City Council Agenda Packet 11-13-1984AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�Tuesday, November 13, 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 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held October 22,
1984, and the Special Meeting Held November 7, 1984.
3. Citizens Comments/Potations, Requests and Complaints.
Public Hearings
4. Consideration of Vacating a Portion of River Street. ^�
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of Adopting Assessment Roll
for Delinquent Sewer and water Bills.
Old Business
6. Consideration of a Planned Unit Dovolopmont - Applicants,
Jim Powaro/Kent Kjollborg.
7. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to the Jay Miller
Rapist.
Now Business
8. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing tho Certification
of a Spacial Levy with tho County Auditor.
9. Consideration of Authorizing the Firm of TKDA to Commanco
work on Phase II (Plano and Specifications) for the Proposed
Monticello Fire Hall.
10. Consideration of Making an Offor for the Purchase of Block 13
as tho Proposed Site for tho Now Piro Hall.
11. Consideration of Replacement of a 1972 Snowplow Truck, Approval
of Specifications, and Bid Advortisomont.
12. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Payment to the
Minnesota Coalition of Outotato Cities to be used for Logiolativo
Representation Services.
13. Adjournment.
C
NOTE: Tho Council mooting will be hold on Tuooday duo to Votorano
Day on Monday.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LIq CITY COUNCIL
h-f October 22, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: Mayor Arve Grimsmo
Acting Mayor, Ken'Maus, presided.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 9
and the special meeting hold October 15, 1984.
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Request to Vacate Utility
Easement - Applicant, Fulfillment Systems, Inc.
and
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of Request to Vacate Utility
Easement - Applicant, Burger Kinq Corporation.
Burger King Corporation recently purchased Lots 1 and 2. Block 2,
Lauring Hillside Terrace, and wishes to develop the two lots
as a single parcel. Fulfillments Systema, Inc., also purchased
Lots 6 and 7. Block 2, Lauring Hillside Terrace, and aro currently
building a largo structure right over the lot lino between Lots 6
and 7.
At the time the Lauring Hillside Terrace plat was recorded,
the City retained casements around the perimeter of each lot
for drainage and utility purposes. The above two firma requested
that the City vacate the casements located between each lot,
as they would no longer bo necessary since both parties plan
to develop them as a single parcel.
Motion woo made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to vacate the utility and drainage easements lying on
the south line of Lot I and the north lino of Lot 2, Block 2,
Louring 11illoido Terrace for Burger King Corporation.
Motion van also made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigon, and unanimously
carried to vacato the utility and drainage easements that lie
on the east lot line of Lot 7 and the wont lot lino of Lot 0,
Block 2, Lauring Hillaldo Torraco, for Fulfillmont Syatoma,
( Inc.
(� f
-1-
u
Council Minutes - 10/22/84
F7-'1 6. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment - Liquor Sales on Election
Days.
i
During the 1983 Legislative Session, Minnesota Statutes pertaining
to sales of non -intoxicating and intoxicating liquor on election
days were amended to allow for liquor sales during statewide
elections.
City of Monticello's ordinances pertaining to non -intoxicating
beer sales and Municipal Liquor Store off -sales specifically
state that no sales shall occur during the hours of 1 a.m. and
8 p.m. on any election day. In order for the City to allow
beer and a municipal store to sell, the City ordinances would
have to be amended to coincide with the revised State Statutes.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to adopt Ordinance Amendment 1984 1143 deleting the
sentences that prohibit sales on election days for non -intoxicating
Liquor and sales at a municipal liquor store.
7. Consideration of Authorizing the Publication of a Summary of
the Cablo Franchising Ordinance.
In September, 1984, the City Council adopted a Cable Franchising
Ordinance. State Statutes allow for this ordinance to be published
O in a summary form. A 10 -page summary document woo prepared
by Mr. Tom Creighton, Legal Counsel for the Cable Commission.
At this point during the meeting, Mayor Grimsmo arrived and
began to chair the meeting.
Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried
to authorize a 10 -page summary of the recently adopted Cable
Franchising Ordinance to be published as allowed by Minnesota
State Statutes. Sao Exhibit 01 for Ordinance summary.
0. Consideration of Giving Final Approval to the Concept Plan and
the Development Stage Plan for Plata Partners, a Planned Unit
Development.
The Planning Commission, at its last meeting, gave final approval
to the Concept Plan and final approval to the Davolopmont Stage
Plan for the Plaza Partnere PUD contingent upon a final sign
off by the City's Consulting Engineer regarding the design of
the public utility Improvements and drainage plan. The dovolopere
were informed that no final action would be considered by the
Council unless the entire package was in acceptable, recordable
form and approved by the City Enginoor.
Mr. Brad Larson, attorney representing the dovolopere, indicated
that not all of the documents would be completed by Monday's
-2- 0—IL-1
Council Minutes - 10/22/84
- meeting; and as a result, it was recommended by the staff that
no action be taken for final approval on the Development Stage
Plan or the Concept Plan. In regards to the public utility
improvements, it was recommended by the City Administrator that
approval be granted on this item so the developers could begin
construction yet this fall. Consulting Engineer, John Badalich,
indicated that he is working out the final details with the
developers- engineer and is agreeable with approval being granted
for the public utilities portion only.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to allow the developers to start construction of the
public sever and water utilities prior to the final Concept
Plan and Development Stage Plan being approved. The balance
of the approvals will be postponed until the November 13, 1984,
meeting.
9. Review of the Amended Comprehensive Plan and Consideration of
Adoption.
The City staff, along with Consulting Planners and Engineers,
have been revising the Comprehensive Plan saction3 that refer
to goals and policies. These sections were reviewed by the
HRA, Planning Commission, end City Council previously. A revision
of tho Guido Plan section
as recently completed incorporating
the comments and suggestions that resulted from the amended
Goals and Policies sections.
The revised Guido Plan did have some sections totally removed
from it ouch no references to a ring road oy3tam through the
downtown. Councilmembor Fair questioned why the ring road terminology
was eliminated, an she felt the City should be encouraging commercial
construction on the ring roads such an walnut Street and Coder
Street connecting the downtown area to the Interstate. It was
noted that the reason for eliminating the ring road terminology
in the downtown area wan that both Walnut Street and Codar Street
have been opened across the railroad tracks and aro currently
being developed, thus the Guido Plan did not have to address
ring rondo anymore. Questions were also raised concerning transportation
policies and the statement that the City shall pursue a cooperative
airport between the cities of Elk River, Big Lake, and Monticello.
It was suggested that the wording be changed to indicate that
the City would be receptive in the future if a need arcoo to
study a possible cooperative airport with surrounding adjacent
communities.
After further review, motion wan made by Fair, seconded by Maus,
and unanimously carried to adopt the 1984 Revised Comprehensive
�1 Plan Land Use Guido as amended.
�3-
0
Council Minutes - 10/22/84
t 1
ii 10. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting to Canvass Election
L` Returns and Declare the Results of the Election.
By consensus of the Council, a special meeting will be held
on Wednesday at 5:00 P.M., November 7, for the purpose of canvassing
the election returns.
11. Consideration of Bills for the Month of October.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of October as presented.
See Exhibit 02.
12. Discussion on Future Fire Hall Building Site.
Councilmembor Maxwell informed the Council that he has been
in contact with Mr. Robert Americk, owner of the property being
proposed for the now Piro Hall location. Mr. Maxwell noted
that Mr. Americk appears willing to sell the property in the
future, although a final negotiated price has not yet been firmly
established. Councilman Maxwell recommended to the Council
that no action bo taken on the actual purchase of Block 15 for
the Fire Hall site until the election is hold regarding the
bond sale for a new Fire Hall.
Rick Wolfstalld�
Assistant AdmiKiotrator
J
C MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELIA CITY COUNCIL
November 7, 1984 - 5:00 P.M.
Members Present: Mayor Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack
Maxwell, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
A special meeting was held at 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, November 7,
1984, in the City Hell fo- the express purpose of canvassing
election rosults and declaring the winners of the election.
The Mayor called the meeting to order. Tom Eidam, City Administra itor,
provided summary shoots to all members of the Council for their
review. Upon review, motion by Blonigen, second by Maus, and
carried unanimously to adopt the following resolution. (Seo
Resolution 1984 146 Canvassing the Election and Declaring the
Results.)
There being no further business for the special mooting, the
mooting was adjourned.
