City Council Agenda Packet 03-14-1988AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 14, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1.
Call to Order.
2.
Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held February 22, 1988.
3.
Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
4.
Consideration of Planning Commission Appointment.
5.
Consideration of Allowing the Monticello Food Shelf to Utilize the Old
Fire Hall Building.
6.
Consideration of Request by Wright Flyers Model Flying Club to use old
NSP Ballfields. - CANCELLED -
7.
Consideration of Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Pump
House #3 and Authorization for Bids.
8.
Consideration of Use of Commuter Parking Lot on Saturday, April 16, for
Tire Amnesty Day.
9.
Consideration of City Being General Contractor on Streetscape Project.
10.
Consideration of Cost Estimates for Frontage Road for Riverroad Plaza on
East Cotmty Road 39 Project.
11.
Consideration of Funding Participation and Construction Agreement with
Wright County Department of Highways for the East County Road 39, County
Road 75, County Road 118, Frontage Road Projects.
12.
Consideration of Sanitary Sewer Discharge Permit Upgrade - Sunny Fresh
Foods .
13.
Consideration of Reconstruction of Mississippi Drive.
14.
Consideration of Final Plot of Oakwood Second Addition - Applicant, City
of Monticello.
15.
Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Allowing Participation in the
Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund.
City Council Agenda
C March 14, 1988
Page 2
16. Consideration of Ratifying the Proposed Date for the 1988 Board of
Review.
17. Consideration of Allowing the Granting of Gambling License.
18. Adjourn.
C
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 22, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: Fran Fair
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the special meeting held January 13
and regular meeting held February 8, 1988.
6. Consideration of Feasibility Study for Sewer and Water Extension --west
County Road 39—Bette Grossnickle Property.
City Engineer, John Badalich, presented a feasibility study on the
possibility of extending sewer and water services from the location of
Oountry Club Road and Golf Course Road westerly to serve the Bette
Grossnickle property. The proposal would be to extend sanitary sewer on
the south side of Golf Course Road approximately 230 feet and then jack
across Golf Course Road to service three potential lots. The watermain,
currently located on the north side of Golf Course Road, would be
extended approximately 350 feet. Total project cost was estimated at
566,200, including 30 percent indirect cost. Mr. Badalich noted that
the suggested assessment for the Grossnickle property would total
$26,860 with $19,360 being picked up by the City for oversizing cost and
a portion of the pipe jacking cost to cross Golf Course Road.
The engineer also looked at the possibility of extending sewer and water
services both on the north side of the road to serve this property with
smaller lines and extending the lines a little further to service the
Country Club Clubhouse in the future. By using this method, there would
be four parcels that could benefit from the service, including the
Country Club, but each individual assessment would be approximately the
same in that there would be very little of the cost that would be picked
up by the City since there would not be any oversizing or pipe jacking
cost.
At the request of the property owner, this item was tabled at the
present time to allow the owner more time to evaluate the cost
associated with the project before a commitment was made.
5. Consideration of Approval of Preliminary Plans and Specifications and
Authorization to vertiae for Bide for Protect 88-01 Phase II, County
Road 39 East Improvement and Oakwood Industrial Plat.
The City Engineer presented preliminary plans and specifications for the
improvements of sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer proposed for
portions of Oounty Road 118 and County Road 39 to the easterly city
limits. Public works Director, John Simla, reviewed with the Council
the plane which would include sanitary sewer extensions on the proposed
Q:;L
Council Minutes - 2/22/88
new frontage road, looping watermain, and other utilities for the
MacArlund Plaza Subdivision. It was noted that some revisions had been
made to the sizing of the sanitary sewer and watermain because of the
recent. Municipal Board ruling on annexation. The watermain was
originally proposed to be a 16 -inch line extending to the easterly city
limits and has now been recommended to be reduced to a 12 -inch. Also,
the sanitary sewer is recommended to be down -sized to a 12 -inch line
which would result in a smaller lift station being constructed on County
Road 39. The improvement as proposed would still allow the City to
service a smaller area outside of the current borders, including
subdivisions such as Tyler East and Sandberg Tree Farm.
After further review and discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair,
seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution
approving the preliminary plans and specifications and authorizing
advertisement for bids. The approval would also authorize the engineer
to advertise for bids on the previous improvements proposed for the
Bette Grossnickle property as an alternate which could be deleted if
desired. See Resolution 88-5.
6. Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow a Proposed Residential Lot,
When Platted, to have Less Chari the Minimum Lot Frontage on a Public
Right-ot-way. Applicant, Charles Ritze.
Mr. Charles Ritze had proposed a subdivision that would have created two
additional building lots on West River Road and Hilltop Drive. The
proposed lot fronting on Hilltop Drive had only 15 feet of frontage on a
public right-of-way, and a variance was needed. The Planning Commission
denied the variance request, as they felt Mr. Ritze had other
alternatives for subdividing his property, and a hardship was not
created by the City's ordinances.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to deny the variance request as proposed and recommended the
property owner should continue working to resolve the matter with his
neighbor prior to continuing his subdivision request.
7. Consideration of a Tabled Request for a Preliminary Plat Review of a
Proposed New Subdivision Plat. Applicant, Charles Ritze.
Previously, the City Council had tabled action on the preliminary plat
submitted by Charles Ritze to allow for the variance request regarding
minimum lot frontage on a public right-of-way to be processed. With the
denial of the variance request, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded
by Dan Blonigen, and unanimm usly carried to also deny the preliminary
plat as proposed.
8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow as a Home Occultation
a Beaut Shop in an R-1 (single tamlly residential) Zone. Applicant,
Karla Dickey.
A request was made by Karla Dickey to allow a beauty shop business to be
9
Council Minutes - 2/22/88
located in a portion of her home. Approval was recommended by the
Planning Commission; and as a result, a motion was made by Warren Smith,
seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the
conditional use request for the home occupation of a beauty shop for
Karla Dickey.
9. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of More
than One Building on an Unpla tted Lot. A Conditional Use Request to
Allow Construction of an Apartment Building in Excess of the Maximum
Number of Units Allowed. Applicant, David Hornig.
Mr. David Hornig presented a proposal to develop a 2.7 acre parcel of
land located south of 6th Street and west of Locust Street into a
multiple housing development to initially include a 12 -unit family
subsidized apartment building and a 36 -unit elderly subsidized apartment
building. The initial development would cover approximately half of the
parcel with the southerly portion being considered phase two for future
apartment development. The conditional uses were required to allow more
than one building to be placed on a parcel of land and also to allow the
apartment buildings to exceed 12 units per structure.
The southerly portion of the property in question abuts the proposed
extension of 7th Street collector road, and it was recommended as a
condition to the request that the owner dedicate the necessary
right-of-way for the future road extension. The discussion by the
Council on this project concerned the subsidized nature of the projects,
including the elderly project proposed. It was noted that the projects
are contingent upon funding by the Farmers Home Administration and that
currently there are two projects being considered by the City Council of
a similar nature involving elderly and family subsidized housing
projects. Another proposal will be considered by the Council involving
an elderly project in the downtown area by developers Jim Metcalf and
Brad Larson. During the discussions, it appeared that Farmers Home
Administration will in all likelihood only fund one project in
Monticello during 1988. Coun eilmember Bill Fair noted that in his
opinion both projects had merit and felt the City Council should approve
the proposal as presented and allow Farmers Home Administration to make
the decision on which project gets funded. Councilmember Warren Smith
recognized the HRA's efforts in redeveloping the downtown site for
elderly housing, which has been one of their major goals, but could also
not find any reason not to approve this project as presented.
As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and
unanimusly carried to approve the conditional use request to allow the
construction of more than one building on an unplatted residential lot
and approve the conditional use to allow construction of an apartment
building in excess of the 12 units allowed provided 11 the buildings are
allowed to be constructed in two phases, and 21 that the property owner
dedicate to the City as shown on the site plan the necessary
right-of-way for the future extension of 7th Street.
9
Council Minutes - 2/22/88
10. Consideration of a Rezoning Request to Rezone Platted Lots from B-4
(regional business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) Zoning. If Property
is Rezoned, a Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of an
Apartment Building in Excess of the Maximum Number of Units Allowed.
Applicant, Metcalf 6 Larson.
As discussed with the previous agenda item, developers Jim Metcalf and
Brad Larson proposed a 28 -unit subsidized elderly housing project on a
portion of Block 50 fronting on Broadway. Part of the project site is
currently owned by the Monticello HRA, is are currently in the process
of negotiating with additional property owners within the block,
Stelton's Laundromat, Joe O'Connor's truck garage, and Jones
Manufacturing. It was noted that if the HRA can complete negotiations
on the purchase of this additional land, the site would be made
available to the developers for their 28 -unit elderly housing project;
and as a result, the rezoning request would be needed. Although a final
application had not yet been submitted by the developers, the City
Council recognized the longstanding goal of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority to eliminate blight in the downtown area; and it
was the general consensus of the Council that the elderly housing
project would be an appropriate use of this parcel of land.
As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and
unanimously carried to approve the rezoning request to rezone the parcel
from B-4 (regional business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) to allow
for the proposed 28 -unit elderly apartment project and approve the
conditional use request allowing construction of a building in excess of
12 units provided 1) the rezoning approval be good only for a period of
time not to exceed December 31, 1988, or sooner if the applicants do not
receive approval of their subsidized project, and 2) that the final site
plan be approved by the Planning Commisaion and City Council as revised.
11. Consideration of a Rezoning Request to Rezone Part of an Unplatted Tract
of Land trom B-3 (highway business) to PZM (Performance zone mixed)
Zoning. It Property is Rezoned, a Conditional Use Request to Allow
Construction of an Apartment Building in Excess of the Maximum Number of
Units Allowed. Appficant, Metcalf 6 Larson.
Developers Jim Metcalf and Brad Larson were also proposing to construct
a 26 -unit subsidized family apartment building on an unplatted
2-1/2 acre parcel of land located Routh of the Silver Fox Motel. In
order to allow for this development, the property would have to be
rezoned.
The developer requested that at the present time the City Council table
any action on the request indefinitely.
0
Council Minutes - 2/22/88
12. Discussion of Concession Stand at NSP Softball Field Complex.
Over the past two years, the City has been developing a 4 -field softball
complex on leased land from Northern States Power adjacent to their
training facility. The project is nearing completion and should be
available for use by the Softball Association starting this spring.
Future plans for the complex include additional improvements that would
include the building of a concession stand. For 1988, money was not
budgeted for the construction of a concession stand due to budget
cutbacks and levy limitations; and it was recommended by the City Staff
that the softball fields be in use for a year or two before considering
building a concession stand. A request was made by members of the
Softball Association asking the City Council to reconsider their
decision not to build a concession stand at this time. Softball
Association members, Ken Kalway and Jeff Michaelis, appeared before the
Council with a preliminary plan for a 30 x 30 foot concession stand they
felt could be built for approximately $ 17,900. The members noted that
with volunteer labor for the construction, the building costs could be
reduced even further and requested that the Council consider this
approach to building the complex.
The Softball Association has indicated they will be contributing some
money to the City for the cost of maintenance at the facility, but they
felt that a concession stand would be necessary to enable the
Association to generate more revenue if the reimbursements were to
continue. Because the funds were not budgeted for in 1988, the Public
Works staff has not prepared any detailed plans on the type of structure
that should be built at the softball fields; but the City staff was
certainly not opposed to volunteer labor being used to construct such a
facility. In order to get a better handle on the design and estimated
cost, it was the Council consensus to have the Association members work
with the City staff on an appropriate size and design with firmer cost
estimates and present the information at the next Council meeting for
consideration.
13. Consideration of Bills for the Month of February.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and
unanimously carried to approve the bil is for the month of February as
presented..
Rc woa/�er�
te�
City Administrator
11
A
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
4. Consideration of Planning Commission Appointment. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Five applications were received for the new Planning Commission member
position. The applications ranged from a wide variety of experiences
with the different types of jobs these people have. Four of the five
applicants were interviewed by the Monticello Planning Commission at
their Tuesday, March 8, 1988, meeting.
Each of the Planning Commission members had a separate letter which was
to be returned in a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the City with his
or her selection as a new Planning Commission member. Enclosed with this
supplement you will find the tally of the selections by the Monticello
Planning Commission members. You will note that there has been a tie
between two of the Planning Commission member applicants.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve Mr. Dan McConnon as the new Planning Commission member.
