Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda Packet 01-12-1987
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 12, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen. 1. Oath of Office. 2. Call to Order. 3. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held December 8, 1986s and the Special meeting Held December 26, 1986. d. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Old Business 5. Consideration of Authorizing City Staff and City Data Processing Consultant to Commence Negotiations with DMDI for the Purposes of Structuring a Contract for the Delivery of Systems and Services. 6. Consideration of a Request from the Monticello Fire Department to Purchase Paging Devices. 7. Consideration of a Request by the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority to Set a Public Hearing for January 26 for the Purpose of Amending the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Tax Increment District 05. B. Consideration of Establishing 1987 Salary for the Monticello Senior Citizen Director. 9. Consideration of Approving the Relocation of the Intersection of County Road 39, County Road 75, and County Road 118, and Appurtenant Construction. 10. Consideration of a Procedure to Resolve Coat Conflict Connected with the 1977-3 Force Mein Construction. 11. Consideration of Resolving a Conflict Concerning the Differential in the Sewer Sludge Truck. New Business 12. Consideration, Discussion, and Response to a Letter Submitted by Stuart Hoglund Concerning a Letter and Drainage Recommendation from OSM. 13. Consideration of Entering a 1987 Maintenance Agreement with Wright County Highway Department. 14. Consideration of Adopting the 1987 Sewer Rate Schedule. Council Agenda January 12, 1987 Page 2 15. Consideration of Adopting the 1987 Nater Rate Schedule. 16. Consideration of Adopting a Revised Schedule of Pees for Services Rendered within the City. 17. Consideration of Making Annual Appointments. 18. Consideration of Selecting a Name to Submit to the Minnesota NBA Basketball Association Stating the City of Monticello's Preference for an NBA Franchise Name. 19. Consideration of the Purchase of Two Air Compressors, One Each for the Maintenance Building and Fire Hall. 20. Consideration of Bills for the Month of December. 21. Adjourn. L MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, December 8, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the special meeting held November 24, and the regular meeting held November 24, 1986. 4. Consideration of Authorizing Final Closeout and Payment for the Construction of 6th Street. The consulting city engineer had established final pay quantities for the 6th Street improvement project totaling $84,700.00. The original contract for this work was $66,152.00, but the additional coat of 518,548.00 was primarily due to the extensive soil correction work that was required. It was recommended that two deductions be made from the final payment in the amount of $845.69 for sealcoating a portion of Cedar Street because of damage done from heavy equipment during the construction and a deduction of 5242.00 for additional density testing required of the bituminous. Final payment was recommended in the amount of $7,948.31. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by 8111 Fair, and unanimously carried to approve final payment to Veit and Company, Inc., on the 86-6 project in the amount of 37,948.31. 5. Consideration of Continuing with City Computer system Selection. Administrator Eldem informed the Council that the City received tan proposals from vendors interested in supplying the City's computer system. The City's Computer Consultant, Anna Carroll, has analyzed the ten bids received and has reduced the number of serious contenders to two. City staff will be evaluating the recommended two vendors with on-site demonstrations scheduled for Friday, December 12, and December 15. Administrator Eidam noted that the bid proposals received have addressed all of the elements the City staff had requested for computer services D t Council Minutes - 12/8/86 and the anticipated cost is higher than originally projected, but the demonstrations should help the staff decide and evaluate the cost versus the benefit for the various elements. After further discussion, Lt was the Council consensus to continue pursuing a computer system selection process. 6. Consideration of Revised Bid for City Hall Ceiling Sealing. In July of 1986, the Council authorized Lindberg Painting to remove stains and reseal the City Hall interior roof decking and beams for a total of $2,984.60. It was the City staff's understanding that the quote included work on the roof decking and beams, but later it was determined that Mr. Lindberg's quote was for the stain removal and resealing of the beams only. Mr. Lindberg submitted a revised quote totaling $4,897.00, which would cover both the beams and the decking with a sealer or lacquer, depending on the City's preference. In reviewing the revised bid, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to accept the new proposal for sealing of the interior roof decking and beams for an amount not to exceed $4,897.00 provided Mr. Lindberg would provide a sampling of the refinished beams using both a sealer and lacquer. 