depend upon government grants, part-time workers, and community service volunteers from the courts to do the work in the City of Monticello. The City Administrator has asked me to prepare a list at this time for possible winter contracting only. The following section of the agenda deals with that subject. If you have any questions, you may contact me at home to avoid a lengthy discussion at the Council meeting. Johrd E. 9lmola Pulriic Norka Director Council Agenda - 10/9/84 9. Consideration of Contracting a Portion of City Services. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As stated in the Nemo at the direction of the City Administrator, this agenda item is only dealing with the possible contracting of a portion of the winter services only. First of all, let us define a reason for contracting or subcontracting municipal services. The primary reason for considering contracting municipal services that are currently being performed in-house, so to speak, is cost savings. At this point in time, we are looking at the possibility of contracting to be cost *savings over hiring additional staffing. In many instances, there are definite advantages to contracting. Contracting can eliminate a back log of work during peak periods by providing adequate employees without the cost of continued employment during slow periods. As I have tried to indicate in the previous Memo, we do not have slow periods. Contracting can also be more popular with the public. Some citizens have long perceived the private sector as more productive than the public sector. Ono must actually work in the public sector and the private Doctor both in order to realize that this is often a fallacy. Another reason for contracting is to reduce the amount of equipment necessary. In othor words, to put off the purchase of additional equipment and to contract out the work that that equipment would perform. Other reasons for contracting include specialized skills. This only comes into play if full-timo employees do not have the specialized skills to do the job or it is not practical to hire someone with these specialized skills for a limited amount of time. In addition, contracting can free up Department Directors from the day-to-day worries of operating crows and employees. There is more time for planning. This, however, can turn around, as there can often be troublesome contractors that can take up more supervision time than a normal crow. So there often is not a savings in supervision time. There are oleo oovoral cocoa against contracting. Ono is the loco of flexibility that the City will realize when contracting. Normally a contract is tho purchase of goods or services of a fixed amount at a fixed rate. Any significant change in the quantities or operations or duties results in prices being changed, and most contractors will purchase equipment and hire employees which moot the minimal requirements of the tooka contracted. Also, as is the case with smaller municipalities, contracting can rocult in problems with unions and other City employees if that contracting does, indeed, take away from overtime work that would normally be given to those employees. There is also all of the poporwork necessary to draft, execute, and maintain a contract in force. In addition, the contract at come time Ccan conflict with other objectives. There is also, without SM Council Agenda - 10/9/84 a doubt, some controversy within a community whether it be charges of corruption, or 11why did you hire this contractor over this contractor?", or who is to blame when the contractor does a poor job, especially in emergency type services. We get down to the questions then of why we should contract. First of all, contracting should be distinctively cheaper than what we aro doing now, assuming that the City does have the equipment to do the work. Therefore, it must be considerably cheaper to contract than to hire additional staff if that staffing is needed, not only for the task to be contracted but for other tasks as well. There should be a guarantee of some sort that the contractor has the proper equipment, as good equipment, as the City currently doing the work and has skilled personnel to do the work. Thirdly, there should be some sort of guarantee that the contracting will not reduce the level of service to the community. The following is a list which we fool aro services that could be contracted out for winter work: The hauling of snow from Broadway and Highway 25. Currently, the following