2. Approve the selection of Mr. Patrick Faltersack as the new Planning
Commission member.
3. Approve the appointment of one of the other three applicants for the
new Planning Commission member.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff has no formal recommendation of the two selections which the
Monticello Planning Commission members chose. Both of the applicants are
very well qualified to become a new Planning Commission member. If you
are uncomfortable with their recommendation of either Mr. McConnon or
Mr. Faltersack, you may choose to appoint one of the other three Planning
Commission applicants.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of each of the Planning Commission member applicants written resumer
Copy of the Planning Commiesion members selection sheet.
me
Fetruar y Is 1220
Mr. Cary Anderson
Planning and Zoning Administrator
City of Monticello
Monticello City Hall
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Please ccns:der this tc be cg aFrl_cat cr. __ serve cn the
Monticello City Planning Commission.
I have been a resident cf Monticello fcr 11 1/2 years, res -,ding
during this time at 1317 East Hart 9oule:•ard. I am married and
have eight children all of whom Ce: -.cert cne) ha•:e graduated cr
will graduate from the Monticello school system. My two
youngest children currently attend Mcnticellc =enicr High
School .
I am employed by United Pcwer Aeect::et1Cn cf Elk P.:ver.
M:nnescta as Manager cf the Sm.--rcnr..ental and Lands
Division. United Pcwer Asecc:eticn :s a cooperative which
generates and transmits e:lectr:_.ty tc fifteen muster
distribution cooperatives in Minnesota and w.sccne.r. which :n
turn sell the power to t`:e ult:mate consumers. In mt; ccs:tion.
I am respcns:_ls far negotiating all land and land rights.
acquiring all 1•censes and cerm:ts, and setisfyin; federal,
state and Ictal envirenme<ntal re:uirements fcr all new
generst.cn and tran3mGss-:n f4c 1.tses .,,nstructed t�y the
cccperst:va. Since mW duties often recu:re me t= accu:re
permits Peon local un.ts ~f government. 1 heve worked u1:h rsnw
towns?*,;; and runic:_a/ plann.:ng and cnn; comm-rsq:ons and ! am
Very fem:ller with the.. _:ersticn and the general content and
use cf zcn:ng ordinances .
eacause of my management and technical hacCgrcune. Par:liar:ty
with zcn:ng ordinances. and interest :n the future cf the City
of Monticolle. I Peel I uculd make a •:a:ua_ln nCdit:c. t_ the
ricnticellc city Planning Camniesion.
Please contact me if ycu he a any ruesticns cr recuirs
additional ,n!=r*roti=n to crcceaa this ep�lication.
Ycurs eincerely.
Dan rlcccnnon
131' East Hart ecule:•art
_. _.ce11:. 17., S°3=2
O
CHRIS MICHAEL BONNELL
114 Wright Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
(612)295-5376
B.A. 1987 Concordia College -Moorhead, Minnesota
Mayor: Physical Education/Political Science
I have been a resident of Monticello since August, 1987. My wife is originally
from Monticello, and we will be making this our home while I pursue a auris degree in
the Twin Cities.
With my educaties in political science. I feel I could be an aasett in city
government and feel it is a civic duty to be involved. I also feel my youth would
be a positive attribute to the present commie6ion.
0
February 1. 1988
Gary Anderson
Building Official
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, Mn. 55362
Dear Mr. Andersons
I am very interested in becoming a member of the city planning
commission.
My family and I moved to Monticello last July. Currently we are
renting a home on Lake Ida, but we have purchased some land and
are planning to start home construction this spring.
My wife works at Little Mountain Dental Clinic, we have a daughter
in 8th grade, one boy in 5th and another in 2nd grade. I am
employed by Tennant Co., a manufacturing company in Golden Valley,
as Corporate Safety Manager. I have been with that company for
almost 17 years. I started as an Industrial Engineer, spent almost
5 years doing that. then moved in a supervisory position for 7
years. Currently. I am responsible for Safety, Security and Hazardous
Materials and Waste programs for the entire company.
Years ago my wife and I decided that if we ever would move from
our home in Afton we would move to the Monticello area. We felt
this way after I talked with a number of people at Tennant Company
who live in this area and after so many "drive throughs" on our
way home from the cabin up north.
Now that we are here, we like it even more than we thought we
would. We have been very impressed with the schools, both elemen-
tary and junior high. I like the "small town" feeling even though
the total population does not indicate that.
I am excited about the future here. I feel that there 1s a lot
of potential for this area in terms of business, industry and
residential growth. I would like to take part in planning the
future,
Although I have no city planning experience to offer. I have a
great deal of diversified business experience, considering 17
years at Tennant Co. and working for Control Data. Sperry, N.W.
Bell and Electric Machinery Mfg. Co. before that. I attended the
University of Minnesota (night school) and got my Bachelors Degree,
and last June received an Applied Science Degree in Occupational
Safety and Health from Inver Hills Community College.
V
I'm looking forward to hearing from you and hoping I have a chance
to work with the Planning Commission.
My address and phone number ares
Rt. 1 Box 112
Lake Ida
Monticello. Mn. 55362
Home phone 878-2533
Work phone 540-1272
Truly.
William D. Weisbrod
C
U
February 3, 1988
Planning Commission
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
Planning Commission:
1 am interested in serving on the Monticello Planning Commission.
Community development is an interest to me.
Previously, I was chairman of the Planning Commission for the City
of Madison Lake, MN for five years. In addition to that I served as
a volunteer fireman and police reserveman for the City of Madison
Lake.
If there is any additional information you need to know, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Patrick Faltersack
1010 Meadow Oak Drive
Monticello. AIN 55362
(012)295-4803
v
l
February 9, 1988
Candi Thilquist
116 Hedman Lane
Monticello, MN 55362
Mr. Gary Anderson
Monticello City Hall
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Per our phone conversion regarding my application for the
Planning and Zoning Committcu position that will be 8.ailable
soon. here is a brief personal description.
My name is Candi Thilquist. I currently reside at
116 liedman Lane, Monticello, Minnesota.
I have lived and worked In Monticello IS yaars. My current
position is with NSP at hte Monticello Training C•ar4:.ter aF an
Administrative Aid. My dutA us are to maintain all personnel
records for Monticello Nuclear Plant Personnel, or•aer all
supplies, and general secreear!al duties.
1 have had several diverse Pon.Liona locally, one cf wniuh
was with the City of Montice:lo as a cashier at Hi -Way Liquors
while under the management of Mark Irmi ter.
I have three high achonl ogre dauahl.ara currently at•,rendinq
Monticello Senior Hr9h.
1 nm interested in the Planninrf and Zoning Committee posiLion
1'or at. least two reasons, one I:r•inq peroonal change.
The second, additional knowl•.dge of pret•haps uta Le and certainly
local laws and ordinances. There also Seems to bo a aeries of
issues in my neighborhood re-_: ntly regarcinq everything from
pel.a,to domestic arguemunta, to Lha carr-. of one'a hon— and
property. Hopoful ly this experience wlll help all of us to
solve Lhese problems in a cavil manner.
Thank you for the opportunity to present thin applicntion
and your attention to this matter,
SIscare IV,
Ilei li
Condi Thilqulat
G
Phone (612) 2952711
Metro (512) 3335739
Mayor:
Arve Grlmamo
Cry Council:
Dan Blongen
Fran Farr
William Farr
Warren Smith
Ammmiairator:
Rick Woltstatlar
Public Warks:
John Simoto
Pla=np 6 Zonlrp:
Economic ersmDervewornero:
Dille Koropchak
(amity o/ pontic¢[[.
MONTICELLO, MN 55362.9245
March 10, 1988
TO: Members of the.Monticello Planning Commission
RE: Results of Voting for New Appointment
2
PATRICK FALTERSACK
0
CHRIS MICHAEL BONNELL
0
CANDI THILQUIST
0
WILLIAM WEISBROD
2
DAN MCCONNON
As the above results indicate, the Monticello
Planning Commission's recommendation is split
for the appointment of Patrick Faltereack and/
or Dan McConnon to the Monticello Planning
Cotiiesion.
Sincereel✓y�',fy'�^�
GarAnderson
Zoning Administrator
CA/lg
280 East 9r06mwev I�
Monte.so, Minnesota
55382.9245 C /
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
5. Consideration of Allowing the Monticello Food Shelf to Utilize the Old
Fire Hall Building. (R.w.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you may have read in the Monticello Times, the Monticello Food Shelf
will have to vacate its present location in the old nursing home by
June 1. Prior to being located in the former nursing home, the food
shelf was using the old fire hall office portion until the City had
received a purchase offer on the property. In their desire to find a new
location, Mary Swenson requested to be on the Council agenda to again ask
City permission to use the office portion of the old fire hall for a
permanent location for the Monticello Food Shelf.
I had indicated to Ms. Swenson that the Council was aware that the food
shelf may be interested in utilizing the fire hall space again and that
the consensus opinion that it would be no problem with the understanding
that should the building be sold, the food shelf would again have to
relocate. The reason this item is now on the agenda is that in my
conversation recently with Ms. Swenson, she is seeking a long-term
commitment from the City to use the fire hall office portion in the
neighborhood of five years or longer. In addition to a long-term
commitment, she requested Council also consider paying for all the heat,
electricity, insurance, etc., required for their operation.
The office portion of the old fire hall is not currently being utilized,
and I certainly see no problem with the food shelf locating in the
building but am certainly concerned about a long-term commitment in the
neighborhood of five years unless the Council is comfortable with the
decision not to sell the building for this length of. time. In addition,
it certainly seems appropriate that a small monthly rental charge be
instituted that would at least cover the City's expenditure for heat and
utilities. Ms. Swenson indicated that if the Council was uncomfortable
with a rent-free, long-term commitment, the food shelf could possibly
afford a small monthly allowance in the neighborhood of $100 to $150 to
cover the utilities expense; but she was very concerned about the
contingency of moving again if the building was sold.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to allow the Monticello Food Shelf to
utilize the fire hall, including a five year commitment on the City's
part, and to pay all utilities as requested by the food shelf.
2. Allow the food shelf to utilize the building but without committing
to any length of time that it would be available and the City
continuing to pick up all utility coat.
3. Allow usage as before with the understanding that the food shelf
L would have to relocate if the City ever sold the building and require
a small monthly rental payment to cover the increase in utilities
cost.
-2-
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
C. STAFF RECOI'DUMATION:
At the present time, with the office portion of the fire hall being
vacant, the staff sees no problem with the food shelf relocating to this
part of the fire hall with the understanding that the length of stay
depends on whether or not the building is sold. in regards to the
request that the City pick up all utilities cost, there certainly is
justification for charging the food shelf organization a small monthly
rental charge in the $100 to $150 range that would cover the increased
frost the City would incur for electricity and heat. I believe the food
shelf utilizes a number of refrigerators and/or freezers that along with
normal electrical use will increase the City's cost for these services;
and also over the winter months, the heat expense will increase in that
currently we keep it at a minimum temperature for our usage. Unless the
Council is of the opinion that the property should not be marketed for
sale at this time, the idea of committing to a five year rental
arrangement certainly seems inappropriate. Since the food shelf
organization is somewhat sponsored by area churches, etc., requesting a
monthly payment to cover at least the utilities cost seems reasonable
compensation if the Council is willing to allow the organization to
otherwise use the building rent free.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from Ministerial Association.
.3-
TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH 0 449 West Broadway a Monticello, Minnesota 55382
March 9. 1988
Mr. Arve Grimsmo, Mayor
and the Monticello City Council Members
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Grimsmo and Monticello City Council Members;
I am writing on behalf of the Monticello Ministerial Association to express
concern over the possible closing down of the Monticello Food Shelf.
The food shelf is currently operating out of two rooms in the old nursing home.
Because this space is now needed by another program, the food shelf must vacate
by the end of May. Unless space can be found for the food shelf, it is vary
likely that the program will be shut down.
This is of great concern to all of us. We are concerned because people are being
helped, whether they are churched or not. It is a community service. we are
concerned because hungry people can got desperate in their plight and the food
shelf exists to help people in crisis situations. Furthermore, the food shelf
has been one link in helping people back to a road of responsibility. Finally,
we are concerned because so often the victims of hungar are children.
with less federal and state dollars available for help programs, local communities
like Monticello have had to come to the rescue. Our food shelf has done a good
job in responding to the increasing need. Monticello has shown real interest and
concern in helping the hungry, which has been reflected in the ongoing support of
the food shelf and in the outstanding community -wide special drives.