7. Consideration of Band Shall Designs. Now that the Highway 25 improvement project is nearly completed, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is proceeding with its plans to construct a now bridge across the Mississippi River; and as part of this project, MN/DOT will be removing the existing band shell in East Bridge Park. Since it was previously determined that the band shall cannot be relocated, MN/DOT will be compensating the City for the value of the existing structure. In order to finalize their bridge construction specifications, MN/DOT must soon establish a cost for compensation to the City. Public works Director, John Simola, noted that without actually going to bids for a now band shell, it's estimated that the value of the existing band shell could be in the nolghborhood of $25,000.00 replacement cost. Previously, the City Council discussed rebuilding a now band shell in Ellison Park,poasibly a larger facility made of wood construction rather than the concrete presently used. Although a decision would not have to be made immediately on a now design or location, a replacement cost price should be established for MN/DOT to consider. It has boon estimated that a new wood structure could cost anywhere from 825,000-575,000.00 depending on size; and as a result, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Olonigsn, and unanimously carried to request from MN/DOT an amount of $28,000.00 to cover replacement cost for the existing band shell that they will be acquiring. -2- 0 Council Minutes - 12/8/86 8. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Joining a Joint Purchasing Consortium. The Monticello Fire Department recently received information from an association called the Minnesota Fire Agencies Purchasing Consortium, which the City Fire Department would be able to join. The purpose of the organization is to reduce cost, improve quality, and establish a standard specification for services, supplies, and equipment through a joint purchasing program throughout Minnesota. Currently there are over 87 fire departments that belong to the association, and Monticello could join by paying an annual $25.00 membership fee. In addition to the membership in the Minnesota Fire Agencies Purchasing Consortium,, the City of Monticello could also enter into a joint powers agreement for purchasing with the City of St. Paul, which has over 300 current open end contracts available to the City of Monticello. It was noted that the prima reason for the fire department joining the Minnesota Purchasing Consortium at this time would be to acquire new Motorola pagers through the contract available. It has been estimated by fire department representatives that the City could save approximately $900.00 on the purchase of the Motorola equipment n by belonging to the purchasing consortium. '.4- Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution authorizing the fire department to join the Minnesota Fire Agencies Purchasing Consortium and to also anter into a joint purchasing agreement with the City of St. Paul. As a result of the City's action, Scott Douglas, fire department representative, requested that the department be allowed to pursue purchasing new Motorola pagers through the purchasing consortium. Although it was noted that funds ware still available from the fire hall construction project for this purchase, the Council directed Mr. Douglas to prepare more information on the items requested and to bring it back to the Council at a later date for consideration. Sao Resolutions 86-27 and 86-28. 9. Consideration of Ratifying 1987 Salaries/wages for Non-union Employees. At the spacial City Council meeting hold November 24, the Council established a salary pool of $15,020.00 to be awarded for 1987 salaries, excluding the City Administrator. This salary pool primarily consisted of a 6s cost of living adjustment and a minor amount to make adjustments based on the comparable worth study recently completed. Administrator Eidam presented a listing of the salary recommendations for all non-union employees except Senior Citizen Center Director, Karen Hanson. Mr. Eidem noted that there currently exists a difference Council Minutes - 12/8/86 of opinion regarding Ms. Hanson's employment status being full-time or part-time; and the staff will be checking the records to determine the Council's intent, and her salary for 1987 will be discussed at a later date. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to ratify the salaries for non-union employees as presented by the Administrator. 1986 Increase 1987 Rick Woifateller $34,530 $1,730 $36,260 John Simola $33,470 $1,685 $35,155 Roger Mack 326,550 $1,280 $27,830 Gary Anderson $26,755 $1,070 $27,825 Walt Keck $26,250 51,105 $27,355 Joe Hartman $25,500 $1,070 $26,570 Olive Koropchak $22,900 $1,900 $24,800 Clerical $8.90-9.56 .44 $9.34-10.00 10. Consideration of Conveying a Small Parcel for Driveway Purposes to Northwest Clinic. As part of the Highway 25 project, the City of Monticello, in conjunction 1 with KN/DOT, established a now access for the Northwest Community Clinic off of the alley between Maxwell Realty and the Northwest Clinic. As part of this project, the City of Monticello purchased the north 36 feet of Lot 10, Block 52, adjoining Highway 25 for the access. Since this property is being used as o drivoway access for the clinic, it was recommended that the City convey this parcel to Dr. Brion so that they may legally own access to their clinic. It was recommandod that the property be conveyed for $1.00. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize the sale of the parcel to Northwest Community Clinic for $1.00. 11. Consideration of Cancellinq Second Meetinq in December. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to cancel the second meeting in December. 12. Consideration of Bills for the Month of December. Motion was made by Fran Fair, aaconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the bilis for the month of December as presented. 