City Council Agenda Packet 07-11-1988AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 11, 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 June 27, 1988.
3. Citizens Co=en ts/Pet it ions, Requests, and Complaints.
4. Consideration of Granting an increase in the Individual Pension for the
Volunteer Firefighter Relief Association.
5. Consideration of MNDOT Proposal for Closing East River Street.
6. Consideration of Water Toner Site, Elevation, 6 Cost Comparisons.
7. Consideration of Establishing a Fee for Mobile Hames.
8. Consideration of Final Plat Approval and Developers Agreement - Heikes ,
Trailer Park.
9. Review of Community Survey Questions.
10. Consideration of Change Orders 11 and 12 on Streetscape Project.
11. Consideration of Change Order #1 on Water Main Supply Line Project 88-O4B
12. Consideration of Granting a One (1) Day Beer License to Lion's Club for
Bridge Celebration - July 17, 1988.
13. Adjournment.
MINUTES
RDGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 27, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen,
Bill Fair
,,embers Absent: ::o. -.e
Note: Regular meeting of June 13, 1988 was postponed with the agenda items for
that meeting combined with the meeting of June 27, 1988.
1. Consider Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting held May 23, 1988.
Motion to approve minutes by Warren Smith, seconded by Dan Blonigen,
motion passed unanimously.
2. Citizens Comments Requests and Complaints.
Ray Dinius, resident of the Riverside Terrace Campground was in attendance
to voice complaints regarding the opperation of the River Terrace
Campground facility. Dinius noted that the campground facility contains
122 spaces however on certain weekends the number of campsites exceeds the
122 spaces. In addition, Dinius stated that the opperaters of the
campground do not control the parties and associated noise that takes
place on the weekends. Mr. Dinius noted that he has tried to work through
the management of the Riverside Terrace Park and that the park managers
were not responsive to his complaints. Mayor Grimsmo noted that the staff
take the information under advisement and report back to council.
4. Consideration of Establishing Area Assessment Charge for Trunk Sewer and
Water Projects.
Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill along with City Engineer John
Badalich reviewed the concept of establishing an "area assessment" as a
method by which developers can participate in the financing of the
extension of city trunk sewer and water services to development
areas.Under this concept, developers would be required to pay a flat rate
per acre for use of the trunk sewer and water line. John Badalich of OSM
noted that the current average cost per acre for extension of sewer
service is $1,250 per acre. The average cost per acre for extension of
water service is also $1,250 per acre. Therefore, it is proposed that the
City establish a corresponding area assessment fee.
The discussion then led to application of the area assessment to the
Evergreens development proposed by Rent Rjellberg. Assistant
Administrator, O'Neill outlined a tentative proposal for utilizing the
area assessment concept to finance the extension of trunk sewer and water
to the Rjellberg development. It was proposed that Rjellberg ultimately
pay and area assessment of $200,000 which represents 389 of the total
project cost of $529,000. Of that amount it was recommended that 8103,750
be in the form of cash up front with the remainder financed as an
assessment against the property. That portion not financed by Rjellberg to
be recovered via future area assessments associated with future
developments utilizing the sewer trunk line. Council agreed to the
financing plan by consensus.
Council Minutes 7/11/88
(4. Continued)
After discussion, Motion by Bill Fair and seconded by Dan Blonigen to
establish and area assessment charge for the purpose of recovering costs
associated with extending sewer and water service to outlying areas of the
community. Area assessment charges shall be paid by developers on the
basis of acres developed. An area assessment will be charged for each
development regardless of the actual need to extend trunk lines and
regardless of the actual cost to extend trunk line. Trunk sewer area
assessment shall be $1,250. Trunk water area assessment shall be $1,250.
5. Feasibility Study for Extension of Trunk Water and Sewer to "Evergreens"
Development.
John Badalich estimated the cost to prepare a feasibility study for the
extension of trunk sewer to "The Evergreens" development at $2,000.
Council member Fran Fair noted that the cost for feasibility study is to
be paid by the developer. Motion by Fran Fair to approve Resolution 88-17
Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Report. Motion
seconded by Dan Blonigen, motion passed unanimously.
6. Consideration of Improvements to Water Storage Facilities.
Mayor Grimsmo noted that this item had been discussed at the special
meeting earlier in the day and that Council has decided to call for a
referendum on the sale of General Obligation Bonds associated with
expanding water storage capabilities of the community. Mayor Grimsmo
noted that city staff is in the process of narrowing the alternatives for
development of this storage facility and that the referendum on this
subject is scheduled for September 13, 1988.
7. Consideration of Resolution Awarding Bids on Pumphouse, Pump and Controls
for Project 88-01C.
Public Work Director, Simola, recommended that the Council rejects the
bids as submitted and move to rebid the project. Simla noted that the
low bid exceeds the engineers estimate by 27 percent due to the high cost
of electrical work. Simla went on to say that since the facility will
not be on line until fall of 1988, the urgency of installing the facility
has deminished. In addition, it is likely that rebidding the project will
result in the city receiving a lower bid. After discussion, motion by
Bill Fair to approve Resolution 88-18 Resolution Rejecting Bids and
Authorizing Readvertisement for Bids for Pump and Pumphouse 03 along with
appurtenant work. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen, motion passed
unanimously.
8. Consideration of Resolution Awarding Bids on Interconnecting Piping for
Project 88-048.
Staff recommended that the City award the project to the low bidder which
was La:bur Construction. Lalbur Construction submitted a bid amount of
542,370.50. After discussion, motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Dan
Blonigen to approve Resolution 88-19, Resolution Accepting Bid and
Authorizing Contract Awarding Bid to LaTour Construction for the bid
amount of $42,370.50, motion seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion passed
unanimously.
Council Minutes - 7/11/88
8A. Consideration of Resolution Awarding bids on well 14 Project 88-04A.
Staff reported that the city had received one bid from E.H. Renner and
Sons, Inc. for the cost of installation of improvements associated with
well 14. Superintendent Simla stated that the bid amount was slightly
lower than the Engineer's estimates, therefore he recommended to Council
that the project be awarded to E.H. Renner and Sons, Inc. despite the fact
that only one bid was received. After discussion, motion made by warren
Smith, seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve Resolution 88-20, Resolution
Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract with E.H. Renner and Sons, Inc. for
installation of improvements associated with well $4 at a cost of
$98,883.50. Motion passed unanimously.
10. Consideration of Ordinance 1161 which Amends Numbering of Property
Management Section.
Motion by Bill Fair to approve the renumbering of the property management
section of the Monticello City Ordinances through adoption of Ordinance
1161. . Motion seconded,by Dan Blonigen, motion passed unanimously.
11. Consideration of Ordinance Amending Liquor License Insurance Requirements.
City Administrator, Wolfsteller noted that currently Minnesota Statutes
require that no retail liquor license may be issued by a city until the
applicant proves proof of insurance coverage of at least $50,000/100,000
for bodily injury, and $10,000 for property damage along with
$50,000/100,000 for loss of means support. He went on to say that these
requirements are a minimum and the City of Monticello had a policy of
requiring at least $300,000 of liability coverage in the past.
wolfeteller went on to note that the City had an ordinance regulating
issuance of liquor licenses but does not specifically address the minimum
level of liquor liability insurance required. Wolfsteller recommended
that the ordinance be amended to include a section which requires that all
applications for retail licenses file with the City a certificate of
liability insurance in the amount not less than 8300,000 he noted that it
has been council's policy in the past to require $300,000 worth of
liability insurance however, this requirement has not been previously
articulated in the ordinance.
After discussion, motion by Bill Fair to approve Ordinance Amendment
No. 162 which requires that all applications for retail liquor licenses
shall file with the City a certificate of liability insurance in the
mmunt not leas than $300,000. Motion seconded by warren Smith, motion
passed unanimously.
12. Consideration of Union Contract Ratification.
After discussion, motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Pair to approve
ratification of union contract as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
13. Consideration of Annual License Renewals.
Motion made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the annual
license renewals of the following organizations:
Council Minutes - 7/11/88
(13. Continued)
r
Intoxicating Liquor, On -Sale (Fee $3,300)
Renewals: 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox
3. Joyner's Lanes
4. Stuart Hoglund - Comfort Inn
Intoxicating Liquor, On -Sale, Sunday *(Fee $200 - set by Statue)
Renewals: 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox
3. Joyner's lanes
4. VFW Club
5. American Legion Club
Non -intoxicating Malt, On -sale (Fee $250)
1. Rod and Gun
2. Pizza Factory
3. Country Club
Non -intoxicating Malt, On -sale, Tenporary (Fee $15/day)
1. St. Henry's Fall Festival, 2 days - $300.00
Non -intoxicating Malt, Off -sale (Fee $75.00)
Renewals: 1. Monticello Liquor
2. Riverroad Plaza
3. Maus Foods
4. River Terrace
5. Tom Thumb
6. Holiday
7. Plaza Car Wash
Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale (Pee $450)
Renewal: 1. Dino's Deli
Set-up License
1. Country Club
2. Rod 6 Gun
Club Licensee )Pee - set by Statute)
1. VFW - $500 (membership 268)
2. American Legion - $650 (membership 580)
Bingo, Temporary (Fee $20)
1. St. Henry's Fall Festival
4
Council Minutes - 7/11/88
(13. Continued)
Gambling, Temporary (S20 per device)
1. Sr.. Henry's Fall Festival - $60
14. Consideration of Community Survey.
Assistant City Administrator reported to Council that as requested, staff
has developed three alternatives for implementation of a community survey.
O'Neill went on to review the pro's and con's of each alternative.
Councilman Bill Fair noted that he favored utilizing the telephone survey
because the information resulting from the survey will be available in
time for the 1989 budget setting session. Motion made by Bill Fair to
award the community survey project to St. Cloud State University Survey at
a project cost of $500. Motion seconded by Fran Fair, motion passed
unanimously.
15. Consideration of Appointment to Planning Commission.
It was noted by Mayor Grimsmo that the Planning Commission was unanimous
in recommending Mori Malone to the Commission. After discussion, motion
by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair to approve the appointment of Mori
Malone to the position of Planning Commission member. Motion passed
unanimously.
16. Consideration of Resolution of Awarding Bids on Streetscape Project,
General 6 Electrical, Landscaping 6 Returbishing Railing.
Genf Martin of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., was present to review
the bids associated with the Streetscape project. Martin informed Council
that the bids received by the City were favorable and that the sum of the
low bid and alternates is less than the estimated project cost by over
$16,000. It was the consensus of the Council that funds remaining for
Streetscape project activity be placed in the contingency fund associated
with the project and not be earmarked for a specific project purpose.
Motion made by Bill Fair to approve Resolution 88-21, Accepting Bid and
Authorizing Contract for General Site Construction and Electrical Work
with Arrigoni Brothers at a base bid amount of $162,311.60 and direct
construction of all alternates except for 3-1; Resolution 88-22,
Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract with Minnetonka Iron
Works for the refurbishing of the bridge railing at a base bid amount of
$13,137.00; Resolution 88-23, Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing
Contract for Streetscape Landscaping with Minnesota Valley Landscape at a
base bid amount of $26,810.00 and direct completion of all alternates
associated with 1-3.; Award the lighting portion of the Streetscape
project to the Cairns Group at a bid amount of $49,648.00; award tree
grates and tree gaurds portion of the Streetscape project to Ironsmith,
Inc. at a bid amount of $17,648. Motion seconded by Warren Smith, voting
in favor of motion Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith.
Opposed, Dan Blonigen. Motion passes.
17. Consideration of Preliminary Plat Request for Mobile Home Park Expansion,
Don Heikes Applicant.
Council Minutes - 7/11/88
(17. Continued)
Staff reported that the Planning Commission had conducted a public hearing
and reviewed the preliminary plat proposed and found no inconsistencies
with City requirements. After discussion, motion by Dan Blonigen, seconded
by Warren Smith to approve the preliminary plat submitted by Don Heikes
for expansion to Westside Mobile Home Park as proposed.
18. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of more
than one Apartment Building on an Unp latted Lot, Two Apartment Buildings
in Excess of the Maximum number of units Allowed, Construction of Five
Apartment Buildings in Two Phases, Dave Hornig Applicant.
Staff reported to Council that Planning Commission has approved the
conditional uses as requested and went on to note that Farmers Home
Administration is providing the financing for the Hornig Development in
addition to the Senior Project. The projects are interrelated in terms of
funding potential. O'Neill reported that the FHA has informed him that
the funding of the downtown Senior Project is reliant on the development
of the Hornig property as proposed. After discussion, motion by Fran Fair
to approve the conditional use requests as submitted with the conditions
as follows: 1) the developer dedicate to the city the proposed necessary
easement for the proposed Seventh Street public right-of-way, on or before
building permit application. 2) that an approved landscaping plan be
submitted prior to building permit application. Motion carried
unanimously with Joyce Dowling absent; motion seconded by Warren Smith.
Motion passed unanimously.
19. Consideration of Accepting 1987 Audit Report.
Rick Borden of G ruys, Johnson, and Associates reported to City Council
that the city financial position is excellent. He went on to note
comments and suggestions associated with compliance to guidelines
established by State Auditor Task Force. Bordan informed Council that the
minutes of the meeting reflect more detail when bids are reviewed an
awarded. That is situations were bids are not awarded to lowest bidder,
it is essential that the minutes recap the reasons for awarding the bid to
another bidder. He went on to recommend that the minutes the review of
discussion is there is any disagreement between the members of the
council.
Bordan went on to suggest that the Council and key Staff members make
public records of any potential conflict of interest that they might have
associated with City business. Finally Bordan reminded the city to secure
proper travel documentation for before reimbursements are made. Council
member Warren Smith stated that no reimbursements should be made without
proper documentation. Motion made to accept the audit report by Warren
Smith, motion seconded by Fran Fair, motion passed unanimously.
20. Consideration of Sipple Subdivision Request, Daryl Fishbach and Leroy
Robieeau.
Motion by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith to approve the Simple
Subdivision Request as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
Council Minutes - 7/11/88
21. Consideration of Authorizing Study to Determine Capacity of Oakwood
Industrial Park Road System.
Public :.'orks Director, Simla reported that aL preseaL Lim roads in the
Oakwood Industrial Park area had a designed capacity of seven tons,
however their actual capacity may be nine tons or more. He noted that
prior to spending significate dollars in adding to the capacity of these
roads they should be checked to see their actual capacity is nine tons.