To continue this program locally, permanent space must be found. As pastors we
have all looked at our own churches and that not one of our churches has tha space
noedad to house the Food Shelf program.
And so we are asking the council for help in finding a home for the food shelf.
The churches will continue to provide the volunteers. working together, I'm sure
that we can find the way to keep this vital program alive and helping those in
extreme need.
Sincerely,
Bruce G. Millar, Trinity Lutheran Church
on behalf of Monticello Ministerial Assn.
smf
Bruce G. Miller, pastor 0 phone (812) 29&2092 or 2952442
page two
March 9, 1988
To: Mr. Areca Grimsmo, Mayor
and the Monticello City Council Members
Monticello Ministerial Associations:
Eduard L. Barnett, St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal
Father Harry Walsh. St. Henry Catholic _
Merrill Bakk. Christian and Missionary Alliance
Del yetley, Assembly of God
Dennis Buckley, United Methodist
Harrold L_ Sams. Temple Baptist
Bruce G. Miller, Trinity Lutheran
Edward L. Holloway, Jr., Faith Lutheran, Silver Creek Township
Rod Houppert, Immanuel Lutheran, Silver Creek and LC -MS Mission Developer
Albert LaGrue. Little Mountain Community Church/Missiom Developer
(D
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
7. Consideration of Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Pump
House !3 and Authorization for Bids, W .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
OSM has completed plans and specifications for the new pump house. The
pump house will sit over deep well A3 some 200 feet west of the existing
reservoir building along Chelsea Road. The building will be
approximately 23 ft X 37 ft and will resemble the existing reservoir
building in design and configuration. The pump house will contain a pump
room for the pump, injection manifold and controls, a chlorine room, a
chemical room for the injection of fluoride and polyphosphates, and a
storage room which can be later used to house an emergency generator. It
is expected that sometime in the future the City may acquire a standby
generator for operation of this well, two of the booster pumps at the
reservoir, and/or any of the lift stations in the community.
OSM was unable to complete plans and specifications for the telemetric
control system at this time. It is expected that the new well will work
off of the old control system for the time being. This current portion
of the project will, therefore, only consist of the pump house, the pump,
motor, motor controls, chlorine, fluoride, and polyphosphate injection
equipment, site grading, and grounds work. The estimated construction
cost for this portion of the project is $110,000. The actual bid prices
may be higher, as we will have a larger pump, motor and starter controls
than was originally anticipated. Some of the savings on the cost of the
well may actually need to be applied to the increase in cost of the pump,
motor, and starter equipment.
The following is an anticipated schedule for this phase of the project.
1. Bid advertisement
Begin March 17, 1988
2. Bid opening date
April 8, 1988
3. Project award date
April 11, 1988
4. Construction begins
April 25, 1988
5. Pump start up and testing
July 15, 1988
6. Project completion 6 final
inspection
August 15, 1988
A copy of the layout of the building to enclosed for your review. The
actual detail plans and specifications will be available at Monday
evening's meeting for a more detailed analysis if requested.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the plana and
specifications as presented at Monday night's meeting and authorize
advertisement for bids to meet the proposed schedule as outlined
above.
-4-
C.
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
2. The second alternative would be to modify the plans and
specifications in some way as requested by the Council or to modify
the proposed schedule.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and City Engineer
that the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize
for bids as outlined in alternative number one.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed building layout.
Resolution for Adoption.
-5-
"I 1W
MIMI
MIE%
LI I 1 11 1 1
LLLj.&j
Vmul 41 t��
\ 1729M r
om... via" .4 Ifj
A'4
'12
-
ju:
JE -
4
-let if, -4, ifrr—,
PI
41 !jI
77
umawum a=-M.ALM IMP.
, 1 I
� I �sP• 6+0...4 �at•a a1/..i
1
/ I
aw.cwnaq I i� ��
SIt6 >•�.�'�
-. 6 r
V
I
RESOLUTION 88-6
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
PUMPHOOSE AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHmEAs, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Council on January 11, 1988,
the City's Consulting Engineer, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, has prepared
plans and specifications for the improvement of a new pusphouse, and
appurtenant equipment and has presented such plans and specifications to the
Council for approval;
NOW, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MORrICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file at City
Hall, are hereby approved.
2. The City Administrator shall prepare and cause to be inserted in
the Monticello Times and in the Construction Bulletin an
advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under
such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be
published for 21 days, shall specify the work to be done, shall
state that bids will be received by the Administrator until
.m. on , 1988, at which
time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall by the City Administrator and Engineer, will then be
tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 p.m. on
�- 1988, in the Council Chambers. No bids
will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Administrator
and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier'a check, bid bond, or
certified check payable to the City of Monticello for 58 of the
amount of such bid.
3. Springsted, Inc., is hereby designated the financial consultant for
the financing of this public improvement.
Adopted this 14th day of March, 1988.
City Administrator
I
Mayor
0
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
8. Consideration of Use of Commuter Parking Lot on Saturday, April 16, for
Tire Amnesty Day, Q.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In 1985, the Minnesota State Legislature passed the Waste Tire Act, which
prohibited the disposal of tires in landfills and requires the reduction
of existing nuisance tire piles. This only added to the increasing
problem in Wright County with waste tires. Many residents of Wright
County have anywhere from two to ten or more tires on their property.
These tires, when stored inside, provide harborage for mice and rats; and
when stored outside they collect rain water and are an ideal breeding
ground for mosquitos.
The Wright County Solid Waste Task Force has recommended a Tire Amnesty
Day for Wright County. The CDunty Board has approved the idea. On
Saturday, April 16, at five collection points around the County,
residents may bring in ten passenger car or light truck tires off the rim
to selected sites, and the County will dispose of the tires. The plan is
to take the tires to the tire recycling center in Babbott, Minnesota.
Residents may bring more than ten tires but will be charged $1 per tire
after the first ten. Tires must be off the rim and clean and dry. All
of the service stations in the area are cooperating by offering to remove
tires from rims for the week preceding Tire Amnesty Day for the cost of
$1 per tire.
In Monticello, we would like to use the commuter parking lot for a
collection point. The Wright County Recycling Coordinator is contacting
various service organizations in Monticello, as it is expected that the
individual pick-up stations will be manned by volunteers. The tires will
be loaded into closed semi -trailers and removed within a couple days
after the amnesty day.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to allow the use of the Monticello
commuter parking lot on Saturday, April 16, for a collection point
for Tire Amnesty Day.
2. Alternative number two would be to not allow the commuter parking lot
to be used for such an activity.
C. STAFF RECI"FNDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that the Council
allow the use of the commuter parking lot as proposed in alternative
number one. When we originally set up the commuter parking lot, we had
expected it to be used for more than just parking cars. It is a very
large, open space which is hardly ever used on weekends; and this project
is one more step to lessen our dependence on landfills.
D. SUppORTINO DATA:
Copy of the flyer for Tire Amnesty Day.
.6-
14rrEA1-T1DN : WR16Nr C4Q&l pry �s�oEiurs
ONE ZD -4y ONLY * r&R)t-- Otie 6L,6,Vz 9,2
rlRE AM'NE57Y. DAy
SAT, ApRiL 16, ?m- Irm
T i PEs Auer 35s CLON, L*j i OFF RIM
r
?Aumevt cm LJIW7 Ti va rules OW&Y
to Ings Pan, 1 ' TRE Arc 10
14/NAri4,we" C S��dp, may. z Ao, �,�.e f�UE.
,Vii%pito PmdvG &beKs ,&xr., So/ kms Bcvv. Na;
t"Or,o c/7fl �A,�'i4GE, Nrvy . fz d COON -y ,70
"".We �e.4tilrE loberS $�pG, Aid. �rUf�Q .Sze
.i agwC ; ,O ccmlwnE4 dor, Srs) Cvev'We Z-9,/•.+y.2S
t/�ONE /S E/1%�%C%e/gG�D Tb Ta,C-- 44,,AVrA66E
pp TX/.SOPl�t1�2iU�//.Tlf 7F, k'EE,U AW CLeWIV
1_/7,e6E QAnCi52I7-61j
its S,0',4eE-
/-8W-J -$"7 JW**"d
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
i
9. Consideration of City Being General Contractor on Streetscape
Project. W .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the Council meeting earlier this year when the Streetscape Project was
approved by the City Council, it was brought to staff's attention that we
should look into the possibility of the City contracting or being the
general contractor for the Streetscape Project to save money. For the
past month or so, the City staff has been discussing this and looking at
the pro's and con's as well as the potential savings for being the
general contractor. Our preliminary estimate is that by being the
general contractor, the City could save between $20,000 and $25,000.
This is after calculating the cost of a City representative on site as
well as higher engineering costs Eor multiple spec's and additional time
required by City staff. To be the general contractors we would expect to
break the project into three sections: 1) demolition and concrete work;
2) electrical work; and 3) landscaping. The following is a list of
general areas of responsibility if the City should be the general
contractor.
Cit Hall
C ty Hall would be responsible for all of the contract documents and
legal requirements. They would oversee the insurance bonds, all
payments, answer complaints, and handle any accidents.
Jeff O'Neill
Jett would take all calls at City Hall from downtown business property
owners and act as liaison between City staff and those individuals.
John Simola
John would oversee water service repairs; ordering of all materials, the
master schedule fu; Lhe projecL and subcontractors; assist with
inspection services for the electrical contractor; and act as general
liaison for the field inspection people, property owners, vendors, and
subcontractors. He would also oversee portions of the concrete work
related to quality control and materials as far as testing requirements.
Roder Puck
Roger Mack would be one of the inspectors on the concrete portion of the
project, would oversee all of the work done within the street
right-of-way including overseeing of signing, barricading, and safety,
and would oversee the landscaping contractor and adherence to
specifications.
Gary Anderson
Gary Anderson would act as one of the inspectors on the concrete portion
of the work, and also oversee any building code concerns during the
project and act as an inspector during the electrical portion of the
Cproject.
-7-
I_
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
It is the general consensus of the City staff that being the general
contractor would better address the concerns of the business people
throughout the project. We would better be able to control the time
frames during which they would not have access to their buildings and
oversee the project in more detail. The savings estimated at $20,000 to
$25,000 are based upon general contractor markups and savings on sales
tax on materials. The sales tax issue will be easily determined as a
savings. The general contractor markup is an intangible item which we
may never actually know what was saved.
There are risks in the project. As the City becomes the general
contractor, if the project goes very smoothly with full cooperation of
all parties and we save the city $20,000 to $25,000 (estimated, of
course), no one may really remember this fact in the years to come. If,
however, something happens in the coordination of the work, delivery of
the materials, and the project does not go as smoothly as planned,
everyone will remember how the City of Monticello got into the
contracting business by mistake. It is the general consensus of the City
staff for these reasons that we do not be the general contractor on the
Streetscape Project unless directed by the City Council to do so and
directed to give full priority to this project as needed over other daily
work or projects.
B. ALTERNATIVE, ACTIONS:
C' 1. Alternative number one would be to leave the entire Streetscape
package under one general contractor.
2. The second alternative would be to divide the contract into three
separate subcontracts, have the City oversee the project and act as
the general contractor, and give this project full priority at an
estimated cost savings of $20,000 to $25,000.
C. STAFF RECOMMMMATION:
As stated earlier, the staff recommends that the City Council opt for
alternative number one and not be the general contractor on this
project. If they so feel that the risks are worth the $20,000 to $25,000
savings and authorize the City to give this project full priority as
outlined in alternative number two. We feel we can have a good project,
and the staff will give this project its total support.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of general contracting or streetscape areas of responsibility and
concern.
-a-
GENERAL CONTRAC:'ING FOR STREETSCAPE
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY AND CONCERN
1. The general contractor oversees the bonds and insurance and contracts for
-the subcontractors.- ------•--•
.1
2. The general contractor determines payment requests, rays the
subcontractors, and sees that the subcontractors pay their suppliers.
3. The general contractor orders materials not supplied by the
subcontractors. He rhecks those materials, the quantities, and the
qualities versus the specifications.
4. The general contractor schedules material delivery to coordinate with the
work sequence. He is also responsible for storage of these materials and
safeguarding them until they incorporate it into a finished product.