0 -4- PQ Council Minutes - 12/0/86 t. 13. Joint Planning Commission and City Council Meetino. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, informed the Council that the current Planning Commission members requested a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss new appointees to the Planning Commission for the year 1987. On January 1 there will be two or more vacancies on the Planning Commission, and the joint meeting will enable the Council to review the possible appointees for next year. The meeting was scheduled for Tuesday morning at 7:30. December 16, at City Hall. CA -&-x � Nolfstell4Y Assistant Administrator h+. N -g o MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL j Friday. December 26, 1986 - 7:00 a.m. A special meeting of the Monticello City Council, duly called by the Mayor, was held at 7:00 a.m., December 26, 1986, in the City Council Chambers. Members present were: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: Mayor Grimsmo. Also present were Councilmember Elect Warren Smith, City Administrator Eidem, Assistant City Administrator Wolfsteller, and Director of Economic Development Koropchak. Acting Mayor Fran Fair called the meeting to order and explained that the special meeting was called for the express purpose of discussing two issues, to wit, an offer to deed to the City three lots in Oakwood Industrial Park and a question regarding the creation of a now position of Zoning Administrator/Planner. City Administrator Eidem explained in summary form the offer made to the City by the members of the Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership. Eidem noted that the Partnership wished to dead to the City. Lots 9 and 10 in Block 2, and Lot 4 in Block 3, of Oakwood Industrial Park for no charge. However, the delinquent assessments, taxes, and associated chargee, as well as the balance of assessments still levied against the property would have to be forgiven and/or paid by the City. Eidem explained that the net affective cost of this transaction to the City would be $108,275.39, of which approximately 510,000 to $12,000 would be taxes that would need to be payable to the County. The balance of the sum, Eidem noted, amounted to special assessments for public improvements made in the area and would need to be recaptured through the eventual sale of the lots to other parties. Eidem vent on to say that, according to his discussion with mombors of the Partnership, the Partnership -a plan was to refinance the remaining lot■ so that all delinquencies could be paid to the County, thereby bringing all lots current. Acting Mayor Fair raised a question about the City entering real estate competition with private developers. Mr. Gone Walters and Mr. George Phillipe, representing the Oakwood Partnership, indicated that they were unconcerned about being in competition with the City in the same industrial park. They noted that they understood that the City could convoy its land at a lesser price than they could convoy their land, but felt any sale activity by either party would be beneficial to the other party. Mr. Walters indicated that there .as a time limitation involved with the offer since a significant tax benefit could be realized by the Partnership if the transaction would occur before the and of the year. COuncilmombor Bill Fair raised a concern about the natural gas line easement that bisects Lots • and 4. Mr. Phillipa informed the Council 10 Special Council Minutes - 12/26/86 that the easement was 50 feet wide and that the gas line was already t in place. He indicated that he knew of no special restrictions unique to this easement that would limit the use of the property any more than any other easement. Ms. Koropchak, responding to Council inquiry, indicated that the City's economic development efforts could benefit from taking ownership of some available land. She noted that discussions of speculative buildings had occurred over the years among members of the Industrial Development Committee and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. She noted that she was aware of unofficial, general type plans to facilitate a relocation of bulk petroleum products and/or trucking industry related business into the industrial park from the Central Business District. She noted that she occasionally receives requests and inquiries about industries looking to rent or lease space rather than buy land and construct their own buildings. She noted that it could be profitable for the City to develop a sito which could then be leased to private industry. Administrator Eldem asked Mr. Phillips and Mr. Walters if the City would bear any associated coat with this transaction such as taxes, legal foes, and title search expense. Walters and Phillips indicated that the Partnership would take care of all associated expense. Discussion than was hold primarily among the Council members with the prevailing sentiment being that the accaptance of this land would not be inconsistent with earlier industrial development efforts. Blonigen agreed that this proposal was substantially different than the proposal submitted to the Council in the earlier part of the fall to accept all 80 acres in the industrial park. Jack Maxwell felt that the net effective cost of 56,435 per acre was reasonable in comparison to the official appraisal's $8,533 per acre. He felt the $2,100 difference adequately reflected the presence of the easement. A general concern was expressed about the propriety of the City getting into the real estate business, and would this create a negative image of city government. Eidem commented that two significant factors should be