The study purposed will determine the actual capacity of the Oakwood
Industrial Park system and the study can be done at any time of the year,
not just during the spring. Motion made to authorize the study of Oakwood
Industrial Park road system and direct Braun Engineering to conduct study
at a cost of $2,000.
22. Consideration of MNDO'P's Request Limiting Access to Highway 25 from East
River Street.
At this point of the meeting staff along with representatives of MNDOT,
Dale Lungwitz of Wright County State Bank, and concerned citizens
discussed problems associated with a less than desirable situation at the
east approach to River Street with trunk Highway 25, problems stem from
development of the new bridge. The sight distance to the south for any
car using east approach to River Street from Highway 25 is much less than
desirable. At present the sight distance is 135 feet and the recommended
sight distance if 600 feet. James M. Labo, Resident Engineer, MNDOT was
in attendance to discuss the alternatives for the City. Mr. Lebow noted
that the only alternative for the City and the MNDOT would be to remove
access to Highway 25 from the east approach to River Street, as the
present situation is vary dangerous and closing of that street would
remove liabilities for both parties. Mayor Grimsmo noted that, "the
situation of poor sight lines, is an undertakers dream, and therefore
must be changed." He went on to say that turning the east approach to
River Street into parking would not only remove a safety hazard, but also
benefit the City by creating numerous parking spaces. In addition,
traffic running along River Street from the elderly home and Ellison Park
will be diverted earlier to Broadway would pose a positive effect. Dale
Lungwitz of Wright County State Bank concurred that the present situation
is a hazard and must be corrected, and also noted access problems to his
facility created by the closer of the east approach to River Street with
Trunk Highway 25. Lungwitz noted that his only objection Is that if the
east approach to River Street is closed, he will have three enterances and
only one exist to his facility, which will cause his customers problems.
Jim Lebo noted his concern that this problem wasn•t identified earlier in
the project. He went on to express his apologizes that the problem was
not addressed at the design stages of the project. It was suggested by a
citizen that trunk Highway 25 at that point which intersects with the east
approach with River Street be moved slightly to the west thereby
increasing the eight distance. Jim Lebo noted that moving the roadbed as
suggested will increase the curve which is already at 6 percent. Any
increase to the sharpness of this curve should be avoided. Mayor Grimsmo
noted that he would like to see better use of the private alley which
serves local business in the area and the City Senior Center. Dan
Blonigen noted that he agrees with Mayor Grimsmo that the alley should be
better utilized. Dale Lungwitz requested that a temporary solution
7
Council Minutes - 7/11/88
(22. Continued)
include moving the traffic lane to the west for a short period while
solutions to the problems develope. Mayor Gri=mo noted he has no problem
with the temporary solution and that in the meantime, the Department of
Transportation should be working on a suggestion of development of a
parking lot and replacing the east approach to River Street. Fran Fair
noted that the property owners in the area should get together and work
towards better utilization of the private alley which serves a number of
businesses in the area. Motion made by Bill Fair to recommend that east
access to River Street be permanently blocked and converted into a parking
lot to be designed and built by MNDOT. MNDOT to pay all costs associated
with correcting traffic pattern problems and work with local businesses to
better utilized adjacent private allies. Finally, motion included request
to temporarily move the traffic lane of T.H. 25 to the west slightly at
the point that it intersects with River Street. Motion seconded by Dan
Blonigen. voting in favor of the motion Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran
Fair, and Bill Fair. Opposed, Warren Smith.
23. Consideration of Gambling License Application, Monticello VFW Auxilary,
Gambling License Renewal, Monticello VFW Club.
Motion was made to approve gambling license application of Monticello VFW
Auxilary by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair. Motion passed unanimously.
Motion made by Bill Fair, seconded by warren Smith to approve gambling
license renewal submitted by the Monticello VFW Club. Motion passed
unanimously.
24. Consideration of Bills for June.
Motion made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve payment of
bills for June 1988. Motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
,,"111 �
Jeff O'Neill,
Assistant Administrator
MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 27, 1988 - 2:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Pair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen,
Bill Fair
Members Absent: None
1. Discuss Options for Expansion of Water Reservoir System.
Mayor Grimsmo requested a report from Public Work Director John Simola.
Simola reported that the City Engineer working with the Public Works
Department has developed a number of options for expansion of the water
reservoir system. One of the options included development of a stand
pipe reservoir on the Monte Club hill property. Simola reported that
the Monte Club property is no longer being considered as a site for the
reservoir as one owners have indicated that they are not interested in
selling their property to the City. Simola went on to say that three
alternative sites do exist on the hill east of the Monte Club, all of
which are located on the Shultz property. Mr. Shultz has been contacted
regarding the potential of establishing a standpipe reservoir on his
property. As of the time of the meeting, it is not known if Mr. Shultz
is interested in selling a portion of his land for use by the city as a
site for the water reservoir.
John Simola along with John Badalich of OSM, discussed other options
for development of additional water storage capacity for the City of
Monticello. Four other areas where discussed as being viable options
and are as follows:
1. Site located near Hwy 39 and 118 on Chelsea Road.
Property currently owned by Mr. Boyle.
2. Property located in Meadow Oak Development. Currently
reserved for park dedication.
3. Property now owned by the school district. Site
proposed would be on the Middle School grounds.
4. Property located on Dundas Road near the well 14 well
site.
Council discussed the various options for development of the water
storage facility. Mayor Grimsmo asked what the owner of an 680,000 home
could expect in terms of a tax increase if the coat of the 6750,000
water storage facility expansion was placed on city taxes. Staff
reported that the increase in taxes to such a home would be about 65 per
year.
Dan Blonigen noted the importance of the decision regarding siting of
the water tower, and noted that long-term planning considerations must
be taken into account when establishing the location of the facility. A
discussion of the costs associated with each alternative ensued. John
Simola reported that in the long run, the storage facility located on
Council Minutes - 6/27/88
the ground is mach cheaper in terms of maintenance. Council member
Fair suggested that each al be evaluated it ter= of ^hort tcrm
cost and long term cost and that other considerations regarding each
site including the ability of acquiring the site in a timely manner and
impact of the location in terms of the overall system be evaluated with
report coming back to Council the at next meeting. Motion by Fran Fair
to begin negotiations on terms pertaining to the potential purchase of
of sites noted as viable sites for placement of the water storage
facility, and direct staff to develop additional information regarding
each site with the information to be available with the July 11, 1988
Council Agenda. Staff to make an offer to the Monte Club that is
comparable to that which is being offered to Mr. Shultz. Motion
seconded by Bill Fair. Motion passed unanimously.
2. Consider Proper Elevation for Water Storage Facility.
John Badalich reported that the elevation he feels is the best for the
entire system is an elevation of 1,105 feet. Badalich noted that on
average, the pressure generated with this elevation would be 56 pounds
and would produce a flow of 4,000 gallons per minute at the Industrial
Park. Badalich noted that the proposed elevation and corresponding
water pressures attempts to strike a balance between the needs of the
industrial users and needs of residential users. The elevation pr"posed
will provide provide adequate "fire flow" serving the needs of the
industrial areas, while increasing the average pressure experienced by
residential users by 28 pounds, Badalich noted that the increase in
water pressure may have an adverse affect on private plumbing of older
residences and that significantly higher water pressure would exsist
for homes along the river which would require installation of pressure
reducing valves.
At this point in the meeting Council and Staff discussed methods by
which the problems crew ted by the high water pressure can be mitigated.
It was suggested that individual homes be tested prior to putting the
new system on line. It was estimated that such testing would cost $150
to $180 per home.
The City Engineer was asked by Council what percentage of the homes in
Monticello will experience a problem with the type of water pressure
increases expected with installation of the new reservoir. Mr. Badalich
and his associate, were not able to make an estimate in response to the
question. Council directed City Engineer to research communities that
have experienced a similiar situation and report to Council what the
City can expect in terms of impact of increased water pressure on
residences in Monticello, especially those with older plumbing. It was
the consensus of Council that the information that Badalich will gather
will be used to develop additional costs associated with development of
this system which will be included in the overall bond cost.
A discussion regarding the potential of developing parallel water
systems insued. It was suggested that the City might develop a system
for the older portion of town which would be operated at a reduced
pressure and develop a system separate from the older town system which
Council Minutes - 6/27/88
would operate at a higher pressure. It was noted by the engineers
present that such a system may not be feasible and that long term
maintenance costs of such a dual system would be exceedingly high.
Council decided to continue this discussion at the July 11, 1988,
meeting. Discussion to be supplemented by information to be gathered by
John Badalich regarding impact of higher pressures on plumbing commonly
found in older homes.
3. Consider Method of Financing Water Storage Improvement.
Council reviewed the memo presented by OSM and Staff outlining the
various methods by which the water storage facility can be financed. It
was noted that the two most feasible methods included financing via
water revenue bond which would be paid utilizing water system revenue
and through payment of hook-up charges. As another alternative the
project could be financed via general obligation bond which would be
paid with tax funds. City Administrator Wolfsteller noted that in
order to finance a water revenue band, the water rates in the City of
Monticello must increase three -fold, on the other hand,utilizing a
general obligation bond would require the need for a tax increase of
about three quarters of one mill or about five dollars per single family
hump valued at bou,uJu. it was also noted tnat general ooiigation oono
issuance would require a City referendum.
After discussion, motion by Bill Fair to schedule a water storage
facility general obligation bond referendum question for September 13,
1988. Motion seconded by Warren Smith and passed unanimously.
There being no further discussion, meeting adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeff O'Neill,
Assistant Administrator
Council Agenda - 7/11/88
a• Consideration of Granting an Increase in the Individual Pension for the
Volunteer Firefighter Relief Association. (R. W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Members of the Volunteer Fire Department will be attending the meeting to
request that the City Council increase the retirement benefit from $17,500 to
$19,500. This benefit is payable in a lump sum after 20 years of service based
on the requested increase of $825 a year of service to $975. The Relief
Associations plans are referred to on an amount per year of service, such as
the $975 which is payable at this amount only after 20 years of service etc.
I point this out as to avoid confusion, as during the discussion the terms may
to used interchangeably.
The Relief Association was granted an increase in retirement benefits to
$17,500/875 per year in 1987. Previous to that increase, the Association
received $16,000/800 per year in 1986 and $10,000/500 per year in 1979. As you
may recall, in 1982, the Council did not approve and increase requested to
$14,000/700 per year, but indicated at that time that the Council would
consider any increase in the Relief Association benefits provided their fund
was self sufficient, eq. assets where greater than their accrued liability and
any increase would not result in a contribution from the City from general
property taxes. State statutes allow the Association to increase their
benefits only if their assets are greater than their liabilities, otherwise
they must come before the City Council for approval of any increase in
benefits.
Prior to August of each year, the Relief Association is required to fill out a
financial schedule that computes the benefits that have accrued for each Fire
Department member based on year of active service at the dollar amount
established for each year of service. The financial schedule includes the
funds, assets, and liabilities and through the calculations, arrives at a
deficit or surplus for supporting the retirement benefits. In going through
the departments financial schedules, I calculated the benefits based on three
different figures, $950 per year, $975 per year, and $1,000. Copies of the
three calculations are enclosed for your review. If the benefits were
increased from $875 per year to $950 per year, the Association would have a
deficit of $63,809 but the amount of income estimated for 1989 would be
sufficient according to the formula without requiring municipal support. There
actually would be a surplus income next year of approximately $1,900. In
reviewing the calculations, increasing the benefits to $975 per year, the
deficit would increase to $70,819 but in the estimated income would be
sufficient to support this benefit level without requiring City taxpayer
support. Should the benefits be increased to $1,000 a year for service, these
calculations would require municipal tax support in the amount of $900 plus.
According to the schedules, an Increase to $975 per year of service would not
currently require municipal support as the anticipated state aide and other
income would be sufficient to meet their debit service requirement. As I
indicated last year when the Relief Association requested their last increase,
an increase in benefits based on these financial statements appear not to
require City support, but the majority of the Relief Association's income is
based on state aid which the City does not have control over. If for some
reason the state decides to cut state aid to local fire departments, the City,
after the benefits are increased, would be responsible for supporting the
Council Agenda - 7/11/88
penainn thereafter. Although I don't a•icips in the state aid, there
are certainly no guarantees that this could not happen. The only other real
factor that comes into play is if the Association was required to pay out
benefits to the top five or six individuals in one year, the fund would not
have sufficient assets to pay all the claims, and the City would then be
required to contribute tax dollars. Again, the Association certainly has
control over when an individual retires, but if some tragedy occured, the City
could be required to contribute. I only point this out to let you know there
are no guarantees that municipal support would not be required, but at the
present time it is highly unlikely.
In some respects, it may be appropriate to review the Association's assets and
liabilities each year to determine whether an increase is warrented rather than
waiting three to five years for an increase. Although, I don't know if has
happened, it could be that members nearing retirement could be staying on the
Fire Department waiting for an increase in benefits, whereas if the benefits
where adjusted annually based on the Association's ability in increase the
benefits without City support, some older fire department members may be
retiring earlier to allow newer members to come on. Some older members may not
be as younger firefighters, but are hanging on waiting for an increase before
retiring. By adjusting annually, the incentive would be there for an
individual to wait tw?vnnA nnrm l rakjrerect -,_.
B. ALTERNATIVE AMONS:
1. Grant an increase to $975 per year/$19,500. This increase, according to
the Relief Association schedule would not require a City contribution and
could be entirely funded through anticipated state aids and other interest
earnings on investments.
2. Do not grant an increase in benefits only if they have a surplus or an
increase that would not require City contributions.
3. Grant an increase above the current $875 per year, but less than the $975
that would not require City support.
C. STAFF RFX.'OtR4ENDATION:
Again, in reviewing the coffputations supplied by the Relief Association, it
appears that the state aids received by the Fire Department will continue to
provide sufficient income to support their request to the $975 per year level.
Anything over this amount would require City support through taxation. Based
on this information, I have no objection to the increase being granted as long
as the City Council realizes that there are no guarantee the state aids or
investment earnings will continue at its present level. I belief the idea of
annually reviewing the Association's assets and liabilities is a good idea and
to grant increases provided tax levies are not required. The Council, of
course, can deny granting any increase at this time and the Association can
only increase their own benefits provided their assets are greater than their
liabilities. Even at the present $875 per year, it would be a number of years
before the Association could increase benefits on their own.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Couputation of benefits for each member at $950, $975, and $1,000 per year.