5. The general contractor is responsil)le for determining the work sequen^s
and coordinating the scheduling with each subcontractor.
6. The general contractor is responsible for supervision of the
subcontractors to see that they perform at a level acceptable to the
owner and that they are on the job on time and corking.
7. Tne general contractor notifies and coordinates the work with other
agencies. -his would be the City, the County, mN/DOT, the telephone
company, electrical company; and so on.
B. The general contractor would coordinate the project with the individual
property ownere to see that eiequate access is maintained and also to
notify the property owners when they would be denied access at certain
times throughout the project.
9. The general contractor is responsible to see that the proper signing and
traffic control is provided and that the site is cleaned up and hazard-,
to the public are kept to a minimum.
10. The general contractor must arrange and supervise materials testing when
within hie contract.
11. The general contractor must update Lhe project schedule and keep the
project on schedule.
12. The general contractor is responsible for vardo;ism or thefto durin the
project up until its trmpletion and acceptdncq by Lhe owner. Vandalinm
could amount to broken light fixt•ires or damage.! concrete from children,
etc.
13. The general contractor acts as liaison or agent for the subcontractors
when accidents or the like occur such as the case whon a building is
damaged or such.
D
General Contracting for Streetscape
Areas of Responsibility and Concern
Page 2
14. The general contractor is responsible for the layout of the project to
see that fixtures, trees, and such go in the proper places. In many
cases, the owner provides the actual staking for the project, but the
general contractor is responsible for the correct reading of those stakes
and the actual placement of the fixtures and materials.
OTHER CONCERNS FOR TKE E£1'SGAPE PROJECP
1. It appears that we are paying Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Oban, Inc.,
approximately 8-1/2 percent of the entire electrical contract estimated
at $100,000 for a rough layout and selection of the ornamental fixtures.
We currently have one of the firms who Geoff Martin dealt with which gave
Mr. Martin the lowest prices who was willing to do a computer layout of
the project. From here we moat determine how we are going to get the
electrical configuration of the conduit and feeding points design. It is
possible that we should go with an electrical contractor who could design
bid that portion of it. We also have to determine how we are going to do
the actual purchasing of the electrical equipment.
2. We must decide how to pursue the ordering of the tree grates and
protectors.
3. it is yet to be determined exactly how we will handle the water service
replacement. It is suggested that we send a notification to the property
owners letting them know that they have a galvanized service and that it
would be best to replace it now and also talk about the City's new high
pressure from the new reservoir which may cause them to leak.
4. We will have to seriously look at those properties which do not have any
back door access and which will be denied access for a certain period of
time.
5. we must look at who is going to provide the actual serving of the
project.
6. we will have to coordinate the painting of the old poles and old
fixtures.
We will have to coordinate the installation of the bridge railing. It is
anticipated at this time that we will need about 30 panels, 9 feet long
each. It is believed that we should have four panel spares for a total
of about 306 feet and are currently in negotiations with Johnson Brothers
Construction to determine the cost of the panels. we will then determine
the cost of restoration.
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
10. Consideration of Cost Estimates for Frontage Road for Riverroad Plaza on
East County Road 39 Project. Q.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This particular subject has been discussed in great depth at many past
Council meetings. I had thought it was put to rest at the October 26,
1987, meeting when the Council agreed to build the entire frontage road
and pick up the entire cost with no assessments. The estimated
construction cost was $23,000 to $25,000, and Wright County had agreed to
pick up all the design cost and normal inspection costs on the project.
Curt and Anna Mae agreed reluctantly, as they were losing approximately
8,000 sq ft of property off the front of their lots and gaining only
4,000 sq ft of unneeded right-of-way off of old 39.
The estimates for the project were done by Dave Montebello with the
Wright County Highway Department engineering staff. It should be pointed
out the estimates were based upon the length of the service road using
typical County costs per mile for such things as grading, surfacing,
drainage, and curbing. After the completion of the plans, the Wright
County Highway Department staff were able to make a more detailed cost
estimate. Without the removal or relocation of the exist!ng Riverroad
Plaza sign, the current estimates for the frontage road project range
from $37,687 to $40,465. It is unfortunate that the original estimates
were so far off; but after going over the plans several times with the
Wright County staff, we feel that these estimates are accurate and that
the project could not be downgraded and still meet Monticello minimum
design standards and serve the purpose for which it was intended, to
provide left and right turns onto County Road 75.
You may be asking yourself whether the City can back out of its original
commitment to build the service road without assessments or to build the
service road only to the back door of the Riverroad Plaza. Rick and I
discussed these issues with the City Attorney, Tom Hayes. Tom informed
us even though we made a verbal agreement in good faith with the Hoglunds
to build this service road at no cost, we certainly would have reason to
back out of our agreement due to an increase in coat of 62 percent. we
do have a few other iesues which do tend to make this issue more
difficult. Number one, we are currently in condemnation proceedings on
the Gladys Hoglund property in which the City will share 50 percent of
the cost. One of the arguments in that particular condemnation
proceeding is that the damage to the Hoglund property by the new County
Road 39 is being lessened by the construction of a complete service road
which would allow for the left and right access onto County Road 75. A
second item involves the fact that a]1 of our notices and public hearings
held for the 116, County Road 39 East, and service road gave no
indication of any assessment for street surfacing or road work. We
would, therefore, have to go through all of the public hearing processes
and notices again in order to assess benefiting property. Technically,
the construction of the service road, although designed, has not yet been
ordered. The third issue involves Wright County. The County has gone
through considerable expense in the design phase of this service road.
-9-
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
In addition, they have reluctantly agreed to do all of the routine
surveying and inspection of the construction of the service road. They
have been unwilling to share any cost whatsoever for the construction of
the roadway itself, as they have been advised by legal counsel that they
are not obligated to provide a left/right access to County Road 75.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
There are several alternatives again to this frontage road dilemma.
1. The first alternative would be to stand behind our original agreement
with Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund to build the entire service road with
no assessments at estimated costs from $37,000 to $40,000. This
alternative appears to be the cleanest and simplest but yet the
hardest to swallow.
2. The second alternative would be to build the complete service road as
planned but to hold public hearings and assess a portion of it to the
adjoining property owners. As you may recall, both Curt and Anna Mae
Hoglund were totally opposed to any additional assessments on their
property; and this could cause problems with the condemnation of the
Gladys Hoglund property and may also have negative responses from
other property owners not expecting assessments. In addition, the
time frame with which to order all of the public hearings and yet
still get the project on line for construction with the County's
project may be questionable.
3. The third alternative would be to build the service road only to the
back door of the Riverroad Plaza, at which point we would build a
cul-de-sac of sorts and terminate the service road. This would
result in significant cost savings to the City but could result in
higher condemnation costs for the Gladys Hoglund property and
possible litigation from Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund and may not serve
the best needs of the people in the area, nor the City of Monticello
at large.
C. STARK RECOMNFNDATION:
It is difficult for staff to give a clear and precise recommendation on
this issue. Looking back from where we began this frontage road process,
It may have been best to opt for alternative number two at that time and
to hold the public hearings and assess those benefiting property owners.
That would be the right thing to do. The easiest thing to do would be to
continue with the project as planned in alternative number one. That
recoamrendation can be defended by saying the City stands behind
agreements it makes and that time constraints may not allow holding all
of the public hearings and such. it is the opinion of the Public Works
Director at this time, as it has been in the past, that one would like to
say only build the service road to the back door. This, however, would
not be beneficial to the City of Monticello, nor the property owmers in
the area over the long haul. I had anticipated a stronger
-t0.
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
t—
recommendation, but I liken this project to the picking up of a piece of
elucive mercury. The more I try to pick it up or work with it, the
further it scoots or separates out of reach.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Please refer to your agenda supplements for the following dates:
September 14, 1987; September 28, 1987; October 26, 1987.
C
• NOTE: Reflects middle of estimated 62 range in prices.
\1
(o
JANUARY 12,
1987
COUNTY ROAD 39 AND
118 Costs
Intersection Shift 320'
Revised
Estimate
Description
Quantitv Price
Countv
Costs
City
Costs
March 14, 1988
Permanent - Hoglund
2.1 A 20,000 AC
502
21,000
50%
21,000
Same
Slope Easement
2.25 A 1,000
502
1,125
502
1,125
Same
Tu rnback (39)
5,000
50%
-2,500
50%
-2,500
Same
CR 118 R/W Permanent
0.57 A 15,000
502
4,275
502
4,275
5.040
Turnback
1.0 A 8,000
50%
-4,000
502
-4,000 '
-5,000
R. R. R/W
1,000
501
500
50%
500
Same
R. R. Track Imp.
25,000
50%
12.500
50%
12,500
14,100
Road Imp. CR 118
20,000
502
10,000
50%
10.000
24,800
•rrrr�wwrrwrrrrr�rrr•rrrrrrrrrrwwrrrrrrrrrrrrr•rr•
$42,900
142,900
$59,065
CSAE 75 AND 39
COSTS
Revised
Estimate
Description
Quantity Price
County
Costs
City
Costs
March 14, 1988
Medians
1200 yd2 $20-22/yd2
502
12,500
12,500
10,865
Bituminous Removal
2.000 ft. 31.50/ft.
702
2,100
30%
630
1,940
Bit. Surfacing
2.100 con 318/ton
701
26,460
302
11,340
25.700
Base Class 5
$10,000
701
7,000
302
3,000
4,850 •
(Conditioning)
Widening. Culverts, Turf
$15,000
701
10,500
302
4,500
4,170 •
Underground Signal
$10,000
502
5,000
50%
5.000
7.665
Frontage Road
S 7,000
OI
100%
7,000
39.075 •
R/W Frontage Road
02
1002
Paved Shoulders to City
Limits
100%
15.000
14,550
(County Road 39)
Street Lights -
1002
N/A
81148 •
(2 Permanent, 2 Temporary)
$63.560
658,970
$116,963
TOTAL COSTS
$101,870
$176,028
• NOTE: Reflects middle of estimated 62 range in prices.
\1
(o
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
It. Consideration of Funding Participation and Construction Agreement with
Wright County Department of Highways for the East County Road 39, County
Road 75, County Road 118, Frontage Road Projects. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the November 24, 1986, Council meeting, the City Council moved to
participate in a joint reconstruction project at the intersections of
County Roads 39 Fast and 75. The City agreed to pay for one-half of the
right-of-way costs for moving County Road 39 East, one-half of the cost
of design and installation of the underground portion of signal lights,
the standard county/municipal funding policy for joint work on County
Road 75, 100 percent of the frontage road costs, 100 percent of the paved
shoulders for East County Road 39 within the city limits, and 50 percent
of the relocation cost and construction cost for County Road 118.
Based upon cost estimates provided by Wright County at the January 12,
1987, meeting of the City Council, our Council approved a participation
and cost sharing in the projects. At that meeting of January 12, 1987,
our estimated cost of the total project was $101,870. This did not
include the design work for the underground signal portion of the
project. On January 14, 1987, I drafted a letter to Wright County
summarizing our expected costs and the results of the January 12
meeting. A copy of this letter is enclosed.
The revised estimated costs as of March 14, 1988, for the City's share is
$176,028, which does not include the design work on the underground
signal portion of the project. This is an increase of $74,158. Almost
half of this cost, or 43 percent, is attributable to the increase in cost
of the service road. The other three major reasons for the increase are
1) the need for street lights at the end of the medians and at the
intersection on County Road 75, 2) the increase in design width of county
Road 118 to handle more traffic as was indicated by traffic studies and
design work performed after the initial estimate, and 3) lastly, the need
to remove all of the blacktop surfacing from County Road 75 during the
construction process. (It was originally felt that the old highway
surfacing could remain in place; however, design indicates that with the
crown and shape of the road, this is not possible.) The new costs
indicated reflect the middle of an estimated 6 percent range in prices.
The bid prices would be determined on or about the County's bid letting
date of May 1, 1988. I have enclosed a copy of the estimated cost
increases weighed against the original estimates for your review.
Also included in the agreement with Wright County is a portion of our
County Road 39 utility work. With the County Road 39 road work, the
County had expected to repair about 50 feet of Mississippi Drive at their
cost. Due to the utility work, the repairs will be extended to the
corner and the City will pick up approximately 70 feet of the restoration
costs for Mississippi Drive. in addition, it was felt that the storm
A
Counci 1 Agenda - 3/14/88
sewer for County Road 39 should be put in with the grading and highway
portion so the County is expected to do the installation on the storm
sewer. The Mississippi Drive restoration and storm sewer are expected to
cost about $35,000. This cost is part of our utility project and,
therefore, will be part of that bond issue.