evaluated In this decision. First, the City has the potential to realize significant investment profit by accepting the land and getting it resold within five years. No stressed that anything that can make the City a good profit, thereby loosening the reliance on tax levy, was beneficial for the general public. Second, Eidem indicated that the ability for the City to package an industrial siting proposal was significantly increased and could have direct benefit to the overall tax bass and to the employment conditions in the city. Motion by Jack Maxwell, second by Dan Blonigen, and carried unanimously to accept the transfer of Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, and Lot 4, Block 3, In Oakwood Industrial Park, for no foo, understanding that the City shall be responsible for the delinquent taxes and assessments and the balance of assessments duo, contingent upon the Oakwood Industrial -2- Special Council Minutes - 12/26/86 r ` Park Partnership full and complete payment to Wright County for the delinquent amounts on all other lots that will remain in the Partnership's ownership. Acting Mayor Fair turned the discussion to the topic of the proposed job description for Zoning Administrator/Planner. Eidem indicated that Mayor Grimsmo had requested that this topic be discussed at greater length before approving the job description and authorizing a placement of an advertisement. General consensus was that more information should be gathered before the formal adoption of the position. Councilmember Bill Fair asked if the Council could receive an estimate of the savings the City would feel by using consultant services less. Councilmember Blonigen expressed his concern that the overall cost of administration was rising. Acting Mayor Fair responded that the growth and expansion of the city necessitated the rising personnel costa and felt the significant question was whether or not the job wan getting done to the degree desired. Blonigen felt that planning was not all that reliable and questioned the merit of having a staff planner. Bill Fair and Councilmember elect Warren Smith asked Eidem to prepare a comparison study of the expansion of staff versus the expansion of the City. Fran Fair indicated that her opinion of the process must take into account an evaluation of the need not the evaluation of the number of current staff. Blonigen said he had concern that the City's chain of command could gat so long that no one in the City would accept responsibility. It was Blonigen-s opinion that currently there were too many occurrences where no one would accept responsibility and were dodging issues. Administrator Eidem commented that he was unouro to whom Blonigen was referring, but felt that he had adequately demonstrated his willingness to be accountable, as the City Administrator, for all activities in the city. Eidem indicated that he know of very few, if any, instances whore City staff had boon in error, and refused to acknowledge and accept responsibility for those errors. Acting Mayor Fair said the question that needed to be answered was whether or not the City should pursue the investigation on creating the now position. She indicated that she was in favor of pursuing the position in order to fill the planning gap. Council members Bill Fair, Dan Blonigon, and Jack Maxwell said they found merit in pursuing the investigation to assemble more information from which a decision could be basod. Councilmomber elect Smith concurred that the City should investigate the position further, and requested from Eidom that he receive summaries of current job descriptions and salaries. Eidom was also directed to prepare an organizational chart in order to address the issue of accountability. Prior to adjournment, Councilmembor Blonigan requested to comment on the lost spacial meeting that was hold in joint session with the Planning Commission. Blonigon statol he felt that the City Council did not provide the direction needed and an was requested by the Planning Commission. Acting Mayor Fair countered saying that she I C�> I R Special Council Minutes - 12/26/86 felt the Council did respond by providing training options that would allow the Planning Commission the freedom of independent decision making. The discussion ended without resolution of the issue, but with a general agreement that the Planning Commission needs to respond in an independent way to the general trends of the city and the Council. There being no further business, Acting Mayor Pair adjourned the meeting. 1 / j o a A. Eidem City Administrator Council Agenda - 1/12/87 5. Consideration of Authorizing City Staff and City Data Processing Consultant to Commence Negotiations with DMDI for the Purposes of Structuring a Contract for the Delivery of Systems and Services. (T. E. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: About one week before Christmas I sent out to each of you a copy of the final vendor and system recommendation summary prepared by Anne Carroll. This summary was sent out to you early so that you would have ample opportunity to review the information and make contact with us if you had questions prior to the meeting. This meeting is the crucial meeting. It is at this meeting that we are requesting authorization to enter into contract negotiations with Data Management Design, Inc. (DMDI). Perhaps the most critical aspect of this particular Council action is that by authorizing contract negotiations you have expressed your intent to acquire a system. Up to this point, we could have stopped the search at any time without any consequence. We are now prepared to enter good faith negotiations