Thomas A. EiBom
City Administrator
lJ °
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
r
4. Consideration of Vacating a Portion of River Street. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
under the provisions of State law, the Council must hold a public
hearing prior to the vacating of any public street. The portion
of River Street in question begins at the dead and of River
Street and includes the entire portion until River Street disappears
into the river. The impetus for the request to vacate comes
from the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital and Nursing Home complex
and was originated from the notion that part of the building
would end up lying in the City right-of-way. Their plans as
of this time do show a portion of the building extending into
approximately 20 feet of City right-of-way. My understanding
is that the design of the building has changed somewhat so that
it will not be essential to relocate the sewer main that lies
within that portion of the street.
My initial discussions with Barb Schwientak of the hospital
centered around the notion of the City vacating a portion of
River Street in exchange for the rededication of some land for
City street realignment from the hospital. City staff had originally
considered giving up the southerly portion of River Street right-of-way
in exchange for land on the northerly aide so that we could
maintain the full width of right-of-way. I even approached
the subject of the hospital donating the river frontage to the
City in exchange for the right-of-way portion that they needed
based on the concept that in the far future that river front
may become a logical extension of Ellison Park and could be
maintained and kept as a City park rather than hospital land.
My understanding is that the expense factors involved made that
an unattractive deal to the hospital. Upon the petitioning
for the vacation of River Street, the signatures compiled included
not only the hospital but all of the property owners fronting
on River Street up to the point where it does enter the River.
I should note at this time my philosophical opposition to vacating
unions it is found to be absolutely essential. I support the
notion that once vacated and gone from City control, it is forever
gone. The City may, in fact, never develop the property, but
I think it is unfair for us to make decisions that will procludo
development that in deemed essential by future citizens. The
hospital -o position is, of course, that they want to eliminate
the possibility of a road over developing down there. The notion
that they simply need more land for their building could easily
be accommodated by a property exchange, but they aro concerned
that future development might eventually create a roadway that
they dont find desirable at the roar of their property. 1
wish to further emphasize that I have no opposition to the hospital's
project in any way but simply am opposed to vacations that can
create dead ends for the City regardless of the proposer.
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
I also have some concerns about the property the City owns under
that street right-of-way. In all other vacations we have had
no trouble at all selling the land to the party affected by
the vacation. Clearly, I think it would be to everyone's benefit
if we vacate to provide the land to the Hospital District for
a dollar and other good and valuable consideration. The remainder
of the street, however, runs through private ownership and by
rights should be sold to those property owners. However, the
land is currently being used by those property owners, and there
would be no incentive whatsoever for them to purchase that land
from the City. They would simply be gaining the additional
property free of charge.
One final consideration with respect to the vacation was brought
up by John Simola in that this major sewer line that lies in
the street is easily accessible by virtue of the 60 -foot roadway.
Should we vacate the street and in return receive an casement,
those are generally 30 feet. With the size of line that we
have running out there, I am not sure it is to the City's benefit
to restrict ouraolves to a 30 -foot construction easement when,
in fact, we already have a full 60 fact available to us.
I talked briefly with John Dadalich on Thursday and asked him
to consider the possibilities on this particular street vacation
as well. I do not find any objection whatsoever with the proposed
development, only my objection in a general sense to lose by
vacation. The public interest will clearly be served with respect
to the portion of vacation that servos the hospital. It simply
strikes me that since other land is available which is owned
by the hospital, a trade off of land could be executed, thus
serving both the hospitals needs and protecting the City's rights
of way for future use.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Grant the vacation and authorize conveyance of property
to the adjacent property owners - thin would remove the
street from our plot map and would move the land into private
holdings, thus facilitating the construction of the nursing
home.
2. Deny the vacation of the street but extend an invitation
to enter negotiations for a land exchange, thus facilitating
the excavation and oubsequant construction. This alternative,
to me, would protect the full width of City right-of-way
but would move it to ouch a location that it would not hinder
the hospital's conotruction plane.
3. Deny the vacation outright - this would noconaitate the
nursing home rodosigning its entire facility to avoid encroachment
In the right-of-way, and I seo no benefit gained by anyone
in this alternative.
-2-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff gives a qualified recommendation in favor of alternative
02. I would like to see the City protect its rights of way
for potential use rather than close the door on potential development.
I think an exchange of land would facilitate the rights and
privileges of both bodies. Hopefully, John Badalich will have
more comments on this matter and can shed some additional light
which may help the decision making process.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of a map shoving the section of River Street to be vacated.
-3-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
5. Public Hearing -Consideration of Adopting Assessment Roll for
Delinquent Sewer and Water Bills. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Purpose: To place on assessment rolls those accounts which
are delinquent (amount is over 60 days past due) on the assessment
roll to be certified to the County Auditor for collection.
Minnesota Statutes 429.101 and 444.075, Subdivision 3, allow
for special assessments to be collected for various types of
current services that are delinquent. Those people whose accounts
are delinquent have been notified of the public hearing and
are given an opportunity to present input if they so desire.
The following are delinquent accounts that are over 60 days
past due and unpaid as of the date this agenda was prepared:
Mr. Dick Hickman Mr. Tom Cloud ✓ Mr. John Cochran
Balance - $100.14 Balance - $45.38 Balance - $50.54
Mr. Michael Dahmen Mr. James Collette Christopher Maas
Balance - $95.28 Balance - $65.25 Balance - $122.72
James Johnson Ivan Wolter Mrs. Lorna Kneen
Balance - $47.65 Balance - $102.64 Balance - $56.45
Burnotto Christopherson Mr. David Munson Tracey Foss
Balance - $46.87 Balance - $246.60 Balance - $53.81
Mrs. Richard Colo Gerald Foley ✓ Bareness Drug ✓
Balance - $86.12 Balance - $112.19 Balance - $67.60
Kra. Donna Allan Mr. Dan Koch Joyce Lawson
Balance - $11G.13 Balance - $104.31 Balance - $25G.80
✓Cory Larvineon Mr. Michael Brower
Balance - $67.48 Balance - $55.60
All of the above arc charges for sower and water accounts, except
Baroness Drug, which in for a water motor, and Joyce Lawson,
which is for (2) Dutch Elm tress removed.
It should be noted that those people have boon notified in the
past about their delinquent accounts and various attempts have
boon made to collect those amounts. It is recommandod that
those delinquent accounts be put on the assessment roll for
collection in 1985 at the interest rate of 8!. It should be
pointed out that 8% is the highest interest rate allowablo for
aaassamanto that have not boon financed through bonds. If any
of the above accounts aro paid by Tuesdays meeting, they can
Cbe eliminated from the assessment roll.
-4-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
6. Consideration of a Planned Unit Development - Applicants, Jim
Powers/Kent Kjellberg. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
There is little new information to provide to you at this time.
This item was postponed at your last meeting because all documents
had not yet been prepared. As of this writing (Thursday morning),
we have not received the final copies of all of the documents.
We are assuming that all of this information will be forthcoming
by later today or tomorrow so that it can be reviewed in its
total form on Tuesday night. The work on Wendys is progressing
steadily, but the actual platting work Is apparently stalling
along the way. Consequently, I am recommending that the Council,
if it does not have the complete package, continue the matter
to still another meeting. I find it to be highly unreasonable
to expect the City to grant final approval to a major development
without the proper documentation in order.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Alternative actions have not changed since the last agenda supplement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation isto postpone action if the materials
are not in. If all materia Is aro In, and the final plan has
not changed substantially from what was approved at the Planning
Commission level, staff recommends final approval.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Nona.
-5-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
7. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to the Jay Miller Replat. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
On August 27, 1984, the Council granted approval to a variance
of approximately a foot -and -a -half on the west end of Jay Miller's
8 -unit townhome replat. A condition was attached that it go
back to the Planning Commission for their review and a moratorium
was declared on anymore 10 -foot setbacks in that subdivision.
At the September Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
granted approval for that variance and the building placement.
What happened, however, is that the formal record did not show
granting of final approval to the plat. After talking with
Jim Ridgeway, Chair of the Planning Commission, he indicated
that in his conversation with other Planning Commission members
the motion to approve the variance carried the intent of giving
final approval to the overall layout. We discussed this matter
in that the final approval wan not formally given but the final
approval is implicitly given if you're allowing a specific building
placement by virtue of granting a variance. Jim Ridgeway was
agreeable that that was the Planning Commisslon'e intent, but
he was very upset with the way Jay Miller has handled this entire
matter. While we were in agreement that we would have the right
to force Jay to go through the Planning Commission for final
approval and not come before the City Council until November 26,
we agreed also that inaisting on ouch a process was mainly being
stubborn to a developer who has abused the system. We really
would not be gaining anything by doing it except perhaps some
personal satisfaction. As a result, we aro bringing it to the
City Council for final approval rather than go through the extra
meetings with no concrete results.