evening after a snow storm, the entire Public Works Department is involved in removing snow from Broadway. This means that there is extremely limited, if non-existent, work staff the following day in the Public Works Department. If those services were contracted out, especially the hauling of the snow, it would free up the Public Works staff to finish the minor clean up and widening throughout the community an wall as got the equipment ready for the next snow storm. Plowing of all the municipal parking Iota within the City of Monticello. Currently, many of the City parking lots have to be plowed during or shortly after the normal street plowing operation in order to got the incoming vohicloo off of the otrooto and into the lots. By contracting out the plowing of the parking Iota, thio work could be done concurrently with the plowing of the streets and the Toto would be open and ready to go. This would allow the Public Works crow added Lima to got the widening and clean up work done the d rat time, rather than delay it to the second shift. By contracting this work out, the coot of the contract could be assigned back to the specific department; that io, the Public Works Department would no longer include the costa for snow removal at the Liquor Store (that coot would be assigned back to the Liquor Store), and the Library costo would be aooigned to the Library, Senior Citizon'a coat to the Senior Citizen Center, city flail, etc. _12- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 3. Contracting for snow hauling from municipal parking lots. Scheduling of the snow hauling from the municipal parking lots is normally done as time permits. Often the piles have to sit in the parking lots for several days before the City crews can have adequate room in the snow disposal areas and find the time to remove those piles from the parking lots. Contracting this hauling would provide more room in the parking lots at an earlier time and again free up the City crews for other tasks such as ice removal and miscellaneous clean up. 4. Contracting plowing and cleaning of the sidewalk from the elementary school to the high school along Broadway. It has been a normal procedure to get this snowplowing of the sidewalk completed prior to 10:00 A.M. the morning after the snow has stopped. This is also indicated as a requirement in our snow removal ordinance. This, at times, does pose a problem, as we normally do a great deal of shuffling people around to got this work accomplished. Sometimes the Public Works Director cleans the sidewalk, other times the Water Department cleans the sidewalk, or in the case of last year, we had a CETA worker clean the sidewalk using City equipment. As it looks this winter, we will not have a CETA worker for the wintor, and this will put an additional burden on us to find someone to clean this sidewalk. The above four areas are areas which we fool could be looked into for contracting and reduce the burden on the existing Public Works staff. The contracting of those oorviccs should allow us to maintain an acceptable level of service with the existing Public Works otaff in the winter time only. We have prepared the following information regarding current coots for snowplowing and removal in the above referenced four areas. When considering our costs, we have assigned the entire coat of a full-time employee, including all of hie insurance and benefits, on an hourly basis. Overhead costo ouch an coots of owning or purchasing the piece of equipment and/or administrative coots were computed only if the coots of the overhead or equipment ownership could be actually eliminated by contracting. For example, we could not got rid of the loader for the oako of merely contracting out snow removal out of a parking lot. Therefore, the ownership costo of that loader would not be included, only the operation and maintenance costa. The following is a list of coats for th000 various operations no outlined above: _13_ Council Agenda - 10/9/84 FIGURES BASED ON LAST 12 MONTHS RECORDS CITY SERVICES 1. Parking Lot Plowing, 9 Operations - Labor Equipment Total Hourly Cost 72 Hrs Yearly Cost 12.00/hr 5.84/hr 17.84/hr 1,284.48 1,284.48 2. Snow Removal Broadway 6 T.H. 25, 4 Operations Labor 3 Trucks 8 Total 105 Hrs 12.00/hr 5.84/hr 17.84/hr 1,873.20 Labor Loader 35 Hrs 12.00/hr 5.65/hr 17.65/hr 617.75 Labor Grader 35 Hrs 12.00/hr 5.11/hr 17.11/hr 598.85 Labor Blower 35 Hrs 0 6.97/hr 6.97/hr 243.95 3,333.75 3. Snow Removal Parking Lots, 4 Operations - Labor 3 Trucks 0 Total 105 Hro 12.00/hr 5.84 17.84/hr 1,873.20 Labor Loader 35 Hra 12.00/hr 5.65/h4 17.65/hr G17.75 2,490.95 4. Snow Blowing Broadway Sidewalk Labor Equipment Total 30 fire-- 12.00/hr 3.00/hr 15.00/hr 450.00 450.00-- 50.00••$7,559.18 $7,559. 