The County anticipates completing only the first lift of the bituminous
surfacing in 1988, with the final lift to come in 1989. The above
estimated costs reflect the total overall cost of the project, including
next year's final lift of blacktop. he only thing left on the project
is the signal system itself. we expect to meet warrants in late 1988 for
the signal. The signals themselves, that is the above ground work, could
cost another $65,000, of which the City would be expected to pay
50 percent.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the agreement with Wright
County as enclosed based upon the above cost estimates. The estimate
for the frontage road may or may not have changed, depending upon the
Council's action in the preceding agenda item.
2. The second alternative would be not to approve the agreement with
Wright County but to request some changes in construction or cost
sharing.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Council
approve the agreement ae per alternate number one above. The City staff
has spent numerous hours on this agreement, and we feel it represents the
best give and take situation between the City and the Wright county
Highway Department. It is expected that the agreement, once approved by
the City of Monticello, will pass to the County Board for their approval
on March 15, 1988.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed agreement from Wright County; ODpy of the revised
cost estimate; January la, 1987, lettar to Wright County.
-13-
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
FUNDING PARTICIPATION 6 CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF WRIGHT
and
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
For
IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF:
SAP 86-675-06
SAP 86-639-11
CP 86-C118-1361
CP 86-C39-1361
0
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the County of
Wright, Minnesota, acting by and through its County Board of Commissioners
hereinafter referred to as the 'County', and the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to
as the "City',
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been prepared for the improvement
of the following roads - Wright County Road 118, hereinafter referred to as
CR 118, Wright County State Aid Highway 75, hereinafter referred to as CSAR
75, Wright County State Aid Highway 39, hereinafter referred to as CSAH 39,
and a portion of old County State Aid Highway 39, hereinafter referred to
as the Frontage Road and said construction plans are designated as follows:
CSAR 39 - SAP 86-639-I1
CSAH 75 - SAP 86-675-04
CR 118 - CP 86-CI18-1341
Frontage Rd - CP 86-C39-1341
The projects Include grading , curb and gutter, storm sewer, aggregate
base, bituminous surfacing, underground signal conduit, lighting,
right-of-way acquisition, railroad crossing relocation, and other
miscellaneous improvements within the cooperate city limits of Monticello;
and
WHEREAS, the project is of mutual interest to the County and to the City
and established policy for such projects provides that the City reimburse
the County for a portion of the cost of said improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Is planning reconstruction of some existing utilities
and the construction of new utilities to conjunction with the highway
improve -meats;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE 1
The County shall construct or cause to be constructed a project of street
improvements including grading, aggregate base, bituminous surfacing,
concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, lighting, underground signal
conduit, and other miscellaneous improvements upon and along CR 118, CSAH
75, CSAR 39, and the Frontage Road, within the City limits in accordance
with approval plans and specifications on file to the Office of the County
Engineer, Wright County, Minnesota.
(9
ARTICLE 2
It is agreed that upon completion and acceptance of
the work as to
quality and quantity by the County, the County Engineer
�.
shall determine the
actual amount due from the City in accordance with the
following funding
participation schedule:
County Road 118:
Funding Participation
County Cit�
Right -Of -Way
50Z 50X
P-silroad Crossing Relocation
502 502
Grading, Base, and Bituminous Surfacing
502 502
Sale of Uneconomic Remnant
501 502
County State Aid HiRhwav 75:
Funding Participation
Count Cit
Grading, Base and Bituminous Surfacing
10X 30:
Raised Concrete Median
502 502
Underground Signal System Construction 6 Design
502 501
Lighting System
01 1002
County State Aid HiRhway 39: Funding Participation
County Ci�t�
Grading, Base and Bituminous (Travel Lane)
10 03
Bituminous Shoulders Within City Limits (Bit.Only) 0% 1002
Bituminous Shoulders Outside City Limits
100% 02
Right -Of -Way Acquisition (Hoglund Property)
50% 501
Storm Sewer
+ +
+ Note: 2 County participation based on 1 County contribution to storm
sever system. The City will be resposible
for the remaining
portion. The City will design the system and the County will
Install it as part of the road construction contract.
Frontage Road:
Funding Participation
Count CCit�
�
Right -Of -Way Acquisition
100i
Grading, Base, Bituminous, and Other
01 1002
Mississippi Drive:
Funding Participation
Count Cit
All Contract Work 6 Right -Of -Way
1�
(first 70' from Centerline CSAR 39)
All Contract Work 6 Right -Of -Way
02 1001
(Outside of 70' from Centerline CSAH 39)
It is intended that the work outlined above in Article Two is to be done
by a contractor on a unit price basis thru a contract
duly let by the
County. At such time as the County awards a contract
and the City concurs
to such award the County will prepare a now estimate of the City's share of
the construction cost based on the unit prices bid by
the County's
contractor. A copy of such revised cost estimate will be forwarded to the
City.
0
ARTICLE 3
The City agrees that all manholes, water valves, hydrants or other
utility installations will be set a minimum of one (1) foot below final
grade. The utility installations shall be visibly marked with elevations
present.
The City shall have the necessary contract provisions in their sewer and
water contract which insures that the following construction progress is
made, unless extreme weather conditions or other unavoidable circumstances
prevail.
City Construction Progress Required Reouired Completion Date
All water facilities on Ca 118 and
water facilities through station 900 on CSAR 39 June 1, 1988
All sanitary sewer work within permanent
right—of-way, water facilities through station
28+70, and all drain tile June 20, 1988
All waterline facilities June 24, 1988
Construction of lift station @ 23+50 (out of
permanent right-of-way) None
If the County's contractor is mobilized and ready to work, for everyday
the County contractor is delayed by failure of the City's contractor to
meet the above schedule (deadlines), the County's contractor will be
awarded f 400.00 par day in compensation. The City will be responsible for
reimbursing the County for these damages paid to the contractor.
ARTICLE 4
The City agrees to have the following items to its Bawer and water
contract.
(A) Saw -Cut and remove concrete driveway pavement at AME Ready Mix
driveway on CR 118.
(B) Saw -Cut and patch all utility crossings that must accomodate
through traffic unless construction. by the County is imminent.
(C) Remove bituminous pavement on CSAN 39 from station 13+00 to east
City limits (station 41+80). Bituminous to be removed off of
project limits.
(D) Saw -Cut and remove curb, gutter, and bituminous pavement on
Mississippi Drive.
(E) All utility trenches shall be compacted to a minimum of 951 of
maximum density below 3' of new grading grade and 1001 of maximum
density when within 3' of grading grade.
6)
(F) The City will be responsible for maintaining the roadway sections
Involved under the sewer and water contract until work under the
County contract disrupts that portion of the roadway. The
roadway should be substantially uniform in appearance and
cross-section upon completion of the installation of utilities.
(C) The City shall have provisions for adequate traffic control
within the contractor's work site.
(H) The City will be responsible for raising all utility
Installations to the proper height once the rough grading has
been completed.
ARTICLE S
The County shall mark all trees, shrubs, etc., that ware paid for as part
of the right-of-way process. The City shall be responsible for all trees,
shrubs, ate., that were not purchased but may need to be removed as part of
the sewer and water project.
The County shall have adequate provisions to cover damage to utility
installations that were installed correctly and at the proper depth.
The County shall be responsible for the maintenance of CSAH 39 (within
the City) after June 24, 1988, assuming that satisfaciory construction
progress has been made by the City's contactor.
The County shall be responsible for all field inspection of materials,
quantities, and contractor performance for the road improvement project
(includes Frontage Road). There will be no inspection cost to the City
unless the City requests inspection services beyond the standard
requirements and testing proceeduces.
ARTICLE 6
If the City runs into unsuitable material in the trench or roadway in
which the City and County mutually agree should not be placed back in the
trench or roadway the contractor may take additional fill from out sections
as directed by Engineer.
The City shall continue to maintain water and sewer facilities
constructed under its contract and shall also maintain the Frontage Road
and storm sever constructed as part of the County's project.
The County shall maintain all culverts constructed within Its
right-of-way as part of this project.
ARTICLE 8
The Frontage Road right-of-way designated on County right-of-way plat 06
shall be revoked to the City under statute 163.11 Subdivision S and all
responsibilities of ownership for this roadway by the City shall apply.
0
ARTICLE 9
The City shall not drain any additional areas into the storm sewers
contructed as a part of this project that are not included in the drainage
area for which said storm sewers were designed without first obtaining
permission to do so from the County Highway Department.
ARTICLE 10
It is the County's and City's intent to share the costa for detouring
CSAR 39, CSAR 75, and CR 118. The cost sharing will be based on each
projects daily need for the detour signing.
ARTICLE 11
It is agreed that upon completion and acceptance of the work. as to
quantity and quality by the County, the County Engineer shall determine the
actual amount due the County from the City, according to Article 2, which
amount upon approval by the City Engineer shall be final, binding and
conclusive. The County shall then apply for a receive payment from the
City, due within 30 days after receipt of application for payment. The
County shall submit a maximum of three payment requests, two of three being
partial payments and the third being a final payment.
ARTICLE 12
The City indemnifies, saves and holds harmless the County and all of its
agents and employees of any form against any and all claims, demands,
actions or causes of action whatever nature or character arising out of or
by reason of the execution or performance of the work provided for herein
to be performed by the City and further agrees to defind at its own sole
cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of
asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising hereunder and within
the corporate limits of the City of Monticello.
It is further agreed that any and all full time employees of the City and
all other employees of the City engaged is the perfomance by any work or
services requires or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall
be considered employees of the City only and not of the County and that any
and all claims that may or might arise under Workmen's Compensation Act of
the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any
and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or
ommission on the part of said City employees while so engaged on any of the
work or services provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole
obligation and responsibility of the City.
ARTICLE 13
Before this agreement shall become binding and effective it shall be
approved by resolution of the City Council of Monticello and it shall also
be approved by resolution of the County Board and such other officers as
low may provide.
(P
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement by
their duly authorized officers and caused their respective seals to be
hereunto affixed.
C� �IiiS r�i�l x'13 (�i:I9
Recommended for Approval:
County Engineer
Chairman, County Board
County Coordinator
County Attorney
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Recommmendad for Approval:
Public Yorke Director
Mayor, City of Monticello
Administrator, City of Monticello
City Attorney, City of Monticello
0
• NOTE: Reflects middle of estimated 62 range in prices.
JANUARY 12,
1987
COUNTY ROAD 39 AND
118 Costs
Intersection Shift
320'
Revised
Estimate
Description
Quantity Price
County
Costs
City
Costs
March 14, 1988
Permanent - Hoglund
2.1 A 20.000 AC
502
21,000
502
21,000
Same
Slope Easement
2.25 A 1.000
502
1,125
502
1,125
Same
Turnback (39)
51000
502
-2,500
502
-2,500
Same
CR 118 R/W Permanent
0.57 A 15,000
502
4,275
501
4,275
5,040
Turnback
1.0 A 81000
502
-4,000
502
-4,000
' -5,000
R.R. R/W
1,000
502
500
502
500
Same
R.R. Track Imp.
25,000
502
12,500
502
12,500
14,100
Road Imp. CR 118
20.000
502
10,000
502
10,000
24.800
$42,900
!42,900
$59.065
#*!!t•#f***ftA###*#!!#tf#####t***##RfR**ttA#!l
ttt*
CSAH 75 AND 39
COSTS
Revised E
Estimate
Description
Quantity Price
County
Costs
City
Costs
March 14, 1988
Medians
1200 yd2 520-22/yd2
502
12,500
12,500
10,865 *
Bituminous Removal
2,000 ft. $1.50/ft.
702
2,100
302
630
1.940 *
Bit. Surfacing
2,100 ton 518/ton
702
26,460
301
11.340
25.700 *
Base Class 5
$10.000
702
7,000
302
3,000
4,850 *
(Conditioning)
Widening, Culverts. Turf
$15,000
702
10,500
301
4.500
41170 *
Underground Signal
$10,000
502
5,000
501
5,000
7.665 *
Frontage Road
S 7.000
02
1002
7,000
39.075 *
R/W Frontage Road
02
1002
Paved Shoulders to City
limits
1002
15,000
14,550 *
(County Road 39)
Street Lights -
1001
N/A
8,148 *
(2 Permanent. 2 Temporary)
$63.560
$58,970
5116,963
TOTAL COSTS
$101,870
5176,028
• NOTE: Reflects middle of estimated 62 range in prices.