FILING INSTRUCTIONS
FOR
STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1989
SCHEDULES I - II - III
April 25, 1988
2962551
Scheduies I -II-III must be filed by relief associations paying lump sum
benefits. File a copy of this set of Schedules with your governing body by
Aucust 1. 1988. Keeo a c.py of them for the Office of the State Auditor which
will be sent later, along with your Relief Association Reoortinq Form for the
year ended December 31, 1988.
FIRE/M.31
C
AN EQUAL OPPORTL'ITY EMPLOYER
a❑
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
COPT
SUITE 400
r
�3
Sn PARK STREET
SAL%'T PALZ 55103
A.FLNE Ii. CARLSON
STATE ALDrOR
FILING INSTRUCTIONS
FOR
STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1989
SCHEDULES I - II - III
April 25, 1988
2962551
Scheduies I -II-III must be filed by relief associations paying lump sum
benefits. File a copy of this set of Schedules with your governing body by
Aucust 1. 1988. Keeo a c.py of them for the Office of the State Auditor which
will be sent later, along with your Relief Association Reoortinq Form for the
year ended December 31, 1988.
FIRE/M.31
C
AN EQUAL OPPORTL'ITY EMPLOYER
a❑
SCHDULES I -II -:II FOR LLM Slim PLNS:CN PLANS
STATE FIRE AID TEAR 1989
F1reflgnters Relief ASSoclatlon of
Monticello
rou^•y or Wright
SCHEME I
C-=uta:ion of benefit of relief association special fund (at S 975 per year of service) for all
me.-er: t1asec
on :near years of service as ac:lve fire dwar-cant members..
1
2
3 I
4
1588 S I
8 1989
7
F. D.
To End of This Yeer
To Sna of
vevt `.'emr
Entry
Year Active
Ac::.10
Years Ac:1. a
Ac:."Uea
Name
Age
Date I
Service
L1a0111y I
Service I
LlaailIty
C. Liefert 1 1
5-63 1
26
1 25,350 1
27 1
26,325
12. c. Jensen 1 1
7-66 1
22
1 21,450 I
23 1
22,425
13. D. Bitzer 1 1
4-70 1
19
1 17.979 1
20 1
19,500
I a. D. Kranz 1 1
4-70 1
19
I 17.979 1
20 1
19`500
I 5. W. Farnick 1 1
6-72 1
17
1 15.210 1
is 1
16,555
I 5. T. FArnam 1 1
3-73 1
16
1 13.923 1
17 1
15,210
I�W .y tgnli I I
7_74 1
14
1 11.544 1
15 1
12,_714
I 9. M. Flicker I I
5-75 1
14
1 11.544 1
15 1
12._714
.7. Mnrrnit I
5-75 1
14
I 11.544 I
15 112.714
s. nnnataa I
3_76 I
13
10.432 I
14 1
11.544
12
i 9.379 1
13 1
10.432
17
I 0 179 1
13 1
10.432
ti
I A"5 1
12 1
9.379
la, r w.1.. I I
17_74 I
9
I 6.423
10 1
7.410
M. Johnson I I
9-80 1
a
I 5.616 I
9 1
6,493
M. Theisen I I
5-82 I
7
I 4.:97 1
8 1
5.616
fart I I
11_83 !
5
I 3.256 1
6 1
3,997
:8. R_ Fvtw I I
5-84 I
5
I 3.256 1
6 1
3.997
K or'—f I 1
�_A5 I
A
I 2.515 1
5 1
3.256
27.
in -A% I
9
I 1.852 1
4 1
2.535
2;. T. Rrmm�r 1 I
17_85 I
I 1 4,22 1
4 1
2.535
•.r I 1
A_tga i
7
I i_esz 1
4 I
2.535
t -R7
3 I
1.852
1 24. , r ....,... I I
,..a7 1
,
I , }Qq I
•3
:`-• Naw Ae0lacemant I I
1
1
585 1
2 1
1,209
r9. I I
1
1
1 585 1
2 1
1,209
27. I 1
I
I I
1
129. I I
I
I I
1
130. I
I
I I
I
I 'o;sl of Ce!er na panstons. 3! env
1
I
'c tel of URD la InstalI a ts. !T env
I !
'd1-31 of Early vested panstons If env
I
I
A. Accrued Liability Thru Neat Year 1089 (total, column 7)
1I
I.... ... J
.......
243,940
8. Accrued Liability Thru This Year 1988 (total, column 5)
219,175
.......
219,175
C. Subtract Lina 8 from Line A (normal cost: enter here and on Lina 6 Scnedute III)
24,765
Fractional years of service matt be calculated to nearest full year.
For installment liability, enter amount wnlcn wilt be payable after end of this year in bots Column 5 and 7
Interest is to be Oaid On u00aia penaIans, sea interest for 1 year in Column 7.
• Oy of tmese schedules must ba Oresentad to the City Council before August 1 aach year.
SCHEDULE I1
Projection of Relief Association special fund assets to end of this year, (Decemeer 31, 3982)
Ass -15 at .Jan_!ry 1, lgoo (•'his year) 5 165,607
i.
.nticipated income to end of this year
a) Minnesota State Aid 187 + 5% S 30,096
b) Receipts from local taxes
c) Interest an investments 10,000
d) Other income
Total of lines a -b -c -d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2. $ 40,094
9e;inning assets plus estimated income for this year (L1 + 1.2) 3. S 205,701
Estimated disbursements through end of this year
e) Pensions Pitt 25,350 Klein 30,225 5 55,575
f) Other benefits 1,200
g) MSF -DA or VFBA dues, if any
h) Administrative and overhead 600
Tctal of Lines a -f -g -h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 4, S 57,375
?. _.-. ,..:cta at inof this year 12/31/88 (1.3-1.4 ) c S ;.30,1[6
Caiculation of average seeciai fund income per member (other than interest or investment
Income) �
State Aid Municipal Support 101. of surplus (if any)
' ist year 29,786
years ago 28.176 .
3 years ago 21,864
Totals 79.826 + +
Total 3 year income $79,826. 3 . $26.609 + 26 (no. of members) - 6. S 1,023
CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL FUND REOUIREMENTS
This i nfornation must be certified to the governing body of the municipality or inceeen-
eent nonprofit firefighting corporation by August 1. 1988.
We, the officers of the Firefighters Relief Association, state that
the aCcomoanying schedules nave been prepared in actorcance with the provisions of the
Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association Guidelines Act of 1971 (including M.S. 69.772) and
that the schedules are correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. The financial
re:utrements of the relief associations Special Fund for 1989 are S
Check here if no municipal support required
The average non -investment income per member of said special fund for the past 3 years was
S
�ognature or vreslcent Date
'gnature or becretary Date
Signature or lreasurar Date
UMULE I1I
Computation of Financial Rarpiroments for Next Year - 1989
Column A Column 8 Column C
Assets from Line S. Schedule It - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - $148,326
2. Accrued liability to erid of this year (from Line 8, SCnedule I) - - - - - - • - - - 219.175
3. a) If Line 2 is more than Line 1, subtract Line 1 from Line 2. Deficit - - - • - 70-Q49
b) If line 1 Is more than Line 2, subtract Line 2 from Line 1. Sum lus - • - - -
If surplus exists, enter 10% of iurplga amount in
Column C and go to Line 8.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Amortization of deficit (or deficits) Incurred prior to end of last year (see note).
Column I Column 2 Column 3
Year Original Amount Retired Amount Left
Inc..^red Deficit Amount In Prior Years to Retire
Ig 80 65,664 - 52,544 13,140
19 86 39.285 . 7.858 . 31.427
19„§7 2.651 265 . 2.386
4. Totals Fi0.667 AA 099
107.620 ---------- --- - - - - -- - - ---- x 30: - -- - 10.762
5. Suotract Column 3 total from Line 3(a). (If Column 3 Is scual to or greater than
Line 3(a), no new deficit exists.) If Column 3 is less than Line 3(a), differance
is new ceficit. Enter . • .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. 2, 96
Enter 10. of this nor deficit in Column 8 ..... • ........ • ...... ..... 2.390
5. increase (from line c, Schedule I) ......... ...... .. .. ... .. .. ... 24.765
7. Anticipated expenses Next Year, (other than pensions, or investments) 1929 estimates - - . - moo
B. Anticipated income Next Year 1989 estimates
a) Minnesota State Aid . 130.0494 t.5%1 ................. .. 31,599
b) 52 interest on amount of LIAO I above ...... .... .. ... .. .. 7-416
c) Other Income (do not include local tains or investment Income) - . - - - - -
Total 8 sob -c ....... ........... .. .... ..... .. .. .. .. . ..... 39.015
9. Total, Column B ........................ • .. • .......... 38,517
1C. Total, Column C . ....... .... • .... .. ...... ..... .. .. .. ... .. .. . 39,015
11. If line 9 is more than line 30, the difference Is tits amount of municipal support
required. Certify this amount to city council before August 1 (bottom part of
Schedule iI - Special Fund Requirements) ........ .... ..... .. .. .. .. .
12. If Line 10 is more than Line 0, no municipal support 1s rewired. Certify that fact
to council before August 1. Council is permitted to provide funds In excess of
requirement. 8 498 - Surplus
Note. Deficits arm generally retired In loss than 10 years, because of Increase In state aid, turnover gain and *armed
-est greater than 5%. If desired, the mount In Column 2 may be increased to that the total of Column 3 Is equal
,no 3(a). If more than one deficit is being amortized (the tae rewires sacro deficit to be retired socaratsly).
adjust Column 2 for the oldest deficit first. When Column 2 e=els Column 1 for any deficit, that ceficit hos been
retired and may be removed from the amortizetion schedule. Whenever a Now Deficit appears In Lina 8, the original
amount of such deficit must be added to the amortization schewle ten following year.
SQiOULES I -II -Ili FOR Ltd sia! Pt4S:Cn PLAKS
STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1989
Firef lgntors Rei lef Association of 0/%�/�"%/c f � L. . County of U.) Q fG N 7—
IA I
Coeautation of benefit of relief association spacial fund (at i 00 per year of service) for all eemcers based
on tneir years of service as active fire depar„went oencers..
1
2
1
a
lose 3 (
o syov
r
•
F.C.
To E” of This Year
To End of Next Year
Entry
Tears Active
Accrued Tears Active
AC -rues
hams
Aga
Date
Service
LIA01111y
Service I
Lia:il Ity
1. G. Lta'ar=
1 l l-63
t 2(.
i .2 t, dao i
1
; 7noo
I 2. G. :ensen I I 7-36
I 2 2
I 12 O-0
4-70
I 14
20 000 i
:= I I 4-70
I 19
I lyuuo I
20 I
20 6$`-010 I
I S. W. Fa=-c=x i I 6-7:
I V7
} /S- Oo0 I
I i
If, .(;,Y•O }
a. t. farca_ ! 1 3-73
i lb
I 1u 2,''o I
f7 I
/-1-(. Ica
✓a i
7• W. Saa.an— i I 7-74
I 1y
i 11 .1V 0 )
+S i
/3 o
:.ter ! i !-7_
I
1 r fvo 1
is- I
/B.o�o
I 9. me:L 6L- I I !-75
I y
i I/ PVv I
IS }
13 0 wO
C, s. ::cc -,as i 1 3-76
�iJ !
::.Y
1. :acraIs I I !-77
I
1 9 0'a a 1
Il I
/0 700
112, M. :*a__e^. 1 t !-77
1 .1
7 0 }
t J }
!O 70J i
111. G. oealae—er I I .-76
F0 1
1 L 1
9. b a.0 I
I Is. mat: ! .:-7?
i G
b r. too
/0 }
7.600 )
15. M. :cr.ason _. I 4-3:
6'r0 I
S. :^.a_d0 ..._
} 7
} 1✓070
7Cao 1
.7. T. L:e_er= I I t7-33
( S
( j�y0 !
(. (
L
e.1/Do 1
f,la I I l-34
j 3 V0
j
ter' 100 I
S0. K. 5:.==. f 1 !-3°
� J
1 26o6
1 29. G. !oat I 10-3!
1 7
' 40 o
121. '. l:e=er 4 i. -3s
# 3
} t goo
V 1
2 6vo
M::4=c, =: A-36
]
food
✓ I
2 4oa I
121. ... 51:=8cct i } t-37
I 2
/21/0
3 )
t gad i
1-37I
1
13VO
•3 I
1 too
I
Wo27.
I:l, Ne✓ (P.�,«.•-w•) i
} 1
Goo S
L I
I s
12s.
129. i
1 !C.
I Total of Warred Oenslons. If env
I
}
I
I Total a• Umtata InStal Nnnts• If Anv
1
}
Total of Early vested Pensions. If Anv
1 ••
7)
jj�
A
2 $`.%� Z 0 O
A. Ac:rued Liabil l ty rKni Mut Year 1960 (total • calymn
.... . .. .1
. « .. ..
9. Accrued Liabi II ty TRru This Year IM (total• eotuan E)
2 ? q, S-00 (
.. 7I
ZZ V. FDO
8 from Line A (noreal east: enter
here and on Line
a Schedule 111)
jf
;S" No a
C. subtract Lina
Fractions] years of service must be calculated to nearest full
year.
For installment 1 lability. anter amount which •111 be payable
after and of this
leaf in both column
I and 7.
It interest Is to be paid on unpaid bansions, ado interest for
1 year in ep]iaan
7.
toDy of these seaadulos must be presented to the City Council
before August 1
each year.
I
SCHEDULE II
Projection of Relief Association special fund assets to end of this year, (December 31, 1988)
Assets at January 1, 1988 (this year) 1. $ /&-5-407
ticipated income to end of this year
a) Minnesota State Aid 'F7 +f% S 3�, 0 `►'/
b) Receipts from local taxes
c) Interest on investments io 000
d) Other income
Total of lines a -b -c -d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2. $ &/o 095/
Beginning assets plus estimated income for this year (L1 + L2) 3.
Estimated disbursements through end of this year
e) Pensions A4 :&,.— el.,;. S S-70,00
f) Other benefits i :oo
g) MSFOA or VFBA dues, if any
h) Administrative and overhead &00
Total of Lines a -f -g -h - - - - - -- -- ----- - - - - - -- a. $ J00
ifojec.aG assELS aL eiiu ui Luis year 12;5!i66 ju-L6) 5, j iy�, iu/
Calculation of average special fund income per member (other than interest or investment
income)
State Aid Municipal Support 10% of surplus (if any)
Last year �fb
,ears ago �.