18 •1. Commuter Lot 2. Lot West of Flickers 3. Walnut Street 6 Lot North of Harry -e 4. Lot East of Security Federal 5. Fire Hall 6. Lot East of Zoo 7. Liquor Store 0. Library i 9. City Hall ••Noto: Includes blowing Broadway sidewalk 15 timoo/oeaoon, 1-3 hro/time, 2 hr. average. -14- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 As you can see by the above tabulation, our cost for snowplowing and removal in the four areas totals approximately $7,500.00 per year. To obtain some approximate contracting costs, we contacted a few of the reputable contractors in the area who have somewhat similar equipment. I should state, however, that we were unable to find anyone in our area equipped with reversible plows on anything larger than a pickup. The following is a list of some of the equipment and rental coats that could be expected under a contract. 1. 3 Cubic Yard Rubber -Tired Loader S 60.00/hr 2. Motor Grader with Wing 50.00/hr 3. Single Axle Dump Truck with 44.00/hr 1 -way Plow and Wing 4. 4-whoel Drive, 3/4 Ton Pickup With Plow 30.00/hr 5. 14 Yard Rubber -Tired Tractor Loader 50.00/hr 6. Hauling Only, Single Axle Dump Truck 25.00/hr Without Shaker 7. Hauling Only, Tandem Axle Dump Truck 35.00/hr Without Shaker 8. Tractor Mounted Snow Blower for 20.00/hr• Sidewalk Clearing The above rates include the piece of equipment and the operator along with operation and maintenance of that piece of equipment during a normal 8 -hour shift. They do not reflect any extended shifts or significant overtime. Those rates would be higher. In attempting to make a comparison, we found it was very difficult due to the fact that we were unable to find similar pieces of equipment in soma cases. Therefore, we are just going to use the assumption that the contractor's piece of equipment, even though smaller or lase sophisticated than ours, will do the job as fast as ours. Therefore, we offer the following comparison. la. Contracting Parking Lot Snowplowing Option 41 1 3/4 Ton Pickup With Plow 72 bra 0 S30.00/hr - S 2,160.00 Option 42 1 Single Axle Dump Truck With 1 -way Plow and Wing r 72 hre 0 544.00/hr - S 3,168.00 • Estimated -15- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 2a. Contracting Snow Removal on Broadway and Highway 25. Option 01 3 Single Axle Dump Trucks Without Shakers 105 hrs @ $25.00/hr - S 2,625.00 1 Motor Grader With Wing 35 bra @ S50.00/hr - S 1,750.00 1 - 3 Cubic Yard Rubber Tired Loader Without Snow Blower 35 hrs @ S60.00/hr - 5 2,100.00 TOTAL $ 6,475.00 3a. Contracting Parking Lot Snow Hauling Option #1 1 - 3 Cubic Yard Rubbor Tired Loader 35 hre @ S60.00/hr - S 2,100.00 3 Single Axle Dump Trucko Without Shakers 105 hre @ $25.00/hr - S 2,625.00 TOTAL S 4,725.00 4a. Contracting for Blowing Sidewalk Along Broadway Option #1 1 Tractor Mounted Sidewalk Blower 30 hro @ $20.00/hr- • S 600.00 TOTAL OF ALL ITEMS $13,960.00 Tho above pricoo woro using reputable contractors from thio arca as baso prices. They may, indeed, lower their prices slightly during a bid situation. It is possible that we could got lower prices if we would omit our current bonding and insurance requirements for contractoro and allow anyone a chance to give uo a price and try out for ouch contracts. This has not boon the policy of the City in the pact, and I don't believe it should be in the future. - Eatimatod -16- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 Based upon the above figures, utilizing the existing data, it appears that contracting could be twice as expensive as utilizing our existing work force and equipment. By bidding the work out, utilizing larger trucks in hauling and different combinations with different pieces of equipment and allowing contractors from as far away as St. Cloud and Minneapolis to bid the work, we may be able to come closer to the cost that the City incurs. I don't believe we would match that cost. For the 5 -month snowplowing and removal season, it would cost us approximately 510,300.00 to have a man here on our staff. A good portion of his time would be attributed to snow and ice removal. However, there are also a significant number of tasks in the Public Works Department, anywhere from assisting with the Dutch Elm Disease Program, to trimming