Thio townhomo project is now virtually complete, and the Toto
have boon defined according to the actual building lines. The
common area will be jointly owned by all 8 tenants. There will
be a several page list of restrictive covenants and the formation
of a neighborhood association. Those documents have boon given
preliminary review and will be given final review prior to the
meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Alternative actions aro limited hers as they are with any zero
lot line roplat. It is not uncommon to allow conotructior. to
begin before the lot lines are platted in order to achieve a
match up of building lino and lot line. Consoqusntly, the final
approval given to a roplat of this sort is largely a formality,
since the granting of preliminary approval is what, in fact,
initiated the construction. Thus, the only real alternative
is to grant approval, since denial would have virtually no affect
because the buildings aro already there. There is no staff
recommendation, nor supporting data at this time. I can make
copies of the neighborhood association covenants available prior
to the meeting if you wish to review them.
-6-
C
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
8. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the Certification
of a Special Levy with the County Auditor. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you noted at the special meeting to canvass election results,
the Fire Hall referendum passed by a resounding majority. I
have discussed the matter of the bond issuance with Jerry Shannon
of Springsted at length, and the following information has been
supplied him with his recommendation to proceed. He recommends
that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the certification
to the County Auditor of a special levy in anticipation of 1985
debt service on potential Fire Hall bonds. Mr. Shannon is recommending
that we proceed in the following way. At this meeting, we authorize
the levy to the County. On November 26,we would adopt the resolution
setting the Fire Hall bond sale. Springsted would be attending
that meeting and provide the necessary resolutions. On January 14,
we would make the formal bond sale after opening the bids.
A bond sale of this size definitely would be competitive and
not nagotiablo. We would then receive the actual cash in hand
on February 14 ready to be invested until we need it. Mr. Shannon
recommends that we avoid a late 1984 sale because there very
likely will be a tremendous volume of business in the bond market
as a result of all the IRB'o that have to moot the December 31
deadline.With this kind of volume, the competition Is not
so intense and the interest rates not too attractive. With
respect to the bond issue itself, Mr. Shannon sees the sale
having a 15 -year debt retirement schedule and today's estimate
having an average coupon rate of 9.45. The Question that must
be addressed by the City Council is the amount that the City
will authorize for issuance. This, of course, must be decided
at this meeting if we are to certify the levy.
The amount of $863,000 is the voted authorized amount to be
expanded on the improvement of the Fire Hall. Minnesota Statutes
475.56 allows for the addition of an amount not to exceed 29
for discount bidding. The 29 is $17,000 and when added to
the authorized amount would allow an issue of $880,000.
If this amount were to be sold, than the levy would be $116,000
or 1.62 mills. The advantages of this system aro that the bettor
interest rate will be provided if the City provides bidding
discounts and consequently, the money is more than made up over
the term of the retirement in interest savings. The disadvantage
to this is it creates the appearance that the Council is selling
more than that which is authorized. It is perfectly legal to
add this 2% for discount bidding, but it does give the appearance
that we voted for $863,000 and you aro now selling $880,000.
The counter to that statement is the voters approved S863,000
for Piro Ball improvements and by issuing the extra 2% wa can,
in fact, dedicate the full $863,000 to Piro Hall improvements.
-7-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
i
The counter to the $880,000 sale is to sell $860,000 and pay
the bidding discount out of that amount. In order to do that,
one have to be relatively comfortable that enough cushion has
been built into the figures that the building project itself
will not suddenly be short of funds near the end. If we select
to sell the lesser amount, the levy would be $115,028 with an
estimated millage of 1.6. Also, with respect to selling the
lesser amount, we can address the bidding discount through interest
earnings. Assuming that we receive the actual bond proceeds
on February 14 and invest them immediately, we could earn approximately
6 months' interest before first construction payment would be
required. The $17,000 bidding discount could be picked up in
about 25 months of investment. This 6 months' investment is
assuming that the City receives construction bids in April,
commences construction work in May, and is not faced with its
first payment until sometime in July. The advantage to this
system is that the Council issues exactly what was authorized
for Fire Hall improvements. The disadvantage to this option
is that at least S17,000 of our interest earnings has to be
utilized to pay bidding discount to secure the better interest
rate as opposed to using the entire interest amount for construction
contingencies or other sources or even be kept in reserve for
eventual debt retirement.
Both options aro entirely legal. Both have financial and public
relations advantages and disadvantages. The most important
factor to be addressed at thio time is whether or not to certify
the levy to the Auditor. The County Auditor has indicated that
he will accept a late special lovy from the City until November 15.
I do wish to stress that the real financial advantage to certifying
this levy this year is that we will then receive :ax proceeds
to make our first bond payments, thus avoiding having to bond
for capitalized interest and having to pay interact on interest.
By certifying now, we will begin collecting tax levy in the
very first year of the debt retirement schedule, which is to
our advantage.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt a resolution certifying a special levy for debt retirement
in tho amount of Sl16,000 - this reflects a bond solo of
$880,000 which includes the 2% allowed by Statute for bidding
discount.
2. Adopt a r000lution authorizing a special levy of 5115,028 -
this reflects a bond solo of exactly the $863,000 with no
excess built in for the 2% bidding discount.
3. Do not authorize a levy for collection in 1985, rather waiting
until aftor the bonds aro actually cold - this producco
C little advantage for tho City in that we will bo facod with
paying capitalized into rant or making our first yaar's bond
-6-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
ti-
�- payment out of reserve funds. If we postpone the certification
of the levy, we will not make our first collections until
1986, which will be the second year of the debt retirement
schedule.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff definitely recommends that the levy be certified this
year. For me, it's a toss up as to which amount to levy. with
respect to the pro's and con's of each system, I tend to favor
not including the 28 for discount bidding. This, however, is
not a strong inclination because the added investment dollars
would be beneficial to the City. At the came time, I am concerned
with issuing a bond in excess of the number that appeared on
the ballot, even though we have full and legal authorization
by Statute.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution to be adopted. I have left the number
open, and that can be inserted after the actual bond amount
has been determined.
C
C -9-
RESOLUTION 1984 0
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND SETTING
A SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIAL TAX LEVY
IN ANTICIPATION OF DEBT RETIREMENT OF
1985 FIRE HALL GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
WHEREAS, a special election on the question of whether or not
the City should issue its general obligation bonds in an amount
not exceeding $863,000 for the purposes of Fire Hall improvements
was duly hold on November 6, 1984, and;
WHEREAS, the results of said election have been declared valid
and final pursuant to Resolution 1984 046, and those results
are as follows:
Yea 1,179
No 308
WHEREAS, pursuant to the results of said election, the City
Council shall proceed with the solo of General Obligation Bonds
in the amount of (;/ o, nor, -" in order to make cold improvements
to the Fire Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA THAT there be and hereby is levied upon
the taxable property of the City of Monticello for the fiscal
year commencing on January 1, 1985, the amount of //.T. e7-8
for the purpose of debt retirement with respect to tho 1985
Gonoral Obligation Fire Hall Bonds.
The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified
copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County,
Minnesota.
Adopted this 13th day of November, 1984.
Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
�. 9. Consideration of Authorizing the Firm of TKDA to Commence work
on Phase II (Plans and Specifications) for the Proposed Monticello
Fire Hall. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
I am presuming at this time that the work performed by TKDA
under Phase I has been found satisfactory by staff and Council.
Up to this point, I have received no reports of negligence or
uncooperative behavior. I realize there is some question as
to the cost estimations on site preparation, and I hope to resolve
that question by the time of the meeting. Presuming that there
is an acceptable answer, I am further assuming that we wish
to commence work on the proposal at this time. Consequently,
it is appropriate for the City Council to make a motion authorizing
TKDA to begin work on detailed plans and specifications and
authorizing the execution of an architectural contract. The
alternative actions are limited to continuing with TKDA or beginning
a new architectural search.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that we exocuto the contract and commence work
with TKDA. There is no supporting data for this item. The
contract, which has already boon reviewed by the City Attorney
under Phase I. will be re-roviewed and presented for eignaturoo.
-10-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
�l
10. Consideration of Making an Offer for the Purchase of Block 13
as the Proposed Site for the New Fire Hall. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Councilmember Maxwell brought you up to current status at the
last regular Council meeting. If I recall Correctly, he indicated
that Mr. Americk had come around to the position of being a
willing seller but that the price of the land had not been agreed
to. The Council decided at that time to make no further overtures
to Mr. Americk until after the referendum. Having received
a clear and overwhelming vote of confidence for this construction,
I think it is an appropriate time to make a move for the land
now.