. years ago >j Fi,/
Totals 79,f:& + +
Total 3 year income $79f+i,+ 3 - S.24& -P + 26, (no. of members) - 6. E fo23
CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL FUND REQUIREMENTS
This information must be certified to the governing body of the municipality or indepen-
dent nonprofit firefighting corporation by August 1. 1988.
ire, the officers of the Firefighters Relief Association, state that
the accompanying schedules have Deem prepared in accordance with the provisions of the
Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association Guidelines Act of 1971 (including M.S. 69.772) and
that the schedules are Correct and Complete to the best of our knowledge. The financial
requirements of the relief associations Special Fund for 1989 are $
Check here if no municipal support required
The average non -investment income per member of said special fund for the past 3 years was
5
Signature of vresiaent nate
Signature of Secretary Date
t
Signature of treasurer Date
SCHEDULE Ili
Computation of Flnancial Requirements for Next Year . 1989
Column A Column 8 Column C
Assets from Ltne S. Schedule ii - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ - . _ .. _ _ _ . _ $.J 90/
Z. Accrued liability to and of this year (from Line B. Schedule i) - - - - - - - - - . i2 y, PO 0
3. a) If Line 2 is more than Line 1, subtract Line 1 from Line 2. Deficit - - - - - % P 9y
b) If line 1 is more than Line 2, subtract Line 2 from Line 1. Surplus - - - - -
If surplus exists, enter 10S of surplus amount in
Column C and go to LI me B.- - - - --
Amortization of deficit (mor deficits) Incurred prior to and of last year (tee nota).
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Year Original Amount Retired Amount Left
InGrred Deficit Amount to Prior Years to Retire
19IF0 6S 6&y SJ,Svv i3. pyo
19 W. 39 16f 7 F-rr 37 VA
1977 1 bS/ - Pbf .2 lf6
a. Totals Lo.LL7 4G. 957
/07620 __... - -' - - - - ---alms----- /0,7c2,
_. Subtract Column 3 total from Line 3(a). (If Column 3 19 move to or greater than
Line 3(a), no new deficit exists.) If Column 3 is less than Line 3(a), difference )
Is nn deficit. Enter ........ . .. . . . . . . ...... . ...... 3� Q4G
Enter 10: of this nee deficit In Column B ... ..... .. . ... . ........... 3 09!
B. Increase (from Line C. Schedule 1) . • - . • . . . . . ........ .... . ...... 1S, yoo
7. Anticipated expenses Next Year, (atner than pensions, or investments) 1989 estimates - - - - Goo
B. Anticipated Income Next Year 1989fstimetoes rr%
a) Minnesota State Aid - - 1• •- - r- - !... ....... .... _ . ./
b) 5% interest on amount of Line 1 above . .. . .. ....... ..... .
c) Other Income (do not Include local taxes or investment Income) - - - - - - -
Total 8 a•b.c ' ' _ ... • • • .. _ ... _ . _ . . ....... ......... . .... .. �Pg yy
9. Total,Columna
-
----•.................................3.�f7
10. Total, Column C - ....... _ .. . .. . .. ...... . ....... . . . .... .. ?Y9yyi
11. If Line 9 Is more than Line 10, the difference is the amount of municipal support
required. Certify this amount to City council before August 1 (bottom part of
Schedule 11 - Special Fund Requirements) ... - ........ ' .. ...........
12. If Line 10 is more than Line 9, no municipal support is required. Certify that fact
to council before August 1. Council Is permitted to provide funds In excess of
requ 1 rment.
Note: Deficits are generally retired In tots than 10 years, because of Increase in state std, turnover gain and earned
1j• --est greater then 5s. If desired, the amount in Column 2 ay be increased so that the total of Column 3 is equal
t` ne 3(a). If more than one deficit Is being amortised (the lar requires each deficit to be retired separately).
adjust Column 2 for the oldest deficit first. When Column 2 *Wile Column I for any deficit, that deficit has been
retired and may be removed from the amortisation schedule. Whenever a Now Deficit appears In Line 8, the original
amount of such deficit must be added to the amortization schedule the following year.
SO4E'DpLES I-II•III FOR lila' Stir PENSION PLANS
STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1989
Ftraftgntars Relief Association or f>'I -. :rr+; 1 'i County of
S12iEII= I
Commutation of benefit of retief association spacial fund (at S cl" SO per year of service) for all aeaoers basso
on their years of service As active fire department mrmers.-
Fractional years of service must be calculated to nearest full year.
For tnstatiment liability, anter amlount shish s=ill be payable after antl of Uta ;ear to Doth cotusui S and 7.
It lntarest is to of paid on uaoald pensions, add interest for 1 year in ceimmt T.
copy of these icheCules must be presented to the City Council before Auqust S each year.
1
2
•1988
S 1
aF.D
To Endof
this Year
To End offie■t Year i
1J.
Entry
Tears Active
Accrued
tears Active
I AC..ved
Name
Aga
Date
Service
I liability
Service
i liability
j
1.-Getert
i
5-52
2L
1 1417&0 t
-7
i 2. f. .7ersea 1 1
-56
I 2 Z
I ?o OO y 1
2 i
I 1/ Dl0 1
I y. 7. 3 -t=ar i f
3-70
119
i /7 t-/,' i
000 i
.Lara I I
:-70
1 !9
i /7 t_/d� 1
�0
1 /Q Oao I
S. W. ?aa-:c:t 1 1
6-72
i 17
11'f V10
/F
/4
9. =- -s=tem ! 1
3-72
1 I L
1 /z S•L(.
/-
I /V. Ps0 i
7. W. 36a_ar.d 1
7-76
ru
a. ... a_ b ar i t
!-7=_
i r v
i // .7 i
/S'
9. .. .._c=ell I I
`.-73
I ;V
I //. ✓y
/S
I /z, TPi I
_.._„r a
I '.1. a• LaEreeI i
3-77
12. "•• +a ler, I 1
!-77
1
1 /0145 1
13. G. :6.l.`.a--- or 1 1
2-78
I //
I S�[C-/ !
/1.
1 9135 1
ta, J. Weir i i
12-79
j Cf
i /Z3za
/0
I 7110 1
19. y• ,;Pr=am 1 1
9-3•:
i
1 SYT3- I
9
! 1,327 1
I 15. atson I
!-32 -
'7
I NG)ry/ 1
G
I SV7i
I7. T. Llefort 1 1
11-32
5
3/Ti '
L
t 3F9r' 1
18. B. F,116 I I
!-34
t
? I�1
&
1
29, Y. S ma. I I
!-3!
V
t .7V'7a
4—
1 3/7l i
20. G. Hast I I
10-3!
I /eor-
Y
1 2V70 I
21. -- ?rams. i 1
12-3!
j liof
+/
1 4470 1
22. T. Mcce—Ott I
4-a6
' 3
I / re Or
s/
, .^..V)0 1
V. M. 4Ga=baa i f
1-37
7f 3
/.ir i
120. L. Larsen I !
1-37
1 1
i/7P
3
I /yD
129. fh.., R!o/nf•rs.2+
/
C.70
! !7e
7
L
//7L
127.
128. I
1 30.
t
F
4
I Total of Oeferso Pensions. if env
i Toth! of Unoato Installments. If Any
i
I
I Total of Early vestal Pensions. If Any
j
A. Accrued liability Thru Neat Year 1989 (total. Colman 71.
.... ..
1T/7/G9U 1
6. Accrued liability Thru This Year 1988 (total, Co11Nff S)
.......
tt
C. Subtract tins 9 from line A (tarsal Costs enter
Nan and on Etna 8:rhedule ill)
JS! /3a
Fractional years of service must be calculated to nearest full year.
For tnstatiment liability, anter amlount shish s=ill be payable after antl of Uta ;ear to Doth cotusui S and 7.
It lntarest is to of paid on uaoald pensions, add interest for 1 year in ceimmt T.
copy of these icheCules must be presented to the City Council before Auqust S each year.
SCHEDULE II
Projection of Relief Association special fund assets to end of this year, (December 31, 1982)
Assets at January 1, 1988 (this year) 1. $ //5'6o7
ticipated income to end of this year
a) Minnesota State Aid 67 +ry. $ 3o, oogr
b) Receipts from local taxes
c) Interest on investments Jo 000
d) Other income
Total of lines a -b -c -d---- --------- --•---- 2.$ 4"'0,09V
Beginning assets plus estimated income for this year (LI + L2) 3. S 10 S 7 of
Estimated disbursements through end of this year
a) Pensions R+4 2Vlo- At'/..» .29.v,'o $ -y/IV
f) Other benefits / too
g) MSFOA or VFSA dues, if any
h) Administrative and overhead b eo
Total of Lines a -f -g -h - - - - - • _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4.$ S S, 9s -o
F^,'ujCCted assets at end of tnis year 12/31/88 (1.3-1.4) S. E /Y9. 7S/
Calculation of average special fund income per member (other than interest or investment
Income) �
State Aid Municipal Support 10% of surplus (if any)
Last year 24 7d L
sears ago ek
' �
�
years ago i.
Totals o J.� + + •
Total 3 year income 5_ 11.6+ 3 • S 21.Gof + 24 (no. of members) - 8. S ,*A)
CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL FUND REODIREMENTS
This information must be certified to the governing body of the municipality Or indepen-
dent nonprofit firefighting corporation by August 1. 1988.
We, the officers of the Firefighters Relief Association, state that
the accompanying schedules nave been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the
Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association Guidelines Act of 1971 (including M.S. 59.772) and
that the schedules are correct and comoleta to the best of our knowledge. The financial
recuirements of the relief associations Special Fund for 1989 are S
Check here if no municipal support required
The average nor. -investment income per member of said special fund for the past 3 years was
',signature or President
Signature or secretary
Signature or treasurer
Date
Date
Date
SCHEDULE III
Computation of Financial Rewiraments for Nest Year - 1989
Column A Column 8 Column C
Assets from line S. Schedule II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
2. Accrued liability to and of this year (from Lina B. Schedule I) - - - - - - - - - - - S 60
3. A) If Line 2 1s more than Line 1. subtract Line 1 from Line 2. Deficit ..... G
b) If Line 1 1s more than Line 2, subtract Line 2 from line 1. Surplus - - - - -
If surplus exists, enter 101 of surplus amount in
Column C and go to Line 6.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Amortization of deficit (or deficits) Incurred prior to end of last year (see note).
S. Suotract Column 3 total from Line 3(a). (If Column 3 1s equal to or greater than
Line 3(a), no new deficit exists.) If Column 3 13 less than Line 3(a), difference
is now deficit. Enter . .. .. ..... . ...... .. . ...... .... /4.fs6
! Enter 101. of this nw deficit In Column 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - /,GPL
6. increase (from line c. Schedule 1) - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24/)0
7. Anticipated expenses Next Year. (other than pensions, or Investments) 1989 estimates . .. . 600
8. Anticipated Income Next rear 1989 estim� tea
e) Minnesota State Aid - - - - - 1o$
91. 1 t V .............. 31-s'9
b) 5% Interest on amount of Line 1 above ................... 7VPj
c) Other income (do not include local texas or investment Income) ...... .
Total 8 A -b -c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39 o�G
9. Total, Column 8 ..... ............................... ... 37,/78
10. Total, Column C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
11. If Line 9 is more than Line 30, the difference 1s the amount of municipal support
required. Certify this amount to city council before August 1 (bottom part of
Schedule It - Spacial Fund Requlrsaents) ....................... .. .
12. If Line 10 is more than Line 9, no amnicipal support 1s rewired. Certify that fact { / 90
to council before August I. Council Is permitted to provide funds In excess of '
raw I rament.
Note: Deficits are generally retired in less then 10 years, because of lncreaas 1n state aid, turnover gain and earned
{-rest greater than S1. If desired, the amount In Column 2 my be Increased to that Ina total of Column 3 Is equal
ine 3(a). If more than one deficit 1s being amortized (the tar requires each deficit to be retired separately),
adjust Column 2 for the oldest deficit first. When Column 2 equals Column 1 for any deficit, that deficit has been
retired and any be removed from the aaortizetlon schedule. Whenever a Now Deficit appears In Line 8, the original
amount of such deficit must be added to the smortlzation schedule the following year.
Column I
Column 2
Column 3
Year
Original
Amount Retired
Amount Left
Incurred
Deficit Amount
In Prior Tears
to Retire
197f7o
., bis/
51,r1/y
/3. /A
19p�
ip 3f
7,gt'o
li. va7
19�
2. (.r/
- lA.r
Z. 36L
a. Totals
/.e 647
N/.9C3
/07G2o
..........................x10%.....
/0711
S. Suotract Column 3 total from Line 3(a). (If Column 3 1s equal to or greater than
Line 3(a), no new deficit exists.) If Column 3 13 less than Line 3(a), difference
is now deficit. Enter . .. .. ..... . ...... .. . ...... .... /4.fs6
! Enter 101. of this nw deficit In Column 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - /,GPL
6. increase (from line c. Schedule 1) - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24/)0
7. Anticipated expenses Next Year. (other than pensions, or Investments) 1989 estimates . .. . 600
8. Anticipated Income Next rear 1989 estim� tea
e) Minnesota State Aid - - - - - 1o$
91. 1 t V .............. 31-s'9
b) 5% Interest on amount of Line 1 above ................... 7VPj
c) Other income (do not include local texas or investment Income) ...... .
Total 8 A -b -c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39 o�G
9. Total, Column 8 ..... ............................... ... 37,/78
10. Total, Column C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
11. If Line 9 is more than Line 30, the difference 1s the amount of municipal support
required. Certify this amount to city council before August 1 (bottom part of
Schedule It - Spacial Fund Requlrsaents) ....................... .. .
12. If Line 10 is more than Line 9, no amnicipal support 1s rewired. Certify that fact { / 90
to council before August I. Council Is permitted to provide funds In excess of '
raw I rament.