boulevard trees, to making ice, to working with other departments, to cleaning up and brushing some of the City properties, as well as equipment maintenance, that would take up a good share of the remaining time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. This alternative would be to prepare plana and specifications for contracting a portion or all of the above winter work and to advertise and obtain bid prices for that work. A This would includeplacing en amount of approximately $13,000.00 into the winter budget to cover those expected contracting costs. This alternative does not take into consideration any contracting of City services for the summer, spring, and fall months. 2. This alternative would be to hire an additional employee for the Public Works Department and place an amount of 524,000.00 into the 1985 Budget spread through all the Public Works Departments, spring, summer, fall, and winter. 3. This alternative would be to keep working on an "as ie" basis until ouch point in time there is a more dufinitu drop in the level of service to the community and at that time make decisions as to how to handle the problem. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommendation is that we follow Alternative 02 and add additional staffing as has boon requested for the past two years. The key issue at point right hero is whether or not to add sufficient funding in the Budget to cover either the contracting or tho hiring of additional staffing. It is our fooling that it is time to add the additional staffing to the -17- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 City of Monticello and that contracting winter services will be a quick fix for the time being but will not plan for the future overall effectiveness of the Public Works Department in the City of Monticello. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -18- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 10. Consideration of Final Payment for Project 82-2, Meadow Oak. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND This agenda item had been on a previous agenda but had been tabled due to lack of the final estimate. I received the final estimate on Wednesday afternoon from Charles Lopak. He had indicated that the figures had been agreed upon by Richard Knutson, Inc., the general contractor. I have described the project in detail in the other agenda supplement, so I will not be redundant. The total amount of the original contract was 5731,095.55. With Change Order #I, the omitting of hydrants and valves across the fields, and Change Order q4, the omission of the restoration work across those fields, we have a deduction of 525,152.00. With the addition of Change Order p2, we added to the contract $81,903.92 for work in the Second Addition area, which was switched from privately funded to publicly funded, and with the addition of Change Order 03, a 51,000.00 fee for mobilizing the curb and gutter subcontractor due to delays in obtaining the railroad permit, we added to the contract $82,903.92. This brings the total amount of the original contract to $788,847.47. OSM has indicated by the final estimate that the total amount of work performed is 5763,310.27. The difference between the work to be performed and the actual quantity performed in $25,537.20. We have paid the contractor $709,650.41, making the final payment duo the contractor 553,659.86. The savings over planned quantities of $25,537.20 is attributable to two areas. There was a savings in quantities in our original portion of the contract of $20,397.34, and a savings in quantities under Change Order q2 of $5,139.86. I did not have a significant amount of time to chock the final quantities against the in-place quantities, but I did find a couple of problem areas. Ono of the problem areas was located in the Second Addition area. In this area, we actually have in the final estimate a portion of the pathway work for the private sector. The actual amount to estimated to be in the area of $800.00. In addition, in this name Second Addition area in which the work was done under Change Order 02, the 8 -inch water main was extended into the private sector approximately 70 foot further than was originally indicated on the plana. This amount adds up to approximately 5790.00. We, therefore, if we pay the final ostimato, should either bill Ultra Homes for this amount or remove it from the final estimate paid to Richard Knutson. Two other problems on the project Ito with water main gato valves. Ono gato valve in the Estates portion of the project was not rained prior to the blacktopping. Anothor goto valva in the area of the Second Addition on the east and of the project to crooked to ouch a point that it cannot be keyed to be turned on and off. This valva wan supposed to be repaired prior to -19- Council Agenda - 10/9/84 the final payment. I have informed Mr. Lepak to inform the general contractor that these two valve problems must be taken care of prior to relearning the final payment check. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative 11 would be to make final payment to Richard Knutson in the amount of $53,659.86. We would then bill Ultra Homes, Inc., for the additional work performed under this contract not originally in the contract. 2. Alternative 12 would be to reduce the final payment to Richard Knutson by the amount estimated performed for Ultra Homes, Inc., thereby leaving the amount to be settled between Richard Knutson and Ultra Homes. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that rather than delay the final payment for the contract that we make payment to the contractor in the amount of $53,659.86 as outlined in Alternative 11, and we bill Ultra Homes for that additional portion of the work which we performed in their area. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of final estimate payment Voucher No. 9; Copy of Change Order 14. (Note Change Order 14 must be signed by the City.) -20- CDNSIMCTM PAYNDIT Estimate Vocher No. 9 d Final Oa' 1 October 1, 1905 For Period Ending : "ist 31, 1985 Project M.mDer 82-2 Class of York Lift Statim, Sanitary Sewer. Mata► Bain, Street Construction And Appurtenant Mork To : Richard Knutson, Inc. 211 Travelers Trail For : Wicello, Minnesota 8amv111e, Mn. A337 A. Original Contract Mound 1 731095.55 0. Total Additions / 82903.92 C. Total Deductions 1 25152.00 D. Total feeds Entubered / 78MV.57 E. Total Yalue of Mork Certified to Data 1 763311.21 F. Less Retained Percentage 0 2 / 1.10 G. Less Total Previous Paynennls 1 709650.51 H. Approved for Payr,ent, This Report / S36S9.86 I. Total Payments Including This Voucher 6 763310.21 I Balance Carried Forward 1 25537.21 AFfitllK+l.S OFR-SME*-MAMN 0 ASMCIATES, IMC. Pursuant to our field observation. as performed in—,or danea with our contract, woo her*j certify thet the ""pule are satisfactory and the work properly performed in accordance with the plans and specifications and that the total work is 100 I completed are of August 30, 1985 . I hereby r d v w A of NH voucher. 8i0rod i This is t0 certify that to tin best of wy knnoledge. information, and belief, the quantities amd values Of work certified herein is a fair approximate estivate for the period Covered by this you". Contractor : Richard Knutson, Ire. Signed DI Data 1 Title City of Monticello Approved for Paymemt Voucher Checled By : AutMrimd Reprow nwive Date I Date 1 160-3265 Page 1 of 5 Q ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021 E. HENNEPIN AYE. - SUITE 238 MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55413 CHANGE ORDER N0. ...... A— ....... 400.00 RE: gjty. .qjgqt.02-2 ........... ...... (Meadow Oak) R i c.hAri0..K.qqtsAn,. .1!jq I ....... ......... contractor 201 Travelers. Trail .......................... . Burnsville, 0- .55337 ........... ............ Dear Sir (s) Under your contract dated .... MarCh..15 .... ... ......................... . 19- W with the .tity of Monticello, Minnesota ...................... owner for .04.At4tion. $ani Lary —Sewer. . Water.Main—Streat-Construction. &. Appurtenant Work ........ we are authoditedby the owner to harebydhectyou to Aeave. as. Is the maf-i-ni shed .... grading. above. the, Z4'!.waterw1.n.end ,tn.void .al Lother. claims, far.extras ..... by. Me.Contrac.tQr. and. to. Q0..A11. Rn.ojog. j.1qvj,44ted.d*mges. by.theOwer ............ I ........................ ........ I . .................... aid NXwM to (deduct frau) the owUnt. to accordance witb Coatraet and qWMCMIM do sm of There will be an extendon of A ......... days for conwatim The date of completion of contract was ....... 19 .... and now wW be .......... 10 ...... Annuli of artolaat coronad Total A"It"t $731.095.55 1 81.902.10 ' APPr*V*d .......................... 19.... ...........I ...................... I ...... 0. ,J>r.r -�-q .4 ..............., ia. q ... pw ewrreeret Tata/ faft I contto D*t* 25,152.contact $787,845.15 ftVpC".V suftnift" ON&UNDR&WAYENIN IL IWWIOAM'INQ Charles A. Lepak, VE 4-11-83 ID