I know that prior to the special election canvassing meeting
convening, there was some informal conversation about an offer
for free land out near Malones. While I have absolutely nothing
against the possibility of getting some free land, I do have
concerns with the particular site. For obvious response reasons,
a central location for the main Fire Hall is generally desirable,
which is why I think the Amorick site Is most suitable. I also
wish to note that considerable effort went into the site analysis
and site selection process using certain criteria. It was my
understanding that as we kept that criteria in mind and reviewed
Qindividual sitoo, it was by consensus that the Americk property
was the moat desirable and mot the greatest number of the criteria
satisfactorily. I am also aware that there is substantial concern
over the projected cost of site preparation. The architects,
as you aro aware, have done for the bond referendum a preliminary
estimate of $96,000.00 in site preparation. I talked with Wee
Hendrickson this morning (Friday) about the $96,000.00 figure.
I indicated to him that that seemed awfully high for fill and
compacting, and he explained that the fill compacting and grading
is only a portion of that overall expense. He said site preparation
oleo includes the complete parking lot construction with bituminous
surface, all of the concrete curb and gutter work that is required,
complete sodding, the troo plantings, as wall an the fill, compacting,
grading, and readying for construction. He noted that there
was some small amount, though it was not broken out, included
for grooming the wast and whore we will not be building. He
also wished to emphasize again that the estimate is intentionally
built high so that we aro not caught by surprise when the bids
coma in.
In an attempt to further break down thin figure, I have asked
John to try and secure estimates from local contractors on what
the actual fill, compacting, and grading cents would be. Those
numborn can than be separated from the $96,000.00, which will
allow us to batter judge the value of the land. Mr. Hendrickson
C
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
C)
N. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Select Jack as our Sand negotiator and authorize a specific
sum to be offered for land acquisition.
2. Accept a recommendation from Jack on the selection of a
roaltor to represent the City and authorize a specific amount
as an offer for land acquisition.
3. Select a non-roaLtor party to negotiate with Mr. Amorick
on the sale of the land, and authorize a specific sum to
be made ao an offor.
-12-
vi
also went on to say that he found this site to be very desirable
for a Fire Nall location, and that if it weren't, he would have
suggested investigation into alternate sites right from the
beginning. While I do not wish to turn into a person who is
so rigid in my ideas that I allow good ideas to pass by, I do
think the evidence pointing toward development of this site
is very strong. The site is centrally located; it does provide
easy and quick access to Highway 25 for variable direction access;
while it may be within the heart of the commercial area, it
is less prime than other sites because it is only half block
in size and secondly, it is adjacent to the railroad right -o£ -way,
which limits development; it already has a full complement of
sewer and water and has finished City streets on two sides;
it is large enough to accommodato expansion if necessary but
to allow open green area grooming in the interim; considering
the attractive design of the building, it will be complementary
to commercial development in the area. I think if this site
is finally agreed upon, it would be appropriate to authorize
Jack to negotiate the final sale with Mr. Americk. Perhaps
Jack can give a more accurate prediction on the time and effort
it would take to negotiate such a deal, and whether or not it
could be determined to be a conflict of interest. Clearly,
if a great deal of time and effort has to go into negotiating
the land sale, Jack should be paid for his services. The question
`
then is if we are paying for services, should we be paying a
Council member? If it is found to be a conflict of interest.
then perhaps Jack could recommend what realtor we should ask
to act in our behalf. The advantage in having Jack do it is
that he has alroady made successful contacts with Mr. Amorick
and has worked with him up to this point. Mr. Amorick apparently
has bocomo more agreeable, and I suspect that's largely duo
to Jack's efforts. Still another advantage of having Jack do
the work for us is that clearly the best interests of the City
will be kept in mind at all times. The only real disadvantage
is the appoaranco of a conflict of intorost, but this can be
a delicate matter when exposed to the public eye.
C)
N. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Select Jack as our Sand negotiator and authorize a specific
sum to be offered for land acquisition.
2. Accept a recommendation from Jack on the selection of a
roaltor to represent the City and authorize a specific amount
as an offer for land acquisition.
3. Select a non-roaLtor party to negotiate with Mr. Amorick
on the sale of the land, and authorize a specific sum to
be made ao an offor.
-12-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
r_ 4. Abandon acquisition plane of this site, and authorize a
new site selection process.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Again, on this item staff recommendation is difficult. I think
Jack has done such excellent work up to this point. I favor
leaving him in our negotiating position, even with paying for
his services; but I do recognize the conflict of interest difficulty.
I think Jack could better recommend the process we go through.
I recall that Ken dealt with Security Federal on the land acquisition
process, and by being introduced to Mr. Americk through Jack
could perhaps carry the ball for us again. This, of course,
would eliminate the conflict of interest aspect since Ken would
not be paid for his services (other than expenses); but it could
conceivably compromise the effectiveness of having a professional
realtor involved. Lastly, I still think it would be extremely
beneficial to sand the City Administrator to Florida for 6-6
months to try and close this difficult land purchase.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
C -13-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
V_ 11. Consideration of Replacement of a 1972 Snowplow Truck, Approval
of Specifications, and Bid Advertisement. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item was discussed with the Council on Saturday. October 6,
at the budget workshop meeting. The Council voted to include
an amount of $67,600 in the 1985 Budget so that the replacement
of the 1972 Chevrolet could be considered for 1985. Thin amount
included a tandem axle truck and box with applicable plow, wing,
and sander.
Since the budget meeting, we have had time to prepare a more
detailed cost analysis of the possible savings in utilizing
a tandem axle truck over a single axle truck. In addition,
Roger Mack and myself had the opportunity to discuss the maneuverability
loss with Councilman Dan Blonigen after the October 26 Council
meeting. The tandem axle truck would be most valuable in hauling
materials such as snow, fill material, Class V, black
dirt, rip rap, blacktop, wood chips, and the like. In computing
the actual savings, we estimate a savings from S1, 000 to 51,200
per year through the utilization of a tandem axle truck. The
actual coat of a tandem over a single axle truck is approximately
58,000. In addition, the maintenance coat on a tandem axle
truck can run 308 higher than a single axle truck duo mainly
(� to the additional tiros and second differential and drive linea.
In this particular instance, it would take approximately 8-10
years for the tandem axle truck to pay for itoolf. This data,
as wall as the reduced mobility of a tandem axle truck in clearing
dead and streets, intersections, and cul -do -sacs, indicates
it would not be beneficial to replace the existing single axle
truck with a tandem axle unit. I believe Councilman Blonigen
is of the came opinion that if the truck is to be replaced,
it should not be replaced with a tandem.
Getting back to the question at hand of whether or not to replace
the 1972 Chevrolet, we provide the following information. The
1972 Chevrolet is a C60 Modal purchased from Could Brotharo
Chevrolet in 1972 with a 5 -yard box and hoist for $9,033. The
one-way plow was removed from the old City Diamond T truck
and modified to fit the 1972 Chevrolet. A small fan bolt driven
pump was added to the truck to lower and lift thin 10 -foot,
ono -way plow. The truck has approximately 50,000 miles on it.
The truck had an enormous amount of use in the early and middle
701o; and as newer and factor trucks were added to the floot,
it became more of a standby unit. The truck currently is in
fair condition. The body and box have boon patched up many
times and oro showing signs of runt and wear. The hydraulic
system on the unit is extremely weak, and frequently loads have
to be partially shoveled off the truck by hand. The engine
-14-
Council Agenda - 11/13/64
and transmission are worn but in serviceable condition. The
clutch is near needing replacement, and the truck needs six
new tires. The brakes on the truck have given us a lot of problems
over the past few years but seem to be holding now. The truck
would soon be due, however, for all new lining and possibly
some drum work.
Since the truck is equipped with only a narrow, one-way plow
and is in deteriorating condition, the truck has been used mainly
in the winter for snow hauling only and aces very little plowing
duty. In the summer, the truck aces extensive use in the tree
program and on miscellaneous Public Works jobs. We feel it
is time to replace this unit with a newer model, single axle
truck equipped with reversible plow, wing, and sander. We would
then move the 1975 International into the duties taken by the
old Chevrolet. The now truck would then take over the route
and duties that the 1975 International has currently been doing.
Replacing these unite as they near their useful life provides
for a more affective equipment management program. Planned
replacement of equipment is always more cost effective than
emergency purchasing during times of shortages for a particular
piece of equipment.