Note: Deficits are generally retired in less then 10 years, because of lncreaas 1n state aid, turnover gain and earned
{-rest greater than S1. If desired, the amount In Column 2 my be Increased to that Ina total of Column 3 Is equal
ine 3(a). If more than one deficit 1s being amortized (the tar requires each deficit to be retired separately),
adjust Column 2 for the oldest deficit first. When Column 2 equals Column 1 for any deficit, that deficit has been
retired and any be removed from the aaortizetlon schedule. Whenever a Now Deficit appears In Line 8, the original
amount of such deficit must be added to the smortlzation schedule the following year.
t
SURVEY OF FIRE DEPARTMENT RETIREMENT
PENSIONS 6 PAY PER HOUR
Amount Per year Pay per hour
of service at call
Big Lake 5 600 S 5.00
Buffalo S 700 S 6.00
Elk River $1,000 $ 8.00
Monticello $ 875 S 7.00
2
0
Council Agenda - 7/11/88
5. Consideration of MNDOT's Proposal for Closing of East River Street. IR.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous Council meeting, District Traffic Engineer for MNDOT, Bud
McCulloch, appeared before the Council to discuss two problems that existed on
East River Street to access Highway 25 and recommended alternative methods to
provide the safest course of travel for the motorist. The Council action, as I
understand it, recommended that MNDOT proceed with designing the closure of
East River Street provided MNDOT would design and construct a parking lot on
East River Street between Cedar and Highway 25 and also work with affected
property owners (Wright County State Bank, and Monticello Times) to come up
with a solution for correcting traffic patterns within the individual
properties for egress and ingress caused by the closure of East River Street.
On Wednesday, July 6th, I received a letter from Mr. Malloch (copy enclosed)
which briefly outlines MNDOT's understanding of the Council's action at the
last meeting. Although, the staff is certainly in agreement with their
understanding of the intent to close East River Street, the letter is somewhat
vague in indicating who will actually be paying the parking lot improvement to
River Straet and also did not indicate whether MNDOT representatives will be
working with the property owners to provide a solution to their ingress and
egress. Another concern the staff noted is that it appears MNDOT is planning
their design to extend the concrete median from the bridge approach to the
driveway access for Wright County State Bank, which would in affect cut off any
access to our Bridge Parks by north bound traffic on Highway 25. Currently
there exists a left turn lane allowing traffic north bound to exit on to West
River Street which would be cut 'off by a concrete median. The only easy access
to the park would be by Big Lake residents traveling south on Highway 25. If
the City Council is in concurrence with the concrete median, I guess there is
not a problem, but I do not believe the Council motion from the last meeting
ever really discussed the concrete median, only closure of East River Street.
Don Smith has contacted me regarding the proposed closing of River Street. Don
feels the access to River Street is important for not only his business, but
the Community as a whole. He hopes the Council doesn't react too soon to the
permanent closure and noted that this whole issue of closing River Street
access to Highway 25 and concrete medians was a City Council issue along with
downtown business concerns over the original design and many months were spent
to have MNDOT re -design Highway 25 and the Bridge to leave these streets open.
Although Don agrees the present situation does present a safety problem, he
doesn't feel that MNDOT has researched all the alternatives, including moving
the Highway 25 lanes slightly west etc. He feels MNDOT should be able to come
up with other solutions than just suggesting closing River Street.
Mr. McCulloch and his representatives will be in attendance at Monday nights
meeting to present and discuss their plans for resolving the situation.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
Provided MNDOT has completed it's plans for closure of River Street and
design of a parking lot, the Council could accept a proposal as submitted.
Along with this alternative, Council would have to address whether the
proposed concrete median extension from the bridge to Wright County State
Bank entrance is acceptable and determine who is paying for all the
necessary improvements.
CoLmcil Agenda - 7/11/88
2. If the design presented by MNDDT is not acceptable, the Council could
approve other alternatives discussed at the meeting.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
At this point, City Staff has not seen the final design plans proposed by MNDOT
to correct the East River Street access problem. It is assumed the design will
close East River Street with curb and extend the concrete median from the
bridge to approximately the entrance point for the Wright County State Bank.
One of the main concerns the staff sees is the concrete median cuts all access
to West Bridge Park accept by traffic coming from the north on Highway 25. The
concrete median would also eliminate east bound traffic on West River Street
from entering the bridge. Although, we certainly realize this would not be the
safest intersection or easiest for crossing, there certainly appears to be
adequate visability. Naturally, all street intersections onto Highway 25 will
be problem areas for access because of the four lane traffic and MNDOT has not
suggested that all access points be closed. The staff recommends that the
Council seriously considers elimination of the concrete median on Highway 25
which would still allow for the left turn lane to exist and easier access to
West River Street and our Dark system.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letter from MNDOT and copy of letter from City to MOM summarizing
City Council action of June 27th.
Your letter mentions that MNDX would be designing a parking lot and or
culdesac on the closed street, but no reference was made to who was
going to be responsible for the construction of the parking lot
facility. In addition, as I indicated, I believe MN= was to consult
with the affected property owners to work out a suitablo traffic
pattern that would be the least disruptive to the affected property
owners for egress and ingress.
In reviewing the Council action, no mentioned was ever made of City
approving the construction of a concrete median extending from the
bridge to the Wright County State Bank's access point on Highway 25.
The construction of this median would definitely have an adverse affect
on access to both the East and West Bridge Park with a median, the only
direct access would be from south bound traffic on Highway 25. I do
realize that one of your plans showed the establishment of a concrete
median as part of the closure of East River Street, I believe this
issue should be clarified at the July 11th Council meeting and that the
motion to recommend closure of East River Street did not make reference
of the construction of a median cutting off left turn movement on north
bound traffic on Highway 25. I believe the City Oouncil and City Staff
concurred that a problem existed on East River Street regarding eight
line distances for safe access onto Highway 25, but I do not believe
that there are any sight obstructions onto Highway 25 on West River
250 Coat Broadway
AtWW* tt, minneaota
55902.6245
cityt tti
m;�LoW62-9245
July 7, 1988
Phone (8121) :95.2711
Matra (812) 3335736
E. W. c4cC111ach
Dist:iCt Traffic Engineer
Minnesota Department Of Transpor3tion
vtavov
301 Laurel St:eet
Arve Gnmsmo
P.O. Sox 973
::tv Coured:
Brainerd, MN 56401
pan Blonrgen
F'an Far.
W,nram Farr
R-1: C.S. 8604 (T.H. 25) at River Street
Warren Smnh
Dear Mr. McCulloch:
Administrator:
I received your letter of July 1, 1988 in which you outlined your
Rica watatCUW
understanding of the City Council's actions regarding closing of East
A atunamAdmrnritratarl
RIV61: SLCCoL u.. Lazar ju;i G rr....
Plannuy A Zonwq:
Jeff ammo
Although I am in basic agreement with your comments in your letter, it
Pt w,cJoh ware:
JohnSimlarecommend
is my understanding that Council Member Bill Fair made a motion to
Bwldmg
that MNDOT proceed with plans to close East River access onto
o - •.Arroerson
Anderson
Highway responsible designing
g y 25 provided MNDOT would be ze sibie for deal in and
Ec ncoeyehpmem:
constructing a parking lot on that closed section of River Street lying
on,e KoMmIt a
between Cedar Street and Highway 25 and also that MNDOT would work with
the affected property owners, i.e. Wright County State Bank and
Monticello Times, in correcting any traffic patterns that would have to
be altered because of the closure of River Street.
Your letter mentions that MNDX would be designing a parking lot and or
culdesac on the closed street, but no reference was made to who was
going to be responsible for the construction of the parking lot
facility. In addition, as I indicated, I believe MN= was to consult
with the affected property owners to work out a suitablo traffic
pattern that would be the least disruptive to the affected property
owners for egress and ingress.
In reviewing the Council action, no mentioned was ever made of City
approving the construction of a concrete median extending from the
bridge to the Wright County State Bank's access point on Highway 25.
The construction of this median would definitely have an adverse affect
on access to both the East and West Bridge Park with a median, the only
direct access would be from south bound traffic on Highway 25. I do
realize that one of your plans showed the establishment of a concrete
median as part of the closure of East River Street, I believe this
issue should be clarified at the July 11th Council meeting and that the
motion to recommend closure of East River Street did not make reference
of the construction of a median cutting off left turn movement on north
bound traffic on Highway 25. I believe the City Oouncil and City Staff
concurred that a problem existed on East River Street regarding eight
line distances for safe access onto Highway 25, but I do not believe
that there are any sight obstructions onto Highway 25 on West River
250 Coat Broadway
AtWW* tt, minneaota
55902.6245
Mr. E. W. McCulloch
July 7, 1988
Page 2
Street. This intersection has as much visability for access to Highway
as any other intersection within the City limits. Although I cannot
speak for the City Council, again, I believe this issue will have to be
addressed Monday evening. In addition, clarification will be needed
regarding the closure and construction of a parking lot on East River
Street and who will be responsible for the cost involved along with
M MOT's working with the affected property owners to establish a
traffic pattern within their parking lots that is agreeable to all
parties.
in ere/llyI,
Rick 'toles ller
City Aaministrator
RW/vb
C: D.L. Rainsanen/G.N. Kreutzer - Brainerd
Don Smith - Monticello Times
John Simola - Monticello Public Works
Wright Oounty State Bank
Leo Olmscheid - St. Cloud
Jim Labo - St. Cloud
C
410! sor'
Minnesota Department of Transportation
%?ata Olstrict 3
July 1, 1988 301 Laurel St., P.O. Box 978
Bralnero, Minnesota 58401 (218) M2460
Ouality Service Through Individual Commitment
Mr. Richard Wolfateller
City Administrator
P.O. Box 83A
Monticello, Mq 55362
In reply refer to:
c.s. 8604 (T.H. 25)
at River Street
Dear Mr. Wolfateller:
^n J*.te 27, 1,91�R; Jim fabo and I attended a city council meeting in
Monticello. A plan vas presented to the council that proposed closing
River Street east of T.H. 25 because of sigot distance restrictions. This
plan also included the extension of the concrete median to the south across
River Street but provided a left turn lane into the Wright County State Bank.
Councilmen Bill Fair made a motolon to this effect and it vas passed. To
clarify the intent of the motion, I discussed the subject with Bill following
the meeting. It vas agreed that the intent vas to close River Street.
I also talked with Mr. Dale Lungvitz and George Phillips, co-owners of the
bank, and told them that we may have to close the street tezVorarily until
the permanent closure could be constructed. Mr. Lungwitz requested that
Mn/DOT take a lrok at the possibility of moving the barrels to shift the
northbound lane, thereby giving motorists room to pull out farther in order
to see to the south. We have researched this matter and have moved the
traffic slightly west. Northbound traffic will remain as is teaporarily
marked and River Street open until construction is completed.
Mn/DOT vill design a parking lot and/or cul-de-sac on the closed street. The
inplace trees will not be disturbed.
On June 29, 1988, Tom Davidson and Dave Buse vent to Monticello to do the
folloving:
1. Check with city to see if they understood that the street vas to
be permanently closed.
2. Reviev the present intersection to see vbat could or should be done.
3. Inform Leo Ol.mecheid and Mickey Klasen what took place and have
Klasen survey out the proposed parking lot area for design.
Art £putt Oppmtunsy £mAtoyst
Mr. Richard Wolfstel.ler
July 1, 1488
Page 2
Tam and Dave reviewed the plan change with Leo Olmscheid, Project Engineer.
Leo requested that Design draft it up for him.
They (Tom and Dave) then vent to the city hall to meet with John Simola
and you to discuss Item dl. 'John stated that both he and you were aware:
of the closing and had no trouble with it being temporarily closed.
They went to the bank and met with Mr. Lungwitz. His primary concern vas
alloving the bank some time to come up with a parking lot scbeme. He also
knew that it was going to be closed permanently. He asked if we could give
him same reca=endations before leaving.
After making the additional changes to barrels and txpe, we have determined
that we will leave the street Creu until construction closes it (approximately
°-' :ceaa). As you requested. I will attend your meeting on July U to shorty
and discuss the plans.
Sincerely`, /
E. W. McCulloch
District Traffic Engineer
cc:
D.L.Raisanen/O.R.Kreutzer - Brainerd
Don Smith - Monticello Time
John Simola - Monticello
Wright County State Bank
Leo Olmscheid - St. Cloud
Jim Lebo - St. Cloud
�x".t„T9T
Council Agenda - 7/11/88
6. Consideration of Water Tower Site, Elevation, b Cost Comparisons. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At our last meeting, the workshop session, the City Engineer was directed to
prepare cost estimates for the construction of a water storage facility on six
different sites. The City Engineer was directed to look at the type and cost
of the storage facility and interconnecting piping to be built upon the various
sites. City Staff was to continue negotiations in attempts to obtain property
at the most two promising sites, Kenny Shultz and Monte Club. We were also
directed to determine the estimated land costs for the remaining sites.
The City Engineer was also directed to obtain information from several
communities who had older cast iron mains of similar vintage as Monticello's
and older homes with galvenized piping which have gone through similar changes
in water pressure. much of the discussion at the workshop centered around a 27
pound boost in pressure and it's negative effects on the City's water main and
private residents. The City Engineer was also asked to look at the success
rate of in home pressure regulated devises. It was apparent at the meeting
that the City Engineer had not any recent first hand experience in
significately boosting water pressures in older communities. John was to have
completed his report by Thursday in time to incorporate in with the agenda
supplement. We have not as of Friday morning received the report.
Since the workshop, City Staff had discussions with Butch Lindenfelser of the
Monte Club and Kenny Shultz. The discussions with Kenny Shultz have lead to a
tentative purchase agreement, to purchase five acres and a 30 foot easement
leading to that five acres from County Road 118, for a total purchase price of
$50,000. Mr. Shultz would like to receive the first payment of $20,000 upon
successful completion of the referendum in 1988. Additional funds would be
paid in 1989 or at a later time agreeable to the City. We would provide a free
service connection and lateral benefit for the farm homestead containing one
acre or less. In addition, we would agree not to place an assessment agai—nst
Me—property until such time it was in the city and developed requiring
service. Rick has drawn up a purchase agreement and we hope to have Kenny and
his wife sign it prior to Monday evenings meeting.
We have done some research on the proposed five acre piece of property. A map
of this property in enclosed for your review. There are two Northern Natural
Gas lines which cross the vary southeasterly tip of the property. These are
located on a 50 foot wide easement. United Power Association has a
transmission line located about 30 feet south of the southerly line we are
looking at. They are there without a recorded easement and may have some type
of rights to the southerly 5 or 10 feet of the property. The major concern to
us is a fiber optic telephone cable which crosses diagonally through the
southern portion of the property. The cable crosses about 100 feet away from
the gas line. Speaking with representatives from Bridgewater Telephone
Cumpany, they felt they wanted to avoid the approximity of the gas line so they
did cut the corner, they are also without easements, but do have a lease access
agreement. We will be working with Bridgewater in attetpts to get them to
relocate their cable and give them a permanent easement down near the gas line
or make arrangements for them to do that in the future when the property is
needed by the City of Monticello.