In summary, the right-of-way coats for County Road 39 and the
right-of-way and construction coats for County Road 118 and
the railroad crossing are split 50/50 with $42,900 to both the
County and City. For County Road 75, the municipal funding
policy is used, along with the City picking up the $15,000 estimated
coat for road shoulders on County Road 39 within the City limits.
Thin puts the cost for County Roads 75 and 39 at 563,560 to
the County, $58,970 to the City. Estimated total coat to the
City is $101,870. Some highlights of our agreement were the
stipulation that should the City complete annexation of additional
land along 39 prior to the completion of the project, the City
becomes liable for additional road shoulders: in addition, the
costs of the frontage road near the Riverroad Plaza will be
borne 100% by the City. It is expected that the County will
assist in right-of-way swaps in this area to the property belonging
to Curt and Anne Mae Hoglund. In addition, the City will lower
the force main in conjunction with utility improvements along
County Roads 39 and 118, and the County will work with the City
so that proper right-of-ways for utilities are maintained.
It in assumed that a final agreement will follow this letter
of understanding, and we will continue to work together to finalize
the pians for this project.
250 Ent emaaarav
Mo,tk:ele, Minnesota
55362.9215 0
11
City o/ Monticello
MONTICELLO, MN 55362.9245
January 14, 1967
vtrare 16121295.271 1
Metro 19121333.5739
Wright County Department of Highways
Wright County Public Works Building
Route 1, Box 97-B
May—
A-0 Aa Grenamo
Buffalo, MN 55313
city Council:
Dan Bio` -pen
Attn: Mr. Wayne A. Fingalson, P.E.
Fran c
wdmw a
County Highway Engineer
"ek Maarree
Re: Coat Sharing for the Relocation and Construction of
the Intersection of Highways 75, 39, and 118 within
Aama+maatar:
the City of Monticello
Tom Einem
Fir notrecto:
Rek watatseer
Dear Mr. Fingalson:
Pudic woks:
'6tn S -ow
As we discussed by phone on Tuesday morning, the Monticello
Ptam—g a 2onatg:
City Council approved a cost sharing and concept plan on Monday
Gary Aneeraan
evening, January 12. The City Council unanimously approved
Econom,c Devetooment:
OM. Koroptnak
that plan prepared by City and County staff. The cost estimates
prepared by Dave Montebello were presented to the Council and
are enclosed for your review.
In summary, the right-of-way coats for County Road 39 and the
right-of-way and construction coats for County Road 118 and
the railroad crossing are split 50/50 with $42,900 to both the
County and City. For County Road 75, the municipal funding
policy is used, along with the City picking up the $15,000 estimated
coat for road shoulders on County Road 39 within the City limits.
Thin puts the cost for County Roads 75 and 39 at 563,560 to
the County, $58,970 to the City. Estimated total coat to the
City is $101,870. Some highlights of our agreement were the
stipulation that should the City complete annexation of additional
land along 39 prior to the completion of the project, the City
becomes liable for additional road shoulders: in addition, the
costs of the frontage road near the Riverroad Plaza will be
borne 100% by the City. It is expected that the County will
assist in right-of-way swaps in this area to the property belonging
to Curt and Anne Mae Hoglund. In addition, the City will lower
the force main in conjunction with utility improvements along
County Roads 39 and 118, and the County will work with the City
so that proper right-of-ways for utilities are maintained.
It in assumed that a final agreement will follow this letter
of understanding, and we will continue to work together to finalize
the pians for this project.
250 Ent emaaarav
Mo,tk:ele, Minnesota
55362.9215 0
11
Mr. Wayne A. Fingalson, P.E.
January ta, 1987
Page 2
I would like to thank you and your staff for the cooperation
given us in this project. The professionalism shown by you
and your staff makes the problems encountered with major changes
or projects such as this much easier to overcome. I have provided
a place at the bottom of this letter for your Signature if you
concur with the context. If you have any questions, please
contact me.
Respec fully,
;949�a
John E. Simole
Public works Director
JES/ltd
Enclosure
cc: T. Eidam, City Administrator
Project Pile - 39 East y•
JS
FOR WRIGHT COUNTY
Wayne A. Fingalson , P. E.
County Highway Engineer
m
C
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
12. Consideration of Sanitary Sewer Discharge Permit Upgrade - Sunny Fresh
Foods. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKMOUND:
In 1983, we negotiated our first wastewater discharge permit with the
then Wrightco Products, Inc. This first permit took effect on the 15th
day of February, 1984. The permit limitations given Wrightco were based
on seven day averages and were 9.1 of plant capacity for flow,
27.2 percent of plant capacity for BOD, and 15.1 percent of plant
capacity for total suspended solids. This permit was expected to last
Wrightco for approximately five years. We are currently in the fifth
year of the permit, and Wrightco has on occasion in the past recently
bumped their permit limitations. They are expecting some expansion in
1988, which would result in discharges over current permit limitations.
During the past several months, I have met with representatives of Sunny
Fresh and discussed their needs for permit limitation increases. We have
worked out what we feel is a comfortable level for them which would allow
them some growth over the next five years but yet still allows the City
of Monticello flexibility in the current design limitations of the
wastewater treatment plant. The following chart gives an indication of
the actual design loadings, current loadings, current Sunny Fresh permit,
and the requested Sunny Fresh permit.
Current Current New
Plant Sunny 6 Sunny 4
Plant Loadings Fresh of Fresh of
Flow CPD Deslgn0 1987 Ave Pet Design PeO Design
BODS PPD 6,2571 1,865 1,706 27.2 2,100 33.5
TSS PPD 3,224 911 487 15.1 664 20.6
As one can see by the above referenced chart, the increases to Sunny
Fresh are minimal and are well within our wastewater treatment plant
capabilities.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the new permit limitations as
requested by Sunny Fresh.
2. Alternative number two would be to renew the permit at limitations
lower than those requested.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City
Council approve the permit limitations as requested by Sunny Fresh as
outlined in alternative number one. Over the past few years we have had
an excellent working relationship with Wrightco and now Sunny Fresh.
Problems we experienced with permit limitations were professionally
handled by their staff in an open, cooperative atmosphere. The new
-14-
C
C-1
C
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
permit limitations allow Sunny Fresh zoom for growth, do not adversely
affect the City of Monticello's wastewater treatment plant or its
expected growth.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Section E, Specific Permit Conditions, Original Permit 002; Copy
of Specific Permit Conditions for new Permit O02A; Copies of past
histories of flow, BOD, and total suspended solids for wrightco for
1985-1987.
-15-
Sunny Fresh Foods
Egg Products
206 W. Fourth St., Boa 428
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
427:450, 612.295.5666
February 02, 1988
Mr, John Simola
Public Works Director
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Simola:
Due to processing changes and expansion, we would like to increase the
following sewer discharge parameters.
FLOW: 1. Maximum total discharge rate - 250 GPM.
2. Maximum total discharge per day shall not exceed 140,000 gallons
based on a seven (7) day average.
3. The maximum total discharge in any 24 hour period shall not exceed
180,000 gallons.
BOD: 1. Total number of pounds of 600 discharged per day shall not exceed
2,100 pounds based on a consecutive seven (7) day average.
2. The total number of pounds of BOD discharged in any 24 hour period
shall not exceed 3,000 pounds.
TSS: 1. The total number of pounds of total suspended solids discharged per
day shall not exceed 664 pounds based on a consecutive seven (7)
day average.
2. The total number of pounds of total suspended solids discharged in
any 24 tour period shall not exceed 910 pounds.
Sincerely,
Henry $pruilli- Plant Engineer / %11• `" `t .1
Greg Paumen - Maintenance Manager -41 ""qty
I t' !
n
u
1
iCITY OF MON77CELW Permit No. 002
E. Specific Permit Oonditions
1. The total facility sanitary cover discharge shall not exceed •any- of
the following parameters:
a. Plowk 1. The maximum total discharge rate shall not exceed
200 gallons per minute.
2. The maximum total discharge per day shall not exceed
82,400 gallons based on a consecutive seven (7) day
average.
3. 'She maximum total discharge in any 24 hour period shall
not exceed 126,300 gallons.
b. 8003, 1. The toftl number of pounds of 8005 discharged per day
shall not exceed 1.706 pounds based on a consecutive
seven (7) day average.
2. The total number of pounds of 8005 discharged in any
24 hour period shall not exceed 2,560 pounds.
c. TSS, . 1. The total number of pounds of total suspended solids
discharged per day shall not exceed 487 pounds basad
on a consecutive seven (7) day average.
2. The total number of -pounds of total suspended solids
discharged in any 24 hour period shall not exceed
730 pounds.
d. The above parameters and conditions am expoeted to remain in effect
through the year 1988. If at any time arightco Products foresees
immtedisto growth which may exceed the limits of this pormit, application
should be made for permit review to the City of slontieello. Normal
Permit review will occur yearly.
2. wrighteo Products, Inc. , shall install, operate, and maintain a discharge
monitoring station at each sanitary sever discharge point. Each station
shall allow for safe access and include equipment for accurate flow
determination, totaliaation, and composite fiw proportional sampling.
Page B of 10
0
I
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Permit No. 002A
E. Specific Permit Conditions
1. The total facility sanitary sever discharge shall not exceed
"any„ of the following parameters:
a. Flow: 1. The maximum total discharge rate shall not exceed
250 gallons per minute.
2. The maximum total discharge per day shall not
exceed 140,000 gallons based on a consecutive
(7) seven day average.
3. The maximum total discharge in any 24 hour period
shall not exceed 180.000 gallons.
b. BODS: 1. The total number of pounds of BODS discharged per
day shall not exceed 2.100 pounds based on a con—
secutive seven (7) day average.
2. The total number of pounds of BODS discharged In
any 24 hour period shall not exceed 3.000 pounds.
C. TSS: I. The total number of pounds of total suspended solids
discharged per day shall not exceed 664 pounds based
on a consecutive seven (7) day average.
2. The total number of pounds of total suspended solids
discharged in any 24 hour period shall not exceed
910 pounds.
d. The above parameters and conditions are expected to remain in
effect through the year 1992. If at any time Sunny Fresh Foods
foresees immediate growth which may exceed the limits of thin
permit. application should be made for permit review to the
City of Monticello. Normal permit review will occur yearly.
2. Sunny Fresh Foods. Inc., shall install, operate and maintain a
discharge monitoring station at each sanitary sever discharge
point. Each station shall allow for safe access and include
equipment for accurate flow determination. totalixation and
composite flow proportional sampling.
Page 8 of 10 O
/L
d li
27•LbP MCS
%44 4vs
or- \/OZ-
t`l. iq2 M6
I �- -.l_
I,,op, —�—�- �-
'MOO
►Soap —
- �
14oreoo
I
•
1 iOff�. �
900
I
Ito
�R�wl. ,rjk
431.193
35 ;041��
42i,�bgo �
4'ti
9S�SBI t
g5g59
J
C
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
13. Consideration of Reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. Q .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mississippi Drive was constructed in 1976. Much of the western end of
the project is in a law area just above the Mississippi River. During
the construction project, great difficulties were encountered with the
contractor, and he was forced to come back and do some remedial work on
the project primarily with the street surface prior to his receiving
final payment.
Now, some 12 years later, Mississippi Drive has deteriorated to a point
where I believe it's an eyesore. The western one-third to one-half of
the project has extensive cracking and degradation of the street
surface. In addition, in many areas the curbing has settled and the
catch basins are actually above the grade of the curb line. In the past
few years, we have done extensive crack sealing and repairs to the area.
In the area of the cul-de-sac we have replaced a major portion of the
curb, as one of the property owners there was unable to get in and out of
his driveway safely.
Why did the street fall apart so quickly, you may be asking yourself. At
this point in time there are several reasons, I feel, that this came
about. The first and primary reason is due to subsurface ground water
and soil conditions that were not adequately addressed in design. It is
possible at that time that the severe ground water problems were
unknown. A second determining factor is the poor construction. By
referring back through notes on the project, one can see that compaction
of the soils as well as the street surface created a product less than
desirable. The third factor which resulted in the overwhelming
degradation of the street was the use of the street by heavy equipment
during the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. The Paul A.