In preparation for the replacement, the Public Works staff has
contacted several truck and equipment dealers to obtain product
and cost information. We have also discussed our needs with
several other communities, counties, and state agencies and
looked at the equipment being used to handle similar needs in
other cities, etc.
Ono of the things that we were looking for when we talked to
these other communities and counties was a problem of intersection
cleanup. We found an overwhelming number of trucks equipped
with a front or bumper mounted wing. This attachment of the
wing to the front area of the truck gives the operator better
control over the wing at intersections and allows him to make
the corner without leaving a trail of snow between the wing
and plow and more easily match the radius curve of the intersection.
Thorn is not a significant coat increase of this typo of wing
over the mid -mount wing or door post typo of wing, but it does
require that the truck have an integral front framo extension.
All those people that we talked to regarding this typo of unit
praised it. They also cautioned us against the use of any typo
of bolt on front frame extension. Many of the owners of this
typo of equipment also cautioned us against purchasing a unit
with too light a front axle and/or springs. A cure-all to
any typo of front axle problem appears to be the specifying
of the 16,000 pound front axle with springs in excess of 16,000
pounds per pair at the pada.
-15-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
Another of the problems or items we looked at was the hydraulic
system for the truck. The existing hydraulic systems on the
City -s vehicles all leave somewhat to be desired_ None of the
units that we have will provide power to any of the devices
upon operator demand. Both of our trucks equipped with sanders
and wings are also equipped with a flow divider valve that must
be carefully adjusted each time one changes from the sander
to the hoist.
The hydraulic pump system that appears to have solved the problems
of flow control is a closed system. This system only circulates
a small amount of oil when not in use, but upon demand will
vary the stroke of the pistons in the pump to supply an adequate
amount of oil to run any of the attachments at a given time.
The cities of Elk River, New Nope, and Red Wing are currently
utilizing this type of hydraulic system and have much praise
for it. This system allows the pump to be driven directly off
the crank shaft without the use of a gear reducing PTO. Due
to the savings of this piece of equipment, this system is very
competitively priced with the conventional system and can often
be purchased for less.
one other problem that we looked into is the operation of the
control levels for the valve bodies. Ono of our trucks, the
1981 Chevrolet, has a ontrol body mounted in the cab. This
(�1 control valva bank takoca up a significant amount of room and
always appears to be looking and it dissipates a significant
amount of hoot during the summor months. This unit, however,
was salvaged from the 1972 International when we roused all
of the existing hydraulic equipment on the now Chevrolet. The
1978 International has a valve bank located behind the cab between
the framo rails. This is connected by heavy steal rode to the
valve control inside the cab. These lovers aro extremely difficult
to push and create operator fatigue after a short period of
time. A now system utilized by the majority of now unit purchasers
is the Morris Cable Control. This cable system allows for case
of operation from the cab but keeps the valve bank located outside
between the framo rails. The coat of this system is only slightly
more than the old conventional heavy lovas system.
Ono other consideration in the purchase of a now vehicle is
the trend to switch to diosal power. There aro several advantages
of the diesel over the gas. The dioaol engines aro not susceptible
to misfire duo to moisture caused by molting snow and ico during
snowplowing. Vary often a gasoline engine ignition system will
become wot during plowing operations. When this happens, the
engines misfire and losoapowor until such time they dry themselves
off by hoot or the operator pulls into the shop and drios off
the ignition system with compraosod air and/or solvents specifically
ouitod for drying out ignition systems. Another advantage of
-16-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
the diesel is that diesel fuel does not poison the air through
the induction of significant amounts of lead to the atmosphere.
In addition, diesel engines make better mileage than gasoline
engines. They are often 50-704 more efficient. Add this to
the fact that diesel fuel costs less than gasoline, and significant
savings are realized. There are also considerable savings in
maintenance. The International Team Data Base, which provides
the information on such items, indicates a savings of 9.86 per
mile with diesel versus gasoline power. This savings can add
up quickly.
The approximate additional cost for a diesel engine when purchased
over a gasoline engine is $5,000. The annual savings on 'a diesel
engine computed at the mileage rates for the City of Monticello
is $1,362.73 per year. It would take 3.67 years to pay for the
diesel engine. As a general rule of thumb for motor vehicles,
if the item will pay for itself in less than 5 years, it is
considered cost saving and would benefit the owner. It would,
therefore, be wise to consider specifying the diesel engine
with the now vehicle.
We have prepared a set of specifications for a typical snowplow
truck based upon the above information and other requirements
of the City of Monticello. These specifications are available
under separate cover at the City Hall.
Should the Council favor the replacement of the 1972 Chevrolet
snowplow unit, there are two other things that should be considered.
Ono is the typo of snowplow for the now unit. Another is how
to dispose of the old unit. As for the snowplow, the City of
Monticello is currently tooting a Scandinavian Transport Products
plow with a trippablo cutting edge. We will not have had time
to toot a plow thoroughly until we use it through a variety
of snowfalls. We have talked to operators for the State of
Minnesota who have used thin plow and also operators for several
communities who have used the Frink Trippablo Cutting Edge Plows,
and their response has boon vary positive. At this time the
staff fools that a combination utilizing the trippablo cutting
edge, a reversible plow, and a high and design such as a V -plow,
would be the moot advantageous plow for the City of Monticello.
There currently in only one manufacturer that has all three
of those available on a plow, and that is Frink. The second
boat alternative would be a combination of the rovoroibla plow
with the high and wings. Thorn is currently only one manufacturer
of this typo of plow that we know of, and that is the Wausau
Company in Wisconsin. We fool we have enough information to
recommend the Frink plow. There would, however, be time to
finish our experiments this winter and gain additional information
on the typo of plow we have proposed. The oparo Honky plow
which we have as a result of the addition of the STP plow could
be easily mounted on the now truck temporarily until a decision
in made later this year as to the plow.
-17-
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
v� As for the demise of the 1972 Chevrolet, it would be the proposal
that the staff, upon learning the trade-in value of the unit,
advertise for private bids and accept a bid from a private party
if it is higher than the bid of the dealer. This procedure
has worked well for us in the past.
This report, again, is asking for the Council to consider
the replacement of the 1972 Chevrolet with another single
axle dump truck, snowplow unit and consideration of the specifications
for same. We bring this before you in hopes that it be approved
and the unit could be delivered for the tail end of the 1984-85
snow season. If the unit does not arrive in time for snowplowing
this year, it would be used next summer, and we would have
ample time to got the bugs out, so to speak, prior to the
1985-66 snow season.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be not to replace the 1972
Chevrolet but to upgrade it and repair it as best is possible
and put off its replacement for another year or two.
The staff fools that this is not cost effective and would
not be in the City's best interest.
2. This alternative would be to replace the 1972 Chevrolet
with a single axla dump truck plow unit as specified utilizing
either the Frink or the Wausau plow.
3. Thin alternative would be to replace the 1972 Chevrolet
with a now single axis dump truck without the plow but
only with the box, wing, and sander.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and the
Street Superintendent that the Council authorize replacement
of the 1972 Chevrolet and approve the specifications of the
truck as prepared without the plow no outlined in Alternative q3.
The plows will take the least amount of load time of any of
the equipment or the cab and chassis. If we have made a final
decision on the plow by the and of January, the plow could be
delivered at the came time as the now truck.
If the Council no authorizoo the advertisement for bids, tho
bide would be returned on Monday afternoon, Novambor 26, for
review at the regularly scheduled meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Truck and equipment specifications available at City Hall.
C-
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED
GASOLINE ENGINE VS. DIESEL POWER
City Truck Usaqe
Unit Make Year Ave. Miles Per Yr. Ave. MPG
001 Chev 61 2,907 2.9
002 Int 75 3,994 2.3
603 Chev 72 4,255 3.7
011 Int 78 1,673 2.3
Ave. MPG 2.6
The now truck will replace Unit 103 at 4,255 miles per year
and take over the duties of Unit 002 at 3,994 miles per year.
It in safe to assume a minimum usage of 4,000 miles per year
for the new truck.
Fuel Savings
4,000 miles divided by 2.8 MPG - 1,429 Gal. Gas x 51.159/Gal a $1,656.21/Yr.
4,000 miles divided by 6.25• MPG - 640 Gal. Diaeol x 5.969/Gal - $620.16/Yr.
Fuel Savings: $1,656.21 - $620.16 - $1,036.05
(does not include savings from less fill ups)
l •Note: Verified average miloago of LN 8000 Ford with 3208 Cat
Diesel. Verified by 4 communities/countics: Sherburne
County, Red Wing, Now Hope, Elk River.