Council Agenda — 7/11/88
It was originally thought that Rick and I would not be able to attend Monday
evenings meeting. Since we do not have the information from OSM in time for an
adequate review, I felt obligated to be at the meeting on Monday and will make
arrangements to do so. If there are any questions concerning the site
selection, please feel free to contact me over the weekend or an Monday.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Select the Kenny Shultz property for the proposed site for the water
storage facility and authorize submittal to the OAA for a Conditional Use
Permit. The pipeline would be constructed on County right of way,
therefore we will not need easement from the township for the pipeline.
2. Select the Kenny Shultz site, authorize a Conditional Use Permit
application and set the elevation of the high water in the storage
facility and the system operating pressure. This would only be possible
if the Council is comfortable with the information provided by OSM on
Monday's meeting.
3. Select one of the other sites. This would mean a different type of
construction going from a ground construction facility to an elevated tank
and even without OSM's report I would estimate it would be more costly
short term and long term to go to another type of elevated tank at this
site.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that the Council approve
the Kenny Shultz property for the new water storage facility site and authorize
preparation of a Conditional Use Permit application as outlined in Alternative
11.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of map of Kenny Shultz site and copy of report Exam OSM (if available and
arrives in time).
C
Council Agenda - 7/11/88
7. Consideration of Establishing a Pee for Mobile Homes. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the annexation of additional land into the City of Monticello with the
Rjellberg East Mobile Home Park, the City Staff is looking at iniciating a fee
for the installation of a Mobile Hoare Park on a Mobile Home Lot.
We have checked with other communities in the metro area which have mobile home
parks with also issue permits through the city to allow a mobile home to be
placed on a mobile home lot. The communities we checked with were the cities
of Burnsville, Maplewood and Blaine. If you'll note, in the enclosed sheet,
the cities charge in the range from $30.50 to $39.50 for the mobile home
permit, and the range in updating an older mobile home to be placed on a mobile
home lot now to bring it up to code. The range and permit fee for that is
$10.50 up to the value of the amount of work to be done. In the City of
Monticello's case, for instance, we could have mobiles brought onto an existing
mobile home lot or we could have older mobile homes moved onto an existing
mobile home lot.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve one of these suggested fee schedules.
2. Not to have any type of fee schedule for mobile homes.
3. Set a recommended fee schedule for a mobile home permit of $30.50 and a
permit amount of $10.50 to bring the mobile home up to building code.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
With the annexation of the existing mobile home park, Kjellherg East Mobile
Home Park, we can foresee some possible problems in the future as this mobile
home park developes. We would like to recommend that the City Council
establish a fee of $30.50 for a mobile home permit, and $10.50 to bring mobile
homes to code.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the survey of the three communities, cities of Burnsville, Maplewood,
and Blaine, and their mobile home fee schedules. Copy of mobile home park
inspection requirements.
,
3o
oo e
30,570
56 75 i
ap X AfR
/1;"- 0 4W �6 h e rJol
0
lo.00
5,ec�Aane
X11
r%A/f fu
X31 50
ap X AfR
/1;"- 0 4W �6 h e rJol
0
MARCH 1986
STATE CF KC09Z=
BU=r,C CMES s STANCARru DIVISION
BUIL. r, .77'!C_AIS MILT.4C.JRED 4CN9: INSTALIATICN _ON
1. Permits -
A. Permits - Required prior to installations. A seperate ordinance and
permit fee schedule may be necessary.
B. Temporary ?emit - Should be used in the winter months or during
unusual weat^.er conditions when the hare is not placed on a foundation
system.
C. Irstaller - J2ast be registered :y State for current year. Installer
should provide installation certificate/seal number, (Issued to
Installers by Building Code Division) before the Building Official
issues permit.
D. Owner - No certificate/seal number is needed when owner installed.
Installation mast comply with code. Permit should be required.
E. Foundation Systems - when manufactured (mobile) home is installed in
compliance with State Building Code, no installation seal is required
to be affixed by the installer. Installation must comply with code.
Permit should be rewired.
F. Manufactured Q4obile) Sone Installation Instructions - Should be
obtained prior to issuing permits for the following systems when
applicable: State rules require installer to follow manufacturers
installation instructions supplied with home.
1. Foundation Systrm
2. Support System
3. Anchoring Systems
•4. Frame Removal Approval (Single or Double Wide)
5. Assewly connection instructions for double wigs b additions:
a. Met',ods and materials needed (bolts, spacing, location, etc.)
b. Utilities - Gas, Electric, Water, Waste.
c. Weathetitation and rodent proof materials needed.
• Fr:mes can be removed only when manufacturers installation
instr::cticn permit it to be removed.
2. Inspf-t_cn
A. Construction Seal Required.
HUD Seal (if built after June 14, 1975)
State Construction Seal (if built from July 2, 1972 to June 15, 1976),
must have Ntinnecota, Wisconsin. or Indiana seal.
If built prior to July 2, 1972 no Construction Seal required.
B. Support System In>vspection.
Installation seal affixed.
Soil conditions.
Pier spacing and correct materials installed.
Tightness of shiers.
manufacturers instructions available i followed.
June 1986
MTT::.""coS A SZ .::+C C. -r -ES ?233 S."A:MAP1S DTVISIC N
4c3 !--c au=zrC
, H ; xn-Mr 3MV—:S
ST. PUL, 55i01
tCAE Crc?Y LSIS r"aS
State Law :ecui:=_s that all manufactured `ane sucocrt systems installed after
Septerier 1,i9'4 shall c—Tply with the Manufactured Hcme Building Code. This
-c.:_des a..l mar.ufact-:y9 ;ones new cr used. that are installed or mored and
:e -instated at amther ?ccaticn within this State.
Marufact_red Foxes Marufac .:ed _fter Se -tarter 1. 1974.
The manufactured hone manufacturers installation instructions should be
available. (See owners manual). 11..e irst:actions should give you the pier
location and load to be sLzvcrted ty eac!,. If the soild bearing c ditions
are unknown, we wculd suggest a pier spacing of 6 feet or less.
Manufactur-2d Hares Manufactured P:icr to Sectenber 1. 1974.
Manufactured hones with -so installation 'instruction provided shall be
supported :y piers not more than 10 feet apart for homes 12 feet wide, and not
more than 8 feet apart for m bile hones ever 12 feet wide. If soild bearing
conditions are unkrc n we would suggest a pier spacing of 6 feet or less.
Arvroved Sm=r• cvst-^n
I. Fbcti:-cs shall *..•e two 4 x 8 x 16 inch solid concrete blocks (or
ecui•ra.�erti laid ?arallel to the steel beam.
2. Piers shall be c: r.c:ete blocks 3 x 8 x 16 inch with open cells placed
vertically upon the footing. Single stacked blocks shall be placed
perpendicular to steel beam. (See Figure 2)
3. Piers shat be covered with a 2 x 8 x 16 inch wood or concrete cap
(See F!(T4re 3) . A 4 x 8 x 16 inch n olid concrete cap is also
reputable. (See Figure 4)
4. Piers are 1' -sited to 40 inches in height when single blocked. All
corner piers over three (3) blocks high shall be double blocked.
(See Figure 51 All piers eve: 40 inches high shall be double blocked.
S. Elevated Manufactured Hares. When more than ane -fourth of the area
of a .T r:ufactured :here .a installed so that the bottan of the main
fran+e-etber3 are more than three feet above ground level, the
marufactired yore stabilizing system shall be designed by a qualified
Registered Profes3icnal Engineer or Architect and the installation
shall be approved Prior to installation by the authority having
jurisdicticn.
6. C_esrarce Above Ground. The bettem of the manufactured hone shin
f:=,.e must to at least 12 inches above the ground in the area of the
utility =%n --tions. Do not Wp ort the have on the wheels. The
wheels must be up off the ground or removed.
7. Plates and Shins. A word plate not exceeding 2 inches in thickness
My be used to fill the gap between the pier and the steel beam. A
shim may be used up to 1 inch thick and at least 4 inches wide by 6
inches long. ShLra shall be driven tight between the wood plate or
pier, and main frame.
C. Arc`.crirg System Inspection (Anc-hors are not required by State Law).
Soil C nditions - Soil Probe Used.
CCcrrec: Anchors Installed.
Ccr.ect Spacing.
Manufacturers Instructions available and followed.
D. Utility Crnnecticns - Must co:ply with State Building Code.
1. Water
Correct materials used.
Protect from freezing.
Flexible to permit movement.
2. Haste -
Correct materials used.
Protection f_an freezing on long runs. If necessary.
Correct sloe to drain.
Pipe supported.
Gasket at sewer connection.
3. Gas -
Correct materials.
Flexible to permit movement.
Gas line pressure test.
4. Electrical -
Connected as per tag on home.
Permanent wiring by electrical contractor.
Inspection of wiring by electrical inspector.
One cord only on HUD homes (100 amp service requires direct wiring)
E. Inside Hone -
Visually inspect appliances for proper connection and installation.
Data plate lists appliances installed by manufacturer.
Report any transporation damage or dealer alteration problem to
Building Code Division.
F. Aacescory Structures and Additions -
Factory made entries and adder rooms must bear a State Accessory
Structure Seal.
AP.diticns built on site are under local permit.
Supports shall conform to the Manufactured Wbile) Bane Regulations.
Addition mist be anchored if the Manufactured (Mobile) Hese is
anchored.
The Manufactured Hone Miles - Chapter 1350 are available from:
Documents Section
117 University Ave.
St. Paul, eM1 55101
612/297-3000
Price: $4.00 (Stock 03-20)
Please add $1.50 Postage i Handling Charge per order and 6% Sales Tax for
Minnesota Residents.
FIGup
IP el,
2"X 8' X 11o" CONC.
OR WOOD CAP —,,
A
-CROUND LINE
FIGURE
FILLED .76P.BLOCKS
BEAM 4" WIDE SHIMS (80TP -SIDES)
Z 2" X S" FI L L E R• WOOD --CONC.
.4'"THICK SOLID
CONC-BLOCKS
WOOD SHIMS OVER OPEN
COPII:s
LINT
Car -7,E CONT_ RETE
'BLOCKS LAID 14oRizosrml-
4
NOT- A C. C. rz. P TA EL F-
FIGU RM 1 FIGURE. Z.
Fl o r}�
I,
• 8X8 x 16 ii1� 'PIERCONC:
.'% BLOC K)
• I.
2.._..4.X 8" X 16 SOLID
CONCRETE_ BLOCKS .. �•
CR EQUIVALENT.
GRO.'uN•D' C-, FO-OTIN'G
FIGURE .3•..FIGURE 4.
AV OO D OR CONC. CAP
.2" x 8" x 160"
q"WIDE 5HIM-
` DRIVEN
F0.0M
Lr _ DOTH .
� :SIDES
r
AL'rERNATB
4"x 50,06'
�O
4c. CAP ' 1
SOL10) j
BEAM
( MAIM
. / nenBeC)
PiF_F25 USING 8" CONCRi_TE BLOCKS
WITH CELLS VERTICAL LAID I -005E
W i I-IOUl- AL.1_ CORNER. PIERS
OVER 'T•I-IREE•(3) BLOCKS HIGH SHALL
BE DOUBLE BLOCKED ( SEE FIGURE 5).
An
Council Agenda - 7/11/88
6. Consideration of Final Plat Approval and Developers Agreement - Heikes Trailer
Park. 0.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting, Council granted preliminary approval to the proposal
submitted by Don Heikes to expand the West Side Mobile Home Park. Council is
asked to consider final approval of the plan approved at the last meeting and
consider entering into an agreement with Mr. Heikes which provides the City
with some assurance that Mr. Heikes will develop his facility as shown on the
final plans plans.
B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Attached you will find a developer agreement which is designed to provide the
City with some assurance that the development will be completed as planned. In
summary, the agreement stipulates that the City will provide occupancy permits
for individual mobile homes, at such time that the development is completed.
The agreement also stipulates that if occupancy permission is desired before
the project is complete, the developer shall place funds in escrow which can be
used to complete the remaining portion of the project. Please see the
developer agreement for more detail.
It is the view of staff that this agreement is necessary and sets a good
precedent for development of subsequent agreements with other owner/operators
of mobile home parks located within the City limits of Monticello.
C. DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOME INSTALLATION PERMIT:
Coinciding with the development of this agreement is the development of a
Mobile Home installation permit process outlined in a related agenda item
prepared by Gary (see agenda item p7). Establishing a permit process for
installation of mobile homes goes hand in hand with the development agreement
as the permit process will be ertployed to assure the City that the developer
will live up to his plans. The development agreement notifies the developer
that the City will grant permission to occupy mobile home structures at Such
time that improvements are completed or at such time other arrangements are
made for the completion of the improvements. Thus, the agreement provides the
City with some assurance that the development will be completed as proposed.
Please note that Tom Hayes has reviewed this document as of the writing of this
memo as Tom is on vacation until July 11, 1988. I hope to have hie input on
the viability of the agreement prior to Council review. It is suggested that
this item be tabled if Hayes is unable to review the document prior to Council
Consideration.
D. ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative 1. Approve proposed developer agreement, approve final plait
(identical to preliminary plat).
Alternative 2. Approve proposed developer agreement with changes as suggested
during Council discussion, approve final plat.C. ACTION
Council Agenda - 1/11/88
C E. ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve developer agreement with Don Heikes which outlines terms and
conditions for the expansion of the West -Side Mobile Home Park.
Motion to approve final plat - West Side Mobile Home Park Expansion.
C
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of ,
1988, by and between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to
as the "City", and Don Hei kes, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer."
WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted a written request to the City to
Expand the West Side Mobile Home Park as outlined in the final Plat Application
entitled "West Side Mobile Haase Park" for the platting and development of Part
of Gov't Lot 2, Section 3, Township 121, hereinafter referred to as the
Development; and range 25, Wright County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the Development utilize municipal
sewer and water systems.
WHEREAS, the parties desire that private water lines, sanitary and
I storm sewer lines, concrete curb and gutter, concrete surfaced streets, and
other improvements hereinafter described, be constructed within the
Development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council by resolution adopted July 11, 1988
has granted final approval to the Development, on the condition that the
Developer enter into this agreement to provide for the installation of street,
water, sewer, and other inWrovements hereinafter described on the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth.