Laurence Company, who built our wastewater treatment plant, was informed
during the period of construction that they could use Mississippi Drive
as an alternate route for materials delivery when the Hart Boulevard
access was blocked. They were specifically instructed to inform all of
their suppliers to haul half or light loads when using Mississippi
Drive. After the project, it had come to our attention that this may not
have been the case. we know of at least one supplier who hauled
extremely heavy loads well above the street design limitations during the
construction of the wastewater treatment plant. The degradation of the
street surface did not appear immediately after the wastewater treatment
plant project, but it was a factor in the overall degradation of the
street.
The question today is how do we get this street back up to our normal
standards. First of all, we need to fully investigate the ground water
conditions and the subsurface soil conditions under and near the street
itself. Concurrently with this investigation, we need to determine the
-16-
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
amount of settlement which has occurred in the curbing and other
structures within the street section itself. Thirdly, we need to
implement a reconstruction project which will address all of the items
determined by the first two investigations and incorporate into a final
design which will yield a street of adequate design with a normal life
expectancy.
At this point in time, I estimate that a typical design may include the
placement of drain tile on one or both sides of the street section, the
replacement of those settled sections of curb, the complete removal of
all the bituminous and much of the subgrade, the placement of a
geotextile fabric, and the total reconstruction of the street section
itself.
It is surprising that we have not received a number of complaints from
the people along Mississippi Drive about the condition of the street. I
would ask that all the Council members get a chance to look at the street
sometime between now and Monday night's Council meeting. This may or may
not be possible depending upon the outcome of this weekend's weather. I
feel this project should get underway this year, and that ample time
should be allowed to do the investigation and come up with a design.
There is some drain tiling that has been done on the south side of
Mississippi Drive in the area of the city's lots to improve the surface
lot conditions there. It is going to take time to evaluate all of this
data and come up with final recommendations for the design and may be
that this year we would install only the underdrain system and do the
construction next year. Because of the three factors listed above
shortening the life of this street, I would expect that a great portion
of this project would be picked up with ad valorem taxes rather than
re -assessing the property totally. The total replacement of the street
section itself from the corner on the top of the hill through the
cul-de-sac could cost in the neighborhood of $45,000 to $50,000.
Extensive subsoil correction and/or drain tiling could add another
$30,000 to the project. Again, these are very preliminary pre -planning
figures and should be used accordingly. The project would most likely be
funded by a bond issue or surplus funds.
B. AI,TEItNATIVF. ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to authorize investigative work and
cost estimates for the recommended design. We could then at a later
Council meeting present this information, discuss the project costs,
project time table, and proposed cost sharing.
2. The second alternative would be to continue to patch, crack seal, and
maintain an already highly degradated street. At some point in the
future we will have more cracks than we have street surface, and this
does not appear to be a good alternative.
-17-
I
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that you authorize
the Public Works Director and City Engineer to begin investigation and
cost study of Mississippi Drive as outlined in alternative number one
above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-18-
C
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
14. Consideration of Final Plat of Oakwood Second Addition - Applicant, City
of Monticello. (G.A.3
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The final plat request is before you to allow replatting of two existing
industrial lots in the Oakwood Industrial Park to be replatted into a new
subdivision with six lots. The size of the lots range from 1.2 acres up
to the largest being 2.3 acres in size.
The plans have been submitted for bids for the construction of this
proposed new subdivision plat.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the final plat for proposed new subdivision plat to be known
as Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition.
2. Deny the final plat request for a proposed new subdivision plat to be
known as Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the final plat request for a proposed new
subdivision plat to be known as Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition.
With the creation of this new subdivision plat, the City should be in a
better position to market smaller sized lots to prospective smaller
businesses which hope to relocate to the City of Monticello.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the propose4 subdivision platr Copy of the final
plat for the proposed subdivision plat[ Copy of the acreage sizes for
this proposed subdivision plat.
-19-
ZZ
`.�
-- :(-' - .\.��', � it / . '' • `+J / //- " / � v"
J.
�,j : �, ../ iO I � i " / '//• ./ice /;� �' //�
-�. A request for final
review of a proposed no�
= • r" let.
Cit of Monticello.
94
_ --•r 41 TT -LL?. I
' � •—� � � � \'�`�•`� 1�1 '�"j~� I ' is ' � �',/
Al
Iv)
DVNDAS CIRCLE
Tt
ul —~
-1-
PROJECT NO on -02
|
|
.
.
FI-!'-
�
it
-.'
I
mp w q
- -
mw~
|
---------
.
- - --'-----'-�
-}-
/
|
- \ �
i '
/
r
(
---------
------''-�-
1'' '' �- '
|
l
I
TAYLOR LAND SURVEYORS INC.
219 W. BROADWAY. P.O. BOX 179. MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 35362
PHONE 16 1 21 295-3388
DENNI! V. T.RO.
wao— ................
OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARR SECOND ADDITION lot areas:
Lot
1,
Block
1,
1.2127
acres
Lot
2,
Block
1,
1.3672
acres
Lot
3,
Block
1,
1.9258
acres
Lot
4,
Block
1,
2.3294
acres
Lot
5,
Block
1,
1.7818
acres
Lot
6,
Block
1,
1.4898
acres
0/v
11
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
15. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Allowing Participation in the
Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Approximately a year ago, the League of Minnesota Cities sponsored the
establishment of a Mutual Money Market Fund that could be used by
Minnesota municipalities and other public agencies as an additional place
cities could invest excess funds. The League of Cities selected Piper
Capital Management Incorporated, a Minnesota based firm, as administrator
and investment advisor for the newly created fund that would give
municipalities the opportunity to invest idol funds at competitive money
market rates.
As you will note from the enclosed references, a number of Minnesota
cormmmnities have joined the money market fund; and it is recommended that
the City of Monticello adopt the resolutions allowing the City to
participate in the fund when desired. Although the City currently
invests its reserve funds through a number of institutions, this would
just provide an additional investment service for the City which could be
used for longer term CD purchases or short day or weekly money market
interest rates. All that is necessary for the City to participate in the
money market fund is for the Council to adopt a resolution declaring an
interest to participate and the filing of a registration form.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to adopt the resolution authorizing a
joint powers agreement to be exercised and authorizing the Mayor and
Administrator to file the necessary registration forms.
2. The second alternative would be to not approve the resolution to
participate.
C. STAFF RECOr49ENDATIO14:
In reviewing the flexibility that this money market fund would offer the
City, I would recommend that the resolution be adopted allowing the City
of Monticello to participate. When it is determined by the staff that
certain excess funds are not needed for as little as one week or a month
or so, it appears that the City would he able to obtain very competitive
interest rates on short-term money in addition to longer term investments
by having this option available to us. The adoption of the resolution
does not commit the City in any way to investing any specific amount, it
only allows us to participate in the future.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A copy of the registration form; Resolution authorizing participation and
general background on the money market fund.
-20-
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL MONEY MARKET FOND
REGISTRATION FORM
I. BASIC INFORMATION
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Attn: Rick Wolfsteller
Telephone Number (612) 295-2711
Federal Identification Number 41-6005385
II. WITHDRAWAL INFORMATION AND AITPHORIZATION
Authorization is hereby given for the Fund to honor any request, believed by it
to be authentic, for the withdrawal, in whole or in part, of the monies of the
municipality from the Fund. Unless withdrawn by means of the checkwriting
privilege afforded to Participants of the Fund, monies of the municipality
withdrawn from the Fund shall be wire transferred by the Fund only to the bank
account of the municipality listed below:
First National Bank of Minneapolis
ABA/091000022
For Credit To: Wright County State Bank #6048-801
Further Credit: City of Monticello
III. CHECRWRITING OPTION
The municipality does not wish to use the optional Checkwriting Service.
IV. INFORMATION STATEMENT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST
It is hereby certified that the municipality has received a copy of the
Information Statement of the Fund and the Declaration of Trust creating the
Fund, and agrees to be bound by the terms of such documents.
V. EFFECTIVENESS OF REGISTRATION FORM
The information, certifications, and authorizations set forth on this
Registration Form shall remain in full force and effect until the fund receives
written notification of a change.
VI. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES
Typed Name of Council Mayor Arve A. Grimsmo
Signature Date
Typed Name of City Administrator Rick Wolfateller
Signature Date
RESOLUTION 88- 7
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO
A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT IN THE FORM
OF A DECLARATION OF TRUST ESTABLISHING
AN ENTITY KNOWN AS "MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL
MONEY MARKET FOND" AND AUTHORIZING
PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN INVESTMENT
PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 (the "Joint Powers Act") provides
among other things that governmental units, by agreement entered into through
action of their governing bodies, may jointly or cooperatively exercise any
power common to the contracting parties; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund was formed in January 1987
pursuant to the Joint Powers Act by the adoption of a joint powers agreement in
the form of a Declaration of Trust by a group of Minnesota Municipalities
acting as the Initial Participants thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Declaration of Trust has been presented to this council; and
WHEREAS, the Declaration of Trust authorizes municipalities of the State of
Minnesota to adopt and enter into the Declaration of Trust and become
Participants of the Fund. Municipality shall mean city, county, town, public
authority, public corporation, public commission, special district, and any
"instrumentality" (as that term is defined in the Joint Powers Act) of a
municipality; and
WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be advisable for this municipality to adopt
and enter into the Declaration of Trust and become a Participant of the Fund
for the purpose of the joint investment of this municipality's monies with
those of other municipalities so as to enhance the investment earnings accruing
to each, and
WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be advisable for this municipality to make
use from time to time, in the discretion of the officials of the municipality
identified in Section 2 of the following Resolution, of. the Fixed -Rate
Investment Program available to Participants of the Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. This municipality shall join with other municipalities (as
such term is defined in the Declaration of Trust) in accordance with the Joint
Powers Act by becoming a Participant of the Fund and adopting and entering into
the Declaration of Trust, which is adopted by reference herein with the same
effect as if it had been set out verbatim in this resolution, and a copy of the
Declaration of Trust shall be filed in the minutes of the meeting at which this
Resolution was adopted. The Mayor and the City Administrator of this Council
are hereby authorized to take such actions and execute any and all such
documents as they may deem necessary and appropriate to effectuate the entry of
this municipality into the Declaration of Trust and the adoption thereof by
this municipality.
0
Resolution 88- 7
Page 2
Section 2. This municipality is hereby authorized to invest its
available monies from time to time and to withdraw such monies from time to
time in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration of Trust. The
following officers and officials of the municipality and their respective
successors in office each hereby are designated as "Authorized Officials" with
full powers and authority to effectuate the investment and withdrawal of monies
of this municipality from time to time in accordance with the Declaration of
Trust and pursuant to the Fixed -Rate Investment Service available to
Participants of the Fund:
Rick wolfsteller City Administrator
Printed Name Title
Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator
Printed Name Title
The City Administrator shall advise the Fund of any changes in Authorized
Officials in accordance with procedures established by the Fund.
Section 3. The Trustees of the Fund are hereby designated as having
official custody of this municipality's monies which are invested in accordance
with the Declaration of Trust.
Section 4. Authorization is hereby given for members of the Board of
Directors of the League of Minnesota Cities to serve as Trustees of the Fund
pursuant to the provisions of the Declaration of Trust.
Section 5. State banks, national banks, and thrift institutions located
either within or without the State of Minnesota which qualify as depositories
under Minnesota law and are included on a list approved and maintained for such
purpose by the Investment Advisor of the Fund are hereby designated as
depositories of this municipality pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
118.005 and monies of this municipality may be deposited therein, from time to
time in the discretion of the Authorized Officials, pursuant to the Fixed -Rate
Investment Service available to Participants of the Fund.
It is hereby certified that the City of Monticello duly adopted the Model
Resolution at a duly convened meeting of the Council held on the 14th day of
March, 1988, and that such Resolution is in full force and effect on this date,
end that such Resolution has not been modified, amended, or rescinded since its
adoption.
Adopted this 14th day of March, 1988.