The International Team Data Boge indicates a cost savings on
maintenance of a diesel over gas of 5.098 par mile. This would
be 4,000 x 5.098 or $392.00. If we say this organisation -a
figures are off 100%. we will use $196.00/Yr.
Total Savingo
Fuol $1,036.05
Maintenance 9 196.00
01,232.05 per year
This figure does not take into account any down time for a vat
engine.
Diesel Cents
If we use a figure of 05,000• for the coat of a diesel over
a largo gasoline V8, this would indicate a payback of 4.06 years,
MC
Gasoline Engine vs. Diesel Power
which is more than the figure indicated in the Agenda Supplement.
If we take into consideration the increased trade in value of
$3,000-54,000 (Boyer Ford 6 Hoglund Bus estimate on 7 or 8 year
old vehicle), this would make the payback period from 0.81 years
to 1.62 years.
-Note: Will vary from brand to brand.
Consideration of Lost Investment Interest
The question of lost interest was raised. If the City taxed
the public $5,000 purely as an investment and did not use the
money but put it in the bank for 8 years and compounded the
interest at 101, that sum could be expected to grow to at least
$10,700. It has been suggested that this figure, possibly less
the increase in trade in value of 53,000-54,000 or $6,700-S7,700,
in the actual cost of the diesol. Using this coat, the payback
would be 5.44 to 6.25 years.
There is, however, no precedent for using lost interest in budgeting
for City purchases. The International City Management Association
makes no reference to this procedure in the management information
service report on vehicle replacement. The City has not used
this procedure in the past. If we used this in determining
the actual cost of the Piro Hall, for example, it would be a
multi-million dollar purchase cost for its 25 year life expectancy.
The City does not raise money for investment, and it is my opinion
that the cost of lost investment interest should not be used.
These costa are also somewhat offset by inflation costs as values
of buildings, utilities, and equipment increase.
If a decision is made to go with a gas engine, it will be necessary
to rodefine what we want for a snowplow truck. International
does not offer gasoline power on any trucks over 27,000 0 G.V.N.
Ford doss not offer gasoline power in the LN 8000 series, and
we would have to go to the lighter P series truck and beef it
up to the required G.V.W. At this time. Chev and CMC do not
offer a H.D. snowplow unit with the integral front frame extension.
Depending upon the decision, we may have to go back to the mid -mount
wing on a lighter truck, and this would not benefit the intorosction
onow work or summor hauling.
Ma
�1
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
12. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Payment to the Minnesota
Coalition of Outstate Cities to be Used for Legislative Representation
Services. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities, of which we are
a member, is pursuing the idea of engaging a lobbyist for the
express purpose of working on the Local Government Aids formula
in the upcoming Legislative Session. with respect to the ongoing
battle of Local Government Aida, several sides have developed
which are promoting special interests and engaging in intense
lobbying. Minneapolis and St. Paul, as cities of the first
class, have their own benefits to identify and to work for in
the Legislature. The benefits for these major cities rarely
provide benefit to those of us who are substantially smaller
and are outstate. There is also a lobbying group called the
Metro Losers who are made up of the first and second ring suburbs.
The Local Government Aid formula as it currently exists hurts
them somewhat due to their being in the metro area and are part
of a parity program. They, too, have a formula that they are
lobbying for that could have a severe affect on us. This year,
for the first time, the Coalition of Outstato Cities fools it
is necessary for we who are outstate and smaller to throw professional
lobbyists into the Legislative ring in order to protect what
wo have. The Coalition is proposing to hire the firm of Holmes
6 Graven to act as lobbyists with Mr. Tim Flaherty, the attorney
acting on our behalf. Mr. Flaherty formerly worked in the Government
Aida Division for the City of Minneapolis and is very familiar
with the formulae and the workings of the system. A couple
of months ago, the Coalition began pursuing this and fools it
is essential that all cities contribute to the effort. There
has been some concern about the rate charges and considerable
debate in terms of each city -o contribution. The final agreed
upon rato hoe dropped from 1/10 of 18 of total levy and Local
Government Aid, which was nearly $1,500.00 to us, down to 20Q
par capita, which in $584.00.
For the 1985 Budget, we are anticipating receiving $174,500.00
In combined Local Govornmont Aid. In 1984, we anticipate receiving
approximately $161,000.00 in combined Local Government Aida,
and that figura is up from $154,000.00 in 1983. Of the other
formulas that were lobbied for during the 1984 Legislative Session,
two would have had affects of loan than $5,000.00 on our projected
aide, while one would have reduced our Local Government Aid
by $51,000.00. That wan the Metro Losers group, which is again
rostrangthoning their lobbying efforts for tho upcoming session.
To further complicate this matter, tho Governor is discussing
a proposal to altar the entire Local Government Aida formula
by shifting all government aids to the schools but granting
I+L
Council Agenda - 11/13/84
the 23 mills that schools are currently allowed to local governments.
Cc.nsequently, both jurisdictions would end up with a similar
amount of money as in the past, but the effect would be that
schools no longer have to tax for their services while cities
become the villains and cause all of the taxation. This is
another proposal that the Coalition is working very hard to
defeat.
I think that the investment in lobbying is worth the risk.
Any lobbying effort is, of course, a risk at any time because
legislation may pass contrary to what you've lobbied for. It
strikes me, however, that $584 is not a major investment in
an attempt to protect the Local Government Aid we already have.
We may not be able to increase our aids, but hopefully our efforts
would be successful enough to protect what we already have.
Not counting special grants for particular projects, Local Government
Aid is our highest source of intergovernmental revenues.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution authorizing payment to the Coalition
of Outstate Cities for lobbying efforts - this would put
us in with the overall group that is making a lobbying effort
to protect the financial resources we already have to work
with.
2. Do not adopt the resolution - if we choose not to adopt
the resolution but the majority of cities do, then we will
be forced to make a decision as to whether or not we wish
to retain our membership in the Coalition. The Coalition
being based on tho Sarno Democratic process as the Council,
if the majority of citiaa vote to go with it, than all cities
are expected to comply. If we do not wish to spend the
money for lobbying, then we should withdraw from the Coalition.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Going back to what I said above, I think the amount of money
is minimal compared to tho savings that could be gained with
succosaful lobbying efforts. I recommand that the Council adopt
the resolution and authorize the expenditure of $584.00.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of tho resolution to be adopted; Copies of letters and
information from tha Coalition of Outatato Cities.
-20-
RESOLUTION 1984 Y
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT
TO MINNESOTA COALITION OF OUTSTATE CITIES
TO BE USED FOR LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, major changes to the property tax and state aid systems
will be considered in the 1985 State legislative session; and
WHEREAS, changes to the property tax andState aid system could
have a major impact on the financial health of the City and
affect the ability of the City to provide essential services
to its residents; and
WHEREAS, changes to the property tax and State aid system could
substantially increase the property tax burden on taxpayers
within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello can more effectively promote
and protect its interest and the interest of its property taxpayers
at the State legislature by joining with other cities to develop
and lobby a joint legislative program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is a member of the Minnesota
Coalition of Outstate Cities ("Coalition"); and
WHEREAS, the Coalition at its meeting on October 5, 1984, asked
member cities to indicate whether or not they ware willing to
contribute to the Coalition so that the Coalition could retain
professional logialative representation services, including
computer, research and analysis services; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Coalitions Articles of Incorporation,
a majority vote of its members is required to approve an assessment
above membership duos; and
WHEREAS, effective legislative representation on property tax
and State aid issues requires professional services, including
computer, research and analysis services; and
WHEREAS, other cities and governmental units have retained professional
services to assist with legislative representation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, THAT:
1. The City of Monticello hereby consents to the Coalition
retaining professional legislative services for the 1985
legislative session and agrees to pay an aaeaoamant for
Cthose services of an amount not to exceed 5.20 par capita.
ICD-
Resolution 1981 1
Page 2
2. The President of the Coalition shall notify each city in
the Coalition of the amount of its assessment. The assessment
shall be payable within one month after notice of the assessment
is received by the member city.
3. No assessment shall be made unless a majority of the member
cities of the Coalition adopt a resolution similar to this
resolution on or before November 13, 1984.
Adopted this 13th day of November, 1984.
Arve A. Grimemo, Mayor
Thomas A. 61dem
City Administrator
J
Prux<t a. Rene
Wrry
Rrf.DW H. SOW.