WHEREAS, the Ordinances and Resolutions of the City of Monticello
authorizes the City to withhold granting of occupy my permits for habitation
of the mobile home sites until such time that improvements are completed to
insure that the improvements associated with the Development will actually be
constructed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties
made herein,
1
ARTICLE ONE - PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The Developer shall, at his own expense, forthwith, construct the
improvements mentioned above. Construction shall conform to plans approved by
City Council and are attached as exhibit A.
ARTICLE TWO - MOBILE HOME INSTALLATION
Developer shall not commence install or locate a mobile home in
Development are or place a mobile home on a lot in the Development until all
improvements have been made or until a cash escrow has been conveyed which
equals the cost to install remaining improvements.
No Occupancy Permits shall be issued until all utilities including
streets have been installed.
ARTICLE THREE - OTHER GOVERNING BODIES
No utilities and street work shall be done until the Minnesota Health
Department approves watermain plans and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
approves the sewer plans.
ARTICLE FOUR - CITY DISCLAIMER
The Developer shall indemnify the City against any loss, including suit
costs and reasonable attorney's fees, incurred on account of injury or death of
persons that may have been related to the work mentioned in this agreement, on
account of damage or destruction of property that may have been related to the
work mentioned in this agreement. The developer, at hie expense agrees to
repair or replace property damaged, by reason of the work, that belongs to
others.
2
ARTICLE FIVE - BINDING EFFECT
The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon, and inure to the
benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties
hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the
development and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. References
made herein to the Developer, if there be more than one, shall mean each and
all of them. This Agreement, at the option of the City, shall be placed on
record so as to give notice hereof to subsequent purchasers and encumberances
of all or any part of the development and all recording fees, if any, shall be
paid by the Developer.
ARTICLE SIX - ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
Upon completion of all the work outlined in Exhibit A, the City
Building Inspector or his delegated representative shall inspect inprovements.
Before occupancy permit will be granted, the City Building Inspector shall be
satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the
approved plans.
ARTICLE SEVEN - OCCUPANCY PM1ITS PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF WORK IN ACCORDANCE
WITH APPROVED PLANS.
In the event the Developer desires to install mobile homes in
Development area prior to conpletion of work shown on approved plans (Exhibit
A), Developer must escrow an amount equal to the cost to complete work on
development area. This provision does not apply to streets, curb or sewer and
water facilities. Such facilities must be in place prior to issuance of
occupancy permits. The escrow amount required to complete improvements shall be
established by the Building Inspector. If the work is not completed by the
Developer within 365 days then the City my, at its discression, utilise the
funds in escrow to complete the necessary improvements.
3
ARTICLE EIGHT - COMPLETE AS BUILT DRAWING
Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, or prior to final release of Escrow
funds, Developer will provide as - built drawings which accurately describe
location of improvements.
CITY OF MONTICELLO DEVELOPER
Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor (Developer's Name)
Rick Wolfsteller, City Admin. (Developer's Name)
(CITY)
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1988, by
(DEVELOPER)
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1988, by
CTHIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Mod 55362
4
EXHIBIT A
A. SUMMARY OF APPROVED PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF WESTSIDE MOBILE HOME PARR
1. Grass Planting:
a. All lots shall be fully sodded except for roadways and driveways.
b. Hillside area to be planted as rem.^andcd by the Un:iersity of
Minnesota Urban Laboratories, which calls for a deep rooted short
growth seed from Northrup Ring 437.
2. Fences:
a. A fence six feet in height shall be installed as described in
attachment A-2. The fence shall be made of all weather wood and
both sides of the fence shall me maintained by the owner/operator
of the development.
3. Park Area:
a. The development shall contain 12,000 square feet of park area along
the river bank. This area shall be maintained for general park
use and shall include four picnic benches and a horse shoe pit, per
attachment A-1.
l
4. Street Lights:
a. Three street lights shall be installed per the plan as outlined in
attachment A-1.
5. Grounds Maintenance:
a. Snow removal, grounds and street maintenance, water and sewer
maintenance will be preformed by the owner/operator and or his
agents.
6. Structural Foundations:
a. Concrete slabs shall he installed per the design drawings shown on
attachment A-2.
7. Storm Shelter:
a. A lower level of the duplex maintained by the park caretaker will
be available at all times for use at a storm shelter. Each
residence of the park will hold a key to the storm shelter. The
shelter shall have a sign placed above the door indicating its
status as a storm shelter and all new tenants shall be informed
that the lower level of the duplex maintained by the caretaker also
Cserves as a storm shelter.
8. Block Retaining wall:
a. Developer shall install a four feet block retaining wall as
Indicated on attachment A-1.
1
PAGE 2
EXIBIT A
9. Three Peet Gravel Walkway:
a. Developer shall install a three foot wide gravel walkway as
outlined on attachment A-1. The walkway shall extend from the
drive to the park area.
10. Grass Swale:
a. Developer shall install and maintain a five feet grass Swale
designed to channel water from the culdesac to the river. Any
erosion problems created by the installation of the drive and
subsiquent water run-off shall be quickly corrected by owner,
subsequent operator of the park.
11. Off Street Parking:
a. Off street parking shall be provided for per attachment A-1.
12. Curbing:
a. A concrete curb shall be constructed along the southern and
northern edges of the access drive and contiue around culdesac.
water from the access drive shall drain to the curb and then drain
in an easterly direction as discribed in attachment A-1. A shallow
f trough shall be installed to carry water across driveway openings.
13. Lot Configurations:
a. Installation of mobile homes shall be in accordance with the plans
submitted which call for development of four mobile home Bites with
mobile homes having the approximate dimensions of 26 x 40 feet.
14. Culdesac:
a. A Culdesac or turn around shall be installed per attachment A-1.
2
WESTSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK
1323 'lest River St.
MONTICELLO, Mtr 55362
295-4802
June 9, 1988
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
TO ':lHCM IT MAY CCNERN:
In reference to the addition
of :9estside Mobile Home Park
1. GRASS PLANTING -All lots to be fully sodded except
for roadways and driveways.
2. HILLSIDE AREA to be planted as recommended by the
University of Minnesota Urban Laboratories. A deep-
rooted short growth seed from Northrup King -#37 to
omit erosion and requires non -cutting and chokes out
weed growth.
3. FIVE FOOT SW ALE ditch for water run-off to be sodded
and staked by a landscaper.
4. FENCES will be all-weather wood, six feet in height.
5. NEW ADDITION to be developed is approximately 1.78
acres of which 12,000 sq. feet for a park along the
river bank, to include picnic benches, horseshoe pit,
and fishing access.
6. THREE LIGHTS to be installed as per plan.
7. ELECTRIC, phone and cable to be underground.
8. NATURAL GAS to be available.
9. SNC"Jremoval, grounds and street maintenance, water and
sewor maintenance to be performed by the owners of the
Park.
10. TRAILERS to be on concrete slabs as per drawings.
11. STOP14 SHELTER is provided in the lower level of the
duplex which is maintained by the Park caretaker
living on the upper floor. Storm shelter is equipped
with a bathroom, water, lights and heat. Shelter shall
have a sign placed above the door and all new tenants
are informed of this emergency shelter.
�.• . vim, I c� Al
�
Donald W. Heikea (owner)
Y P! TE Flou 1A V AT 1 0
5t ti= VIEW
Oouncil Agenda - 7/11/88
9• Review of Community Survey Questions. W.0.)
Following is a rough draft of the telephone survey and represents a starting
point for discussion. Staff hopes the proposed questions address policy areas
of interest to Council and City Commissions/Committees. Council is asked to
review the survey and make comments on the survey accordingly at the meeting on
Monday, July 11, 1988.
Members of the HRA, Planning Commission and Industrial Development Committee
are also receiving a copy of this draft which gives them the opportunity to
review the questions and make comments on the survey at the City Council
meeting or relay comments to me on an individual basis. I would have liked to
have obtained formalized responses from advisory groups on this survey prior
to Council review but timelines do not permit it.
Please feel free to suggest additions or subtractions from the list of
questions proposed. Also, survey is limited to 30 questions without any
additional charges. Each additional question over the limit will cost about
$200 per question.
B. ACTION REQUESTED:
Reveiw and discuss survey questions and implementation schedule.
l_
C-=:missicn, trm and !ndust:4-al Development Committee Members
Assistant Administrator, :ef! 01�;el11
Re: 7ouqh Draft of C==nit7 Survey
A. REP "—E:C-Z/aACKCRCUM
Pol7owing is a -ouch draft of the telephone survey and represents a
starting point for discussion. Staff hopes the proposed questions
add:e3z policy areas of interest to Council and City
C:mm i s3 ions/Cormi t tees. council will be reviewing the survey and making
ccr,rznt3 accordingly at, the meeting on Monday, july 11, 1988.
Members of the HILA, Planning Commission and industrial Development
Committee are receiving a copy of this draft and have the opportunity to
make comments on the survey prior to the City Council meeting. If you
would like to provide input on this survey please call me prior to the
Council meeting and or provide your input directly at the upoomming
meeting of the City Council. I would have liked to have obtained
formalized responses from the various commissions/committees on this
survey prior to Council review but timelines do not permit it as we are
trying to have the survey completed prior to budget review which starts in
early August.
Again, Please feel free to suggest additions or subtractions from the list
of questions proposed. Also, survey is limited to 30 questions without
any additional charges. Each additional question over the limit will cost
about $200 per question.
If you should have any questions, please call.
:_*C+ - :Z=::t
--C--�r "C
l..:el:o. 1s this . a :'esidpares?
2. f' :TCS ,_.-s... 3't sc^�.F a :ave -he-a:C.i.1,=--rD C':.`MC.".
3. r= =7---- .. `L:*M) ':-.Is :s ;:'CLQ :r%M) at St.
C_aa:d-a re-3:�,. - = 1= -.= - �i�c �L-U= laboratory
St rte. ;a ars L.g a ==I Ln crl-ar = de=_—irs what residents
Z; cf Yz:__ce:_z _�.r.=k to=. va:_aus C._j policies and services.
it a ::, cr- twa: :a i .arr_a, a :an i:. -- :==eholds and a w=n in
cthe_x-s so that the re-;lt3 W_' 1 ~sly :apresar 4 al t*.s people in ywr
C_' 1. A=r:L'-x7 o .`.e =tr_`Od Used by our trr iVuMi_!, I need to
i_� at r_ra the 13 years cf age or told -r Aw lives in your
hSt3stcid. kvld that 'cs 1ah?
(= YES -S' --,JC =,_':V I (IF wn
:ay I speak with that peasah?
(ter S n.Y.c= mm�. ; IM irm5y mw m NO
herr sC;1'-�rr'-
I
i w�8e'n =yy Z call back to %sub
I ad/aw) ?
I So curt I viii know who to ask
I for, %halm is (h SAW) rima?
! (RLr'6�1' T 3= 20 BE S= YM S)►VB
I Tr AM %-= PImIIaC27 =w XF IT
STAR.^•tl'.a'N�'A
j IS A YWJUZ4. Ia MMPC4CCIT
CB." E= TO FXV=C Don: "F1a
no-,unat:cns I reed to ask Wh aid ,
( only -md the person's first
taka abmm Is •a 10 »aa -arras. 3".lm be_'=
recce: the 1w. name isn't
Sti---.? t`.aa ::matt CA L`at
r mumirl.*
I wain i bs h.3;py to arwn-- sry. .cit as''.. cra
II
acre.: the an:, viv sit -.or nc.+ or later.
:10'T.`=Z LXM ZR mzm=
;C.ao, =2t 7 .::_a I_I ow IS C^.-_''_"'Isrm -•
AM MR =W PADS OVER 10 -
and cra:.sta:7 vci- :3^?. : we steu:di
Imo'.:: iLQC-3T N= SC3wn
cz...s a =1 t:ast:cn wt -1--h ycu Ccn't ger:l
a arr, a,: , ; t_st 1st ---a &= , and we'll
I a-wa Curt k.tu. LK•N
So cm a t`.s :act 4tcssr.4=.
I=,,G _C! Y"1 08 YF
4. Chi.:. Rrt C' -N= Cw_" el
02 o) ma
I9 lr7__V=4 :v 5 =.L=, Cit I= W: CZMI FL....1SE ML41N M=
.MPOO a)=*M a-zzz S:=IL
NWiCT WC1tlM Nt?!M
22_3=3 r . M ;t atio �.=LZV RESP.
O (GZT IWZIT3m,0 n)
R-MIZ W" C': -a_,% 'ts f'...t' T..A=T)
C.. _.rC=
SECOND Dr -.A' -CI t'1 OF MONT.ICELLO CITIZEN SURVEY 'JULY 1988 P.�jL P!�'
':ala. wcuid tike to beqin by asking your opinion about the quality of .w
�,_ous services in :tor.ticello. Please rate each service as
silent. good. neither good nor bad, not -very goodo or not good at
.. (FEPEA' CATEGCRIE3 AS NECESSARY).
15) As you may know Monticello's phone calling area includes cities'* sja«•4-�01
°"a+s - _°• --•f -�_ a•'t• but not the Twin Cities
Metropolitan area. Some citizens believe city officials should _
undertake efforts to include Monticello as part of the ,Twin Cities
calling area. Thinking of a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being not
important at all to 10 being very important --how important is it to
Y M personally that Monticello phone service be part of the Twin
cities calling area,
-,,,. — RANK 88. DON'T KNOW 99. REFUSED
(I
EXCEL
GOOD
NEL-
NOT
NOT
DON'T REF
TNER
VERY
AT
KNOW
GOOD
ALL
GOOD
1)
cartage services to your house -5
4
3
2
1
e
9
_)
naving reascnable property
to:zes ------------------------- 5
4
3
2
1
8
9
a
�"tion----------5
recreation facilitiesr
4
3
2
1
8
9
b)
over-all police protection -----5
4
3
2
1
8
9
7)
responsiveness of the police
farce if you or a member of
your immediate household tried
o
to contact them within the
past twelve months ---------=--S
4
Z:
2
1
8
9
8)
retail shopping services -------5
4
3
2
1
$
9
9)
animal control -----------------5
4
3
2
1
8
9
10)
street traffic ----------------5
4
3
2
1
8
9
11)
street maintenance ------------5
4
3
2
1
8
9
�"} Safe pedestrian or Bike access -5
4
3
2
1
8
9-
_
to Parks. Schools. Shopping
.
j
,nank you -now let's move some different areas.