Mayor
City Administrator
--=��•�-=gym=:- '.� ��;�'..��� Y, ri _:_,: _ :.��...�.._ _.._ -� •.�:��._�: _ _,�,r,= :.: - :`,• -
The 4M Fund: A comprehensive Advantages of a Professionally _•= -'�=
r an`cial service alternative �, -� ;`Managed Money Maiket Fund
Minn£'sotamtlniciQaiitles.,,;a.....,ri.,.,:,,.,,. —By pooling short-term investabiermonies ;ib those 0t01
The Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund(theaM other Minnesota municipalities you71 reduce the time -
- —4- _ acid expense o! managing your imnesumenta`white
�d) is a. pmtessionaily�anageC money market turns. - hel n int a irnestment earnings. The mon c
.rabies mu'nicipa! tles In Minnesota told po'ttl shgrt-term g ••• -
investable monies and cant highmo._n�ay. :m.a.r:kc.e:t rates market fund usesstate-ot'tha-attcash rssartagemem
while maintaining safety of principal" "-� ,:��-,'- t0rhniques t0 maximize investment earnings. It
, , z,.. - . - maximizes ftoaY,by MM
keeping all of your municipalityls
's Sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities, the apA �'^�
Fund is a financial service exciusivaly for Mktnesota "�'
. municipalities. Accounts are available only to cilias,
counties. public auttnorities. public corporations, pubii0
commissions, special districts, and any "instrumentality"
(as defined In the joint powers act) of a municipality in
the state of Minnesota. - '-
The Board of Directors of the league of Minnesota
Cities governs the aM Fund, with the advice of a
technical advisory committee comprised of local
government finance officials. The 4M Fund complies
with aft legal requirements regarding permssibie
investments for Minnesota municipalities.
The 4M Fund offers a range of optional programs and
services to help your municipality further doc es se the
time and expense of investment management. This
brochure explains these extra programs. The
Information Statement end the Application Forms
+dabie from the League officer contain mote specific
rmation on the 4M Fund.
How The 4M Fund Began
The League began looking at the benefits of an
trvestment pool after the GFOA (Government Finance
Officers Association of the United States and Canada)
adopted a policy encouraging the professional
investment of public funds in statewide investment
pools. GFOA felt that statewide poote, would enable
municipalities to take advantage of portfolio
d.versihcatton and liquidity
After exploring the Mea and requesting proposals from a
number of firms, the League Board selercisd Piper
Capital Management Incorporated. a Minnesota baled
f.rm, as administratat and investment adviser. and
Cadre Consulting Services, Incorporated as sub•
administrator of the 4M Fund.
The Professional Team
'ter Capital Management, Inc. (PCM) and Cadre
nsuhing Services, Inc. have assisted many public
Cff c als with their investment and financial needs PCM
serves as administrator and investment adviser for a
, ;mitar program tot Minnesota School Districts Cadre
Ginsulting Services admmtsters true municipal
'tatment pools and has the experience and Willware
essary to commingle innivinual cities deposits and
mait itain the Separate accounting records necessary for
each account Legal staff of chi League of Minnesota
C.ties serves as legal counsel to the 4M Fund
monies irnested at all times. It compounds principal an
Interest da ry and •edits these morithly so that interest
actually cams interest. The aM Fund offers::•t-
• safety of principal
• competitive money market rapes �T
• easy and immediate access to invested assets: no '
advance notice is required for deposits or withdrawals
• no minimum balance or minimum length of deposd
• free, unlimited Checkwriting allows investments to
eam interest until checks are presented for payment
• comprehensive monthly statements for each account
you open
• daily statements for each investment *no wire
withdrawal
The 4M Fund Is an Investment
Option—a Complement to and not a
Replacement for Bank Services
The aM Fund does not purport to be a replacement for
the services that banks or other financial institutions
provide to municipalities. However, It does provide a
unique service by reducing the amount of Um* and
money public officials expand on their investment
management programs. In particular, the money market
fund senna as:
• a convenient alternative to direct Investment in
money market instruments
e an investment option worthy of consideration by
every municipality that wants to Make Ute most
on its money.
The 4M Fund Charges No Fees
The 4M Fund pays all of its own operating expenses,
including tees of the it wastmint adviser and the
administrator This means that yields that the 4M Fund
quotas are the not returns the municipality earns.
4M Fund Reporting Keeps
Municipalities Close) Tb Their Money
A mumcipekty may open as many individual accounts
as nacessery and will receive a daily statement reporting
all transactions for the day, including all depoens and
withnrawais At the ehd of every month, •
comprehensive statement shows tot each account
0 all deposits and withdrawals
_• interest earned for the month
• safety -ami certificates of deposit meet the
z • interest earned year-to-date -
- requirements of Minnesota law; you receive
__....._
safekeeping receipt for ami fixed-rate investments =- =
..s:• end otthe month closing balance
»»•'.;
you purchase
- •_certificates of deposit
'M:.N �,-0convenience-youcanautomaticalytransfermonies
* interest received from certificates of deposit
' = fw the month _ = _ -
- for
_ --1-"-- - ---born your aM Fund account to purchase COs. You
receive 33, --
. - receive a statement confirming your purchasf `
M -maturities, and interest payments. -
a interestreceivedfromcertificatesofdeposit-:-
ar-10_ _
"�'�' '::'
Your monthly 4M Fund statement provides a complete
`�
- _- _ _ _ • _ - - _ -_. - _ _
.. ' summary of all transactions, enabling you to review at a '
The 4M Fund Offers a Range of
glance all your shon and long-term Investments. Also,
you'll receive notification as your investments near
Financial Services
maturity.
In an effort to provide your municipality with a range of
financial services, the 4M Fund also makes available.
through its administrator or sub -administrator, the
foliowmg options:
Fixed -Rate Investment Services
tike all money market funds, the rates that the 4M Fund
pays will vary from day to day. However, as an extra
service, the 4M Fund allows participants to tocate and
tock in some of the most attractive available rates on
certificates of deposit. By placing one toll-free telephone
call and specifying the amount you wish to place and
the desired maturity, you'll receive fast quotes from
among the best fixed -interest rates available nationwide.
Benefits of the fixed-rate investment service include the
following:
• depositories must most the specific criteria of the
4M Fund
• attractive rases -your municipality can select from
among the most favorable rates available
• time and money savings -nationwide quotation
systems allow you to "shop the market"
• the opportunity to increase the compounded yield on
the COs (with maturities of 90 days or mom) -that
fund will automatically reinvest your monthly interest
receipts in your account, where they earn adddionat
interest each and *vary day
Free Cash -Flow Management Consultation
When your municipality opens a 4M Fund account you'll
be able to tali the 4M Fund's toit-tree telephone number
for daily cash-flow management advice. This advice is
made "table on an inclMdual basis only to
participating municipalities at no additional charge. Both
Piper Capdal Management, Inc. and Cadre Consulting
Services Inc. are available at any time to Consult with
you on any aspect of your municipalitylt casn-flow,
management, including banking, borrowing, or other
needs.
Cash -Flow Management Seminars
These informative sessions as offered periodically at
different locations around the state to keep you and your
municipality abreast of the latest financial management
techniques. in addition the sessions cover. in easy to
understand terms, the banking industry, the Federal
Reserve System, cash-flow terminologies, and short-
term investment vehicles. This extra service ra provided
by Piper Capital Management Inc. and Cadre Consulting
Services Inc, to all Minnesota municipalities.
For further Information about the 4M Fund and answers
to any questions you may have, pieass call Cadre
toll•nes at 14do-221.4524 or Piper Capital
Management at 1-1100.292.7960,
TOLL-FREE
OZ -01 1.800.333.6000
MPU. MN
e
0
A
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
16. Consideration of Ratifying the Proposed Date for the 1988 Board of
Review. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACRGRMM:
Each year the County Assessor tentatively sets the date for the annual
Board of Review and requests the City Council to respond to the tentative
date. This year's Board of Review has been tentatively set for Monday,
May 16, at 7:00 p.m., at the Monticello City Rall. If this time is
unacceptable, then the Council should determine a preferred date which I
can forward to Mr. Gruber. If this time is acceptable, no action is
necessary, and I will simply notify Mr. Gruber that the 16th of May is
okay with the City of Monticello.
No alternative actions or staff recommendation for this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the notice from the County Assessor setting a tentative date for
the Board of Review.
-21-
OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR
WRIGHT COUNTY COURTHOUSE
BUFFALO, MINNESOTA 55313
Telephone: 6823900 (Ext. 100)
Metra: 339.6881
February 24. 1988
TO: Thomas A. Eidem. Monticello City Administrator
250 E. Broadway, City Hall
Monticello. MN 55362
DOUGLAS M. GRUBER,
COUNTY ASSESSOR
f J... 3a:f... :
Duane Swansea, Appraiser
Randal DasMarais, AM==
Asst. County Assessor
Ken Yager. Appraiser
Please be advised that your 1988 Board of Review has been tentatively
set for Monday, May 16th. 1:00 P.M.
et
Monticello City Hall
If we do not hear from you by March 11, 1988, we will assume this
is satisfactory.
Thank you.
K /t�
At
Douglas M. Cruber
Wright County Assessor
A
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
17. Consideration of Allowing the Granting of Gambling License. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Wright County Chapter of Ducks Unlimited has again applied for a
gambling license for conducting a raffle and tip board at their annual
banquet May 9, 1988. The City has 30 days from receipt of the
application in which to pass a resolution specifically disallowing the
activity.
If there is no opposition to the application request, the Council should
take no action and the time limit will simply pass.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Take no action, which will allow the application to be granted by the
State.
2. Oppose the application if the Council feels there are grounds for
disapproving.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council take no action and the process
continues through the State Board.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of gambling application.
-22-
Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPTION
Room N475 Griggs -Midway Building
,,,t.s 1821 University Avenue I FOR—ROUSE ONLY j
it St. Paul, MN 55104-3383
(6121642-0555
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Submit request for exemption at least 30 days prior to the occasion,
2. When completing form, do not complete shaded areas.
3. Give the gold copy to the City or County. Send the remaining copies to the Board. The copies will be
returned with an exemption number added to the form, When your activity is concluded; complete the
PLEASE TYPE financial information, sign and date the form, and return to the Board within 30 days,
r Irian.A.ae sam.a.,uPe,ow Aa.vll
P—tatrlC
Aame..nom-! ! �orv.cwntv��A�n.nacndn
�4A !� X %r ?Q A 7 C? E -•C C c?
cr+rr rrp q pe {+'Noon Nund+q Meng r.Name ah
rYDa or OrPen Uan ^— It Olhn• N-0-1.1 Oramuv .,Chor10m1 .—
O fraternal d Veterans 0 IRS Designation
OReligion KotherNonprofit Organization 17Incorporated with Secretary ofState
/f \\ n Affiliate of Parent Nonprofit Organization
Namaar P+emrasrW aAchrilY ,1 r • nalnlflal Aflrvty
P.dmrml Add.ao.� ({ 3 J5.3. �Yl TS
Games Yes No Gross Receipts Value of Prizes Expenses Profit
Bingo I I I
Raffles
Paddlewheels
I�I
Tipboards
Pull -Tabs
ula or P.aer I
Dwot.rm rrom Wlnm Cambllnp La,do—nl Acdulrad I N-1b.tro'. L.dnln Nu
I alliftn all information submitted to the Board is true, Accu- I offifm all financial information submittod to the Board is
rale, and conlpl o. true, accurate, and complete.
CN,nfF.nr..mti.n hrae dnatu,a pen C.mntf.vew+w oikP&Posture psis
ACKNO EDGMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY
1 holeby ocknowledge receipt of a copy of this nppllcatlon. By acknowledging loceipt, I admit having been served with notice
that this application will he reviewed by the Charitable Gambling Control Board and will become effective 30 days from the
dote of receipt lnoted below) by the City or County, unless a resolution of rho local governing body is passed which epecifi.
caily disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution is received by the Charitable Gambling Control Board within 30
days o1 the below noted dote.
CITY OR COUNTY TOWNSHIP
Nnmr or 1 nr ll llnrarnu+y Ron, 1C.. nr Curnol l Inwns+ao Na„rn Mu.. nn nn+umd Man Cmatn n the rarunrr,P rurNl
yranlr�+o nr r'ar4n Nm ar+nP A3rtMx;lhra' anpratars dl 1'uarrr Rrrma,nP Aratla.eraar '
l.+N alfa rta[MaW loin ous
ca 00020e1 14r001 wrnu aaard Canary Raara.ahnna ra U+Pawar.xr to sane ^
nrd . arPar'ul+wn enld .. Cnv n, Coanry !�
17