CMmrJI PIUMM
rw i Wnr~
City Aamhertirto
AWArl J. PNOiCe
Car Anwn"
Lane of LWberph
DATE: October 9, 1994
Iil t '
ap
cittylealittlefalls
Gtv Oftkat
IOO Northeast Seventh Avenue
U1118 Far$. M-0'010 50345
612/632.2341
TO: Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities
FROM: Thomas J. Manninen, Secretary, MCOOC 17*1
SUBJECT: Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities Joint Lobbying Efforts
At the October S. 1984 140000 meeting in St. Cloud, there was concern over
whether the Coalition of Outstate Cities has any authority to lobby or should
lobby on a Local Government Aid formula, as an affiliate of the LMC. Enclosed
for your review is correspondence from Tim Flaherty of Holmes i Graven with
four additional enclosures from Mr. Flaherty. Excerpts from the MCOOC By -Lava
establish clear intent:
. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. "Theup rpoee of the Minnesota Coalition of
Outstate Cities is to rp Ovide a vehicle for voluntary eine action co meet clp
problem w of mutual concern to the member cities... MCOOC will lobby on
specific issues of im�rtance co the membership.'•
. APPEARANCE BEFORE LEGISLATIVE BODIES. The President, or representative
or representatives, may address legislative bodies on matters of concern to
the organisation expressing the ma orit view. The president may select a
committee of sufficient siso to adequately present an issue to the legislative
body so designated.
. AFFILIATION WITH LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES. The Minnesota Coalition
of Outstate Cities shall be affiliated with the League of Minnesota Cities and
shall participate in their programs as far as practical. The. MCOOC will
"supplement and compliment the Leagun of Minnesota Cities lobbying when
"ppropriato"
The MCOOC By -Laws seem permissive on retaining lobbying oxpertisa,
individually or through joint agreements to lobby for Local Government Aida,
annexation or any other issues without violating MCOOC incorporation or By -
Laws or affiliation with the League of Minnesota Cities. Therefore, a
proposed enabling resolution for action at an October meeting is enclosed to
each MCOOC member city and will be reported on at the MCOOCrs next regular
meeting at the Holidsy inn -Capitol, St. Paul, at 10:00 a.m. October 26, 1984.
At this October 26, 1984 meeting, the Coalition will decide whothor to: 11
jointly lobby for Local Government Aid revisions as a group, 21 individually
lobby or enter into other joint powers agreenwfnto, or 11 to rely on the League
of Minnesota Cities to do all lobbying and negotiating Local Government Aida.
Timing is important to organise and act quickly bacause of the need to develop
e program and begin lobbying right awayl
PLEASE R.S.V.P. TO MY OFFICE ON YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THE 10/26 MCOOC MEETING.
AN EOUAI OPPOetUFMly rMMOtf e
�tl
October 12, 1984
The Honorable Edward C. Gamradt
President
Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities
City Hall
Little Falls, MN
Dear Mr. Gamradt:
Thank you for inviting Holmes s Graven to participate in the
October 5 meeting of the Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities.
We enjoyed visiting with you and other representatives of
Coalition cities. Many of the Coalition cities have expressed an
interest in retaining Holmes b Graven to provide legislative
representation on issues related to property taxation and local
governmieve
ties in
developent andaid beginGlobbyingbalcommonipositionthe on thesetion issueseto
in
November.
Holmes i Graven to prepared to assist the Coalition in its
lobbying effort by providing professional lobbying services,
including computer, research and analysis services. The cost of
these services is estimated to be between $100,000 and $125,000.
Aeeat t . resolution which authorizes cities to
iSs� contribut coal -ft Dying activity an amount nat
to exceed 5.25 r capita, o .109 f each city's LGA plus levy,
whichever greater. However, o individual city shall be
Ozp/�•t required to contribute more than $10,000. Attachment 2 is a form
f resolution for those cities that want to lobby and retain pro-
fessional lobbying services jointly with other cities even though
the Coalition decides it does not want to retain professional
lobbying services. Attachment 2 authorizes cities to enter into
a joint powers agreement which establishes a *Joint Board of
Outstats Cities" to lobby in the 1985 legislative session. The
Board is authorized to collect contributions from member cities
in an amount not to exceed $.50 per capita or .208 of each city's
LGA plus levy, whichever is greater. However, no city shall be
required to contribute more than $20,000.
HOLMES a GRAVEN
CHARTERED
AU-0s7L a Lav,
alp t.t6lwgCmn Miewe+*,Ib. x/X JSapJ
RTC"A y R, a A,%D 04[
RIfSlff.111
JAM[R S. H*Lmt1
te1J17141117
Nt ALU[BOK!
11
D-111.IR.—N S01
DA.ni R.. CQ.I
DAvtb ` QtAvtX
L. F'"I o
Rost'e
Rosa
1ONN jl.IAeSON
C„NAaxt7R. W
NRnOrrimt Fur,n.l Cau+r. BbommpRA. MV 77411
L A. LI'r IN:al.
A. L11
DAVIDSON17'OD
Rosta7 J...KD.L O
RotN XnALL
{atJJ tt}a+,m
L ,,
LAw A R. K+IA.[t
Che m. cunt
M. Le
JONX M..
, G. Dom's
nt.+r G. Dom's
Wtv1M1.Je.
(.Haar M. W[xrxuN
Jan«C. Vi[ty
STA, LIT K[NL
Of Caumd:
J OXAr HAN {•. SCOLL
K A1N[RI.[ M. Hoiuis
October 12, 1984
The Honorable Edward C. Gamradt
President
Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities
City Hall
Little Falls, MN
Dear Mr. Gamradt:
Thank you for inviting Holmes s Graven to participate in the
October 5 meeting of the Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities.
We enjoyed visiting with you and other representatives of
Coalition cities. Many of the Coalition cities have expressed an
interest in retaining Holmes b Graven to provide legislative
representation on issues related to property taxation and local
governmieve
ties in
developent andaid beginGlobbyingbalcommonipositionthe on thesetion issueseto
in
November.
Holmes i Graven to prepared to assist the Coalition in its
lobbying effort by providing professional lobbying services,
including computer, research and analysis services. The cost of
these services is estimated to be between $100,000 and $125,000.
Aeeat t . resolution which authorizes cities to
iSs� contribut coal -ft Dying activity an amount nat
to exceed 5.25 r capita, o .109 f each city's LGA plus levy,
whichever greater. However, o individual city shall be
Ozp/�•t required to contribute more than $10,000. Attachment 2 is a form
f resolution for those cities that want to lobby and retain pro-
fessional lobbying services jointly with other cities even though
the Coalition decides it does not want to retain professional
lobbying services. Attachment 2 authorizes cities to enter into
a joint powers agreement which establishes a *Joint Board of
Outstats Cities" to lobby in the 1985 legislative session. The
Board is authorized to collect contributions from member cities
in an amount not to exceed $.50 per capita or .208 of each city's
LGA plus levy, whichever is greater. However, no city shall be
required to contribute more than $20,000.
The Honorable Edward C. Gamradt
October 12, 1984
Page 2
Attachment 3 provides each city with an estimate of its maximum
contribution authorized by the Attachment 1 resolution. The
maximum cost to each city under the Attachment 2 resolution is
the maximum amount shown on Attachment 3 doubled.
Attachment 4 contains our views on questions raised at the
October S meeting.
We look forward to working with the Coalition cities on these
property tax and LGA issues. Please share this letter with other
Coalition cities and let them know that they can call me for more
information prior to their City Council meetings if they think
that would be helpful.
very truly yours,
Timothy. Flaherty
TPFtjes
Enclosures
cci Don Slater
Executive Director
League of Minnesota Cities
Attachment 4
M S M O R A N D O M
TO: Honorable Edward C. Gamradt
President
Minnesota Coalition of Outstate Cities
FROM: Timothy P. Flaherty -(F
Attorney
Holmes a Graven, Chartered
DATE: October 11, 1984
RE: Our Views on Questions Raised at October 5 Coalition
Meeting
This memorandum provides you with our views on the questions
raised at the October 5 meeting and recommends a course of action
for those cities that want to retain Holmes b Graven.
A. Need for Independent and Professional Leqislative Represent-
ation.
We believe the cities in the Coalition need to develop and
begin lobbying a common position related to property taxa-
tion and LGA in November. Coalition cities can lobby
together because they have relatively similar fiscal
characteristics (low taxable value, high municipal property
tax burdens and high LGA) compared to other organizations
and cities actively lobbying on these issues. Changes to
the property tax and aid system are likely to have a similar
u impact on Coalition cities. Effective legislative
representation is more critical for Coalition cities in the
1985 session than other sessions for the following reasons:
1. Governor's proposal to change property tax system. The
Governor has announced that he will seek major legisla-
tive changes in the state aid and property tax system.