15) As you may know Monticello's phone calling area includes cities'* sja«•4-�01
°"a+s - _°• --•f -�_ a•'t• but not the Twin Cities
Metropolitan area. Some citizens believe city officials should _
undertake efforts to include Monticello as part of the ,Twin Cities
calling area. Thinking of a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being not
important at all to 10 being very important --how important is it to
Y M personally that Monticello phone service be part of the Twin
cities calling area,
-,,,. — RANK 88. DON'T KNOW 99. REFUSED
(I
ilhat 1 the .na:,.imum amount you would be willing to have added to
-•sur .ncn-ti!t yase talepncne rate in order to get Twin Cities
'i .cal;,tzn teleahene service' Would it be --(READ LIST)
_ S: a month or less
_ 113 a noneti or lass
31' or lase
1. 1:7 or less
_g. mcr3 than $= a month
-S. or nothing at all
--------------------------------------------------------
7.
----- - -- ---------------------------------------
7. DO NOT WANT TWIN CITIES PHONE SERVICE
8. CCN' - hNCW 9. RE=USED
171 Some in Monticello would like to see an ice arena built in the
(:it,.,. How about you -7o you strongly support, support, oppose, or
strzngly =ccose the Suilding of an ice arena even if it could mean
soma increase in your taxas and/or a reduction in some other service?
1. STRONGLY SUPPORT -. SUPPORT 3. OPPOSE
4. STRONGLY OPPOSE e. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED
Hier@ are some other aspects of the city ws would like you rate using
the rat:nq scale of e-:cellent, good, neither good nor bad, not very
good, or not good at all. (REPEAT CATEGORIES AS NECESSARY).
a. T_cmo !3e0010 have some specific ideas on what the City should do to
lv^. _ve te quality, of life in the City of Montieallo and Its
,ji;mborhoodl. . Now about you7 what community Imarovemant activities
.cup] you ""ort @van If it would mann @oma Increase In your- taxes and or
`VdUCtl:.)n 1m some other service.
EXCEL
GOOD
NEI-
NOT
NOT
DON'T
REF
THER
VERY
AT
KNOW
GOOD
ALL
GOOD
18)
your personal safety from
personal crimes like assult--5
4
3
2
1
8
9
19)
freedom from e:<cessive noise -3
4
3
2
1
8
9
=0)
home resale values -----------5
4
3
2
1
a
9
==)
a place to raise children ---- y
4
3
2
1
9
9
convenience to your church
or synagogue -----------------5
4
3
2
1
9
9
:4)
available day care -----------1
2
3
4
5
9
9
=5)
convenience to wcrk---------- 1
2
3
4
3
9
•
:S :
a place t] raise children ----1.
1.
4
S
9
•
-7)
emplcyment corartunities ----- 1
.
3
4
5
9
9
:a)
elderly housing
opportunities ----------------1
2
3
4
0
9
9
a. T_cmo !3e0010 have some specific ideas on what the City should do to
lv^. _ve te quality, of life in the City of Montieallo and Its
,ji;mborhoodl. . Now about you7 what community Imarovemant activities
.cup] you ""ort @van If it would mann @oma Increase In your- taxes and or
`VdUCtl:.)n 1m some other service.
?) Same c_`_v rosidento would like to see a municipal swimming pool
b -lilt in th3 ..t i. How about you -do you strongly support, support,
-30sa. or strongly oppose the building of a swimming pool even if it
'+ uld mean some increase in your ta::es and/or a reduction in some
.ier servic='?
1. STRONGLY SUPFCRT -. SUPPORT OPPOSE
4. STRCNGLY OPPOSE S. DON'T ►.NOW 9. REFUSED
=O) Also, some Monticello citizens would like to see a additional
park facilities developed by the city. How about you -do you strongly
Support. Support, oppose. or strongly oppose the building of a
-3dd.tienal part, facilities even if it could mean some increase in
your ta::es and/or a reduction in some other service?
1. STRCNGLY SUPPCRT -. SUPPORT OPPOSE
4. STRONGLY OPPOSE 8. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED
---------------PARK PROBE NOT INCLUDED -----
Now let's talk about some aspects of housing within Monticello.
7,1) What type of home do you live in now? Is its (READ CATEGORIES)
1. a single family home
_.Z. duplex or double bungalow
_-, a three or fourpleu
a condominium
-�. a townhome
h. an apartment building
_7. a senior citizen apartment compleH
-8. or something else-
--------------------------------
9. REFUSED
Z=) In general. how satisfied are you with the home you live in now?
Are you very satisfied. somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or
very dissatisfied?
1. VERY SATISFIED :. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 3. NEUTRAL -VOL.
4. SCME'AHAT DISSATISFIED D. VERY DISSATISFIED S. DK •. RE.
ZZ) Do you own or rent your present home''
1. OWN =. RE14T S. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED
Z4) How long have you lived in Monticello'?
1. LEJ3 THAN 1 YEAR 2. 1-3 YEARS Z. 4-9 YEARS 4. 19-29 YEARS
5. 21 YEARS•/ALL MY LIFE S. DON'T KNOW •. REFUSED
:9% W Tera [1:.1 you live just before you moved to your present home?
Was at: (READ LIST AS NECESSARY)
1. the same neighborhood in Monticello -
_ a di --_=rent neignborhocd in Monticello
_ Sher�urna or Wright Caunt•f
s. Metropolitan rwan Cities or St. Cloud
9. elsewhere in Minnesota
a. outsiae of Minnesota
-----------------------------
S. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED
:6) Thinking about the future. where do you expect to live five years
fra-o ncw7 Would you say, (READ CATEGORIES)
-1. your present home --GO TO QUESTION amp
------------------------------------------
another residence in the same neighborhood.
_ another residence within, Monticello. GO TO CUES. �
4. another residence in the Monticello area.
S. outside of the Monticello area.
8. DON'T KNOW > 9. REFUSED GO TO QUESTION 4�
:;7) (IF PLANS TO MOVE) what are the main reasons you onould want to
move in the naiit five years"' (PROBE CAREFULLY)
;8) (IF FLANS TO MOVE) Keeping your budget in mind. L f you were to
move. what sort of housing would you look for --(READ
CATEGORIES --ACCEPT UP TO 2 ANSWERS)
01. housing primarily for persons 62 years of ape and older
0=. a single family home
0:. a duple:s or double bung&low
04. a three or fourplex
05. a c]ndominium
_06. a townhouse
07. an apartment building
0e. or scmething alae -RECORD
-------------------------------------
88. DON'T FNOW 99. REFUSED
-.91 (IF FLANS TO MOVE) Do you expect to rent or own that home?
1. OWN -. RENT S. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED
Lq0 Here's a-diiferent topic. Mas -your household used or needed
assistance in meet_inq your basic food needs at any time during the
t twelve months?
1. YES 9. NO S. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED
Now, we would like your views on a possible city recycling program.
41) The City of Monticello. in conformance with Wright County's Solid
basto Management Plan. may begin a curb side pick up of recyClables
such as newsprint, glass. and cans. Which of the following best
describes your position regarding a recycling program. (READ LIST)
_ 1 would voluntary participate in such a program
I would participate if it was mandatory for everybody but
there were no fines
. I would participate if it was mandatory and there was a fine
less than $5
a. I would participate if it was mandatory and there was a fine
of 09 to 010
9. I would participate if it was mandatory and there was a fine
of s10 to $15
6. I would participate if it was mandatory and there was a fine
over 019
---------------------------------------------------------- --
e. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED
The last few question are primarily for statistical analysis and to
C1p ue determine if we are getting a random sample. You don't have
I answer all the questions but it will help us if we do.
42) What age group are you? Are you...a (READ CATEGORIES)
-i . 1e-24
_2. 25-34 = -
39-44
4. 45-94
9. 99-64
6. 69+
9. REFUSED
43) Which of the following best describes the area in the City OCA
o Monticello where your present residence is located. is its (READ
LIST)
C.'
43) Huw many people are presently living in you home?
NUMBER- 88. DON'T KNOW 99. REFUSED -
Are you working now, temporarily laid off, unemployed, retired, a -
household manager. a student or what^ [IF MORE THAN ONEa What do you
consider yourself primarily?]
1. WORKING NOW -ASK NEXT QUESTION -j
----------------------------------
=. LAID OFF
UNEMPLOYED
d. RCT:FED
5. DISABLED SKIP TO OUESTION47
6. HOMEMAKER
7. STUDENT
9. RE=USED
4e) CIF WORKING:] what is your• occupation, that is, what kind of work
do you do for a living?
88. DON'T KNOW 99. REFUSED
47) Would you please tell me the lanae w hich best represents the
total income before taues, of all immediate family living in your
household<
01. less than 010.000
02. 10 to 15,000
0v. 17 to 20.000
04. 20 to 25.000
05. 25 to 25,000
06. Z5 to 50,000
07. 50.000 or over
08. DCN'T KNOW
096 REFUSED
---------ANYTHING ELSE OPEN END NOT INCLUDED ---
I would like to thank you very much for your time and cooperation.
You have been very helpful. If you are interested in the results of
this stud,, you may contact Monticello city officials in about three
mcnthe. GcCO-by'
--------------------------------------'—"--T----«---------------
OBTAIN FRCM CONTACT SHEET -RESPONDENT SEX 1. MALE 3. FEMALE
JN? FVIE',tr'3 CHECK OUESTIONNAIRE FON COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY AND
LE3I9ILITY. PLEASE DESCRIBE ON THE BACK OF THIS SHEET ANY PROBLEMS
WITH THE INTERVIEW, SUCH AS DIFFICULT OUESTIONS, CODING PROBLEMS,
CTC.
Council Agenda - 7/11/88
10. Consideration of Change Orders S1 and $2 on Streetscape Project. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Wring the preeonstruction meeting with the various contractors, Jeff Martin
from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., City Staff, and two members of the
Downtown Development Committee, it was brought out that two of the existing
ornamental street lights on the block of Broadway between Walnut and Locust
were going to remain silver and all the other poles are going to be painted
dark green. It was suggested that these two poles be painted green at a unit
price of $83 each for a total price of $166. Since these two poles are out of
the project area, it was felt that this should be brought back to the City
Council in the form of a change order. Therefore, change order 41 would be for
Arrigoni Brothers Construction in the amount of $166.
Additional discussions during the meeting centered around the bridge railing
refurbishment. The bridge railing design as laid out in the plans caused the
supports for the panels to lay vary near the tree grate assemblies and could
complicate the construction as well as be a potential problem area for unequal
settlement around the tree grates. In addition, the panel length caused e
significate amount of waste of good sections of railing. By adding additional
length to the panels, we would use fewer panels allowing for more spares and
also get away from the potential problem within the tree grate area. The
proposed change would cut the total number of panels needed by five and would
extend the lineal feet of paneling by 82 feet for a cost of $3,222.60.
Therefore a second change order woilld be made to Minnetonka Iron Works in the
amount of $3,222.60.
Using the above quanities or panel lengths we would have ten or eleven spare
panels which could be refurbished for spares or for use in extensions of the
project in the future. Since the prices we received were vary reasonable, if
there is surplus money left in the project, later this fall we may consider
having these extra panels refurbished with this project. If the Council wishes,
we could have them refurbished now.
S. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Approve the change order I1 for 8166 to the Arrigoni Brothers, and the
second lunge order for $3,222.60 to Minnetonka Iron Works.
2. Delete on or both of the above change orders.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the recoslnendation of the Staff, Goof Martin, and those members of the
Downtown Development Committee present at our meeting, that the Council approve
the change orders as outlined in alternative I1.
Council Agenda - 7/11/88
11. Consideration of change Order I1 on Water Main Supply Line Project 88-01B.
(J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As an atteapt to reduce costs of puaphouse 13 and complete the water supply
line crossing of Chelsea Road at the same time the remainder of the water
supply line is being done between wells 13 and 16, the City Engineer and Public
Works Director have determined that it would be in the best interest for the
City to issue a change order to accomplish that remaining pipeline work.
Change Order I1 would be for the amount of $17,115.50. We would expect that
the puaphouse project would be reduced by an amount greater than the change
order.
A Change Order is being made on the East County Road 39 project due to the
amount of the change. Since all of the work is related to the major water
improvement and the same contractor is utilized on East County Road 39 as well
as the water supply project, City Staff feels the change order is proper.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the change order to project 88-01B in the amount of $17,115.50.
2. Not to approve the change order, but include the work with the pumphouse
13 project.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the recommendation of the City Engineer and Public Works Director that
the Council approve Alternative 11. The second Alternative may not be in the
beet interest of the City and could result in an overall higher cost as well as
delays in getting Chelsea Road patched.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Change Order will be delivered by OSM at Monday evenings meeting.
c
Council Agenda - 7/11/88
12. Consideration of Granting a One (1) Day Beer License to Lion's Club for Bridge
Celebration - July 17, 1988. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In honor of the new Highway 25 bridge being opened and the demolition of the
old bridge, the Monticello Lion's Club is planning a celebration to honor the
new bridge and the old bridge on July 17th from approximately 2 o'clock to
6 o'clock in the afternoon. As part of this event to take place in West Bridge
Park, the Lion's Club has requested a one day 3.2 beer license. The Lion's
Club has the proper liability insurance and all that is necessary is Council
approval.
A simple motion to approve issuing the one day beer license for July 17th is
all that is necesaary if the Council concurs.
B. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
Council Update - 7/11/88
It New Aerial Fire Truck Delivery. (R.W.)
The Monticello Fire Department is anxiously awaiting delivery of it's new
aerial fire truck, which is expected the later part of August. The upcoming
delivery is especially important now that the 62 Chevy pumper that was to be
traded in has experienced a mechanical breakdown. At a fire last Thursday,
June 30th, the engine in the 62 Chevy broke a crank shaft. At this point, it
appears unfeasible to repair the motor in that the engine has been out of
production for 20 plus year. Although Gould Brothers Chev. has been searching
for parts for this engine, they have not had any luck at this point and the
truck may have to be traded in as inoperable. As a result, the arial truck
supplier has indicated the trade in value would drop from $7,500 to
approximately $4,500. To retrofit the truck with a different type of engine
and possibly other drive train changes would probably coat more than the city
would receive on full trade in value and therefore it appears the city will
Leceive $3,000 less than anticipated. In the meantime, the department expects
to use mutual aid with surrounding communities until the new aerial truck
arrives.
Staining of New Firehall.
The siding on the new firehall is starting to show signs of fading and Al
Austin Painting has been hired by Contract to apply a three (3) coat finish.
They are expected to start this weekend and complete the project within a few
days. The cost will be $4,250 which was the lowest quote we received.
L