The proposal may be detrimental to Coalition cities but
beneficial to other cities and other organizations. we
expect that the Governor's proposal will be supported
by the Kindergarten through grade 12 education
community, townships, counties, and the Municipal
Legislative Commission (a joint powers organization
consisting of cities with fiscal characteristics
substantially different than characteristics of the
Coalition cities). These groups all have active
lobbying programs and are assisted by professional
lobbyists.
1
B.
2. LGA formula proposals. The Local Government Aid Study
Commission was established in the 1984 legislative
session and is composed of legislators from the House
and Senate. The Commission is studying new LGA
formulas for presentation to the 1985 legislative
session.
3. Legislative Representation by Leaque of Minnesota
Cities. The League will not have a position on the
Governor's proposal or the LGA formula proposals being
debated by the LGA Study Commission until at least
January 28, 1985. There is a possibility that the
League will never take a position or take a very
general position on the Governor's proposal or LGA
proposals made by others. Without concensus on a
specific position, the League will not be able to
lobby and protect or promote the interest of any cities
on these issues.
4. Protection of Coalition Cities by the City of
Minneapolis. Minneapolis has, many other issues to
lobby in the 1985 session and it may be unreasonable to
expect Minneapolis to protect the interests of
Coalition cities.
Potential Conflict Between Coalition and Leaque of Minnesota
Cities.
Some Coalition cities have expressed a concern that the
legislative efforts of the Coalition may eventually be in
conflict with League policy or hurt the chances for the
League to develop a League policy. We believe it is
unlikely that a conflict will develop between the Coalition
and the League over the property tax or local government aid
issues and that developing and lobbying a program on these
issues will not affect the potential for the League to
develop a policy on these issues. We hold this view for the
following reasonso
1. The Coalition would not be in conflict with League
policy in November, December and January because the
League will have no policy until January 28. These
three months are a critical time for Coalition cities
to have input into the Governor's proposal and various
-legislative formula proposals.
It is unlikely that the League will reach concensus on
a specific position related to the Governor's proposal
or local government aid formulas. However, if the
League is able to reach concensus on a specific
position, the Coalition can decide at that time whether
to support or oppose the League's position. In the
unlikely event the Coalition wants to lobby a position
In conflict with the position adopted by the League, it
may do so and still remain an affiliate of the League
provided certain conditions contained in the League
Constitution are met.
3. Other organizations and cities that have developed
positions and that are assisted by professional lobby-
ists (League of Small Cities, Municipal Legislative
Commission, Minneapolis and St. Paul) will lobby on the
Governor's proposal and legislative formula proposals
at the same time that they participate in the League
process to develop a concensus policy. The Coalition
could develop and lobby a. position related to the
Governor's proposal and legislative formula proposals
while it participates on the League Revenue Sources
Committee and the Technical Committee.
C. Proposal to Provide Professional Leqislative Representation
Services to Coalition Cities.
We believe that a coordinated legislative program which
relies on computer analysis, professional lobbying services
and dire6t lobbying by local officials will result in effec-
tive representation that will protect and promote the
interests of Coalition cities. Holmes a Graven has pro-
fessional lobbyists, experienced in local government aid and
property tax issues, available to assist the Coalition in
developing and presenting its position. Holmes b Graven is
prepared to offer the following legislative services
beginning in November, 1984:
1. Coordinate the Coalition's lobbying on property tax and
LGA issues, including drafting and lobbying bills and
amendments that have been approved by the Coalition.
Z. Provide computer analysis to determine the impact of
proposals on Coalition cities.
3. Assist the Coalition in developing policy positions
related to proposed changes in the property tax system,
Including the Governor's proposal and LGA formula pro-
posals.
1. Assist the Coalition in presenting its position to
interested parties and negotiating common positions
with those other parties (State Department of Finance,
Governor, League of Minnesota Cities, League of Small
Cities, Municipal Legislative Commission, Range Associa-
tion, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, etc.).
5. Assist Coalition cities by providing policy analysis
and technical services to Coalition cities that serve
on the League Revenue Sources Committee and Technical
Committee.
31�)_
We estimate the cost of representation, including research
and computer services, to be between $100,000 and $125,000.
These costs would have to be contributed by participating
cities in November or December, 1984.
D. Formal Action By Coalition Cities.
The Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Coalition
(see attached document) authorize the Coalition to establish
and lobby positions approved by a majority of the Coalition
membership. A majority vote of the member cities is
required to approve an assessment above membership dues. A
quick phone check at the Secretary of State's office indi-
cated that the Coalition's Articles may have not been filed
as required by law. The Coalition should take steps to
confirm that it is properly incorporated before collecting
assessments for legislative services.'
Cities that want to participate in a joint lobbying effort
with other cities and retain professional lobbying services
with the financial support of those other cities should
adopt the revolution contained in Attachment
1 or 2 as soon as possible.
AtmIMp n Lar
J .e.ess. Not Mts
p to L. GRet i+
Jor.+R. LARSD+
CMA.tta R. W1.16
Rostov
ostal L. U+alDSD+
Rostov J. L"W1
JON, M. LtFn'sLJs.
Lwast M. Wtasstr
Jun+C.'",
$tw+u1 E. xtnt
JO•atNw�P. $tWi
September 26, 1984
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CNARTFRED
Jena+ R, es rrt'nte
470 /41,Yar7 C.— Mimr4R.W M1' 27492
RD 1.11 a+D 811011
{a12i J.W417i
Snt r+lt N. Gent
0.+n1 R. Stt.Se,
IRIL. PDR I'DOD
Uro N—s N,Nt.a Ft—tof C—.. st..mr -. Ma $5431
RD.1 . t J. Utla
Mata A. 010"',1%
1612FS934I110
t.au.. R. Kenu 11
Cnrt+n+t M.
-
Maar G. Does,- u++
of CDU."I!
K.t x4 *+ M. Not wI,
Tom Manninen
City Administrator
P.O. 244
Little Palls, Minnesota 56 345
Dear Tom:
Thank you for arranging the meeting last Friday to explore the
potential for Holmes b Graven to represent the Minnesota Coali-
tion of out -State Cities in the 1985 Legislative Session. we
enjoyed visiting with the Mayor and Council Members from Little
Falls and look forward to representing Little Falls and other
Coalition cities in the 1985 Legislative Session.
During our meeting we were asked to provide an estimate of the
amount needed to represent the Coalition on local government aid
and property tax issues in the 1985 Legislative Seosion. Based
on the following scope*of services, we estimate the cost of
representation to be between $100,000 and $125,000:
1. Research and analyze LGA formula proposals made by
others to determine the impact on Coalition cities and
formula adjustments needed to improve formula
proposals. To provide this service, an independent
computer capability will be established at Holmes 6
Graven,
2. Research and analyze proposals related to the property
tax system to determine the impact on property
taxpayers in Coalition cities.
3. Promote and protect the Coalition's interest before and
during the 1985 Legislative Session on issues related
to local government aid and property taxation.
4. Assist the Coalition in developing a legislative
program and strategy for implementing the legislative
program with respect to local government aid and
property taxation.
Tom Manninen
September 25, 1984
Page 2
S. Coordinate the Coalition's legislative program related
to local government aid and property taxation.
Draft bills or amendments related to local government
aid and property taxation.
After further discussion with the Coalition related to the scope
of services, we would estimate the cost of our services and
guarantee a firm price. This will allow the Coalition to
establish each city's share of the cost 'and provide each city
with enough time and certainty to plan for and budget its cost.
We have enclosed tables illustrating two methods for collecting
money from Coalition member cities to pay the cost of legislative
representation. One is based on population ($.20 or $.25 per
capita for each city) and the other method is based on each
city's local government aid plus levy (.088 or .10%).
We would like to emphasize that our legislative services do not
reduce the need for active lobbying by elected officials. A
coordinated legislative strategy which relies on computer
analysis, professional lobbying services and direct lobbying by
local officials will produce the most favorable results at the
legislature.
Assuming that a mutually beneficial arrangement is agreed upon,
we would propose that the Minnesota Coalition of Out -State Cities
and Holmes a Graven enter into a contract for legislative
services. A form contract is enclosed for your review. Because
of the significant activity occurring on LGA and property tax
issues at the present time and the need to establish a computer
program for LGA analysis, we would like to enter into a contract
soon after the October 5 meeting.
We look forward to meeting with representatives of the Coalition
cities on October 5th. I will call you later in the week to
discuss our participation in the October 5th meeting.
Thank you again for your assistance in this matter.
very truly yours,
/r
/.�"'A/ 1
Timothy P. Flah6fty
TPF:jos
Enclosure