with a particular vendor with the expected result of selecting a system that will be effective for the City. DMDI enters the negotiations in good faith fully expecting to provide service to the City. While, in fact, the City can still get out of the process if a contract is not successfully negotiated, this should not be seen as a way of testing the waters any further. If there Is any hesitancy or reluctance among the Council members, now is the time to get those concerns on the table. If this process is to be stopped, then we ought to do it now before we invest the time and energy to serious contract negotiations. Obviously, if the negotiations are unsuccessful and satisfying contract simply cannot be negotiated, you are not bound to enter a contract which has negative effects to the City. This process, however, should not be soon as exploratory, i.e., let's sea how wall we can negotiate and then we'll decide if we're going to buy. We have to approach the negotiations from the position that we have decided to buy, now let's Bea how good a deal we can get. Similarly, if there are parts of the proposal that you wish to dismiss, that ought to be done now. Anne Carroll indicates to me that the proposal is fairly tight, and that if we are looking at cost savings during the negotiation, we will be looking at deleting entire segments of the proposal, not a matter of chipping away at small parts. Solely to refresh your memory, in 1983 we budgeted 550,000 for a system. In the summer of 1986, when we were looking at data processing consultants, our estimate escalated to the $80,000 range. As you can see from the information Anne Carroll has provided you, the low bid with the beat service came in at approximately 5102,000. Lot me again remind you, as I have tried to do through this entire process, that this proposal is designed to meat our "wish list." If there is s particular department that you do not wish to have serviced by data processing, then that entire department should be stricken. Individual elements within the system are not inordinately expensive, but the composite With all of its intricacies is expensive. This will be a major investment for the City. If you are getting cold feet on this purchase, we need to know now. ME Council Agenda - 1/12/87 - As a practical consideration, even if we buy the entire system, we are recommending that it be purchased through a three to five year financing plan. Consequently, the single cash outlay would not occur in 1987. Also, as a practical consideration, it is virtually impossible to install the entire system during the calendar year of 1987. The installation and implementation is fully anticipated to take anywhere from ly years to 3 years. It would make little sense to us to install a large complex system and then not have the ability to operate it. It is Anne Carroll's contention that we install certain departmental uses in phases, become accomplished and skilled in those applications, and then move on to the next application. Thus, even though this is a higher projected cost than we anticipated, the expenditures would be spread out over a period of time. I The question for the Council to decide is whether or not to enter contract negotiations. You are not buying anything tonight. You are, however, publicly expressing your intent to purchase a system contingent upon successful negotiations. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize entering contract negotiations with DMDI based upon the proposal submitted. 2. Alter the proposal by deletion of entire segments, then authorize contract negotiations with DMDI on the modified request. 3. Stop the process. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the considerable time and energy invested in the computer search process, and the projected increase in delivery of service, staff would like to sea the Council proceed with the process. we fool that the phasing of the purchase would allow proper budgeting and could install an integrated system which would serve the various departmental needs as identified. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the December 17 memo from Anne Carroll which was sent to you prior to Christmas under separate cover. All other information is available at City Nell if you wish to review individual proposals, etc. am CARROLL, FRANCK & ASSOCIATES TANNING, ENGINEERING. AND PLANNING U3 LAUREL AVE.. Si MIA, MN 55102 612426-9151 TO: City of Monticello FROM: Anne Carroll) Q/ RE: Vendor and System Recommendations DATE: 17 December 1986 The follow material first summarizes and then details the process that staff and the consultant followed to evaluate the computer system proposals received in response to the Bid Specifications/Request for Proposals. It contains our formal recommendation for the vendor of first choice and a request for Council approval to enter into contract negotiations with that vendor. COUNCIL SUMMARY: VENDOR AND SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION REVIEW OF PROPOSALS/SELECTION OF TOP VENDORS On 25 November 1986, the City received proposals from 10 vendors from throughout the country. 1. In the first review for completeness, seven vendors were eliminated. The remaining three vendors were AmeriData, Data Management Design, and NCR/Eden Systems. 2. The offerings of these vendors were evaluated in further detail. AmeriData P1 was eliminated at this stage hecause while their software was quite y� comprehensive, it was 50-1008 more expensive than the other two vendors, and the software differences did not justify the higher cost. 3. The remaining vendors, Data Management Design and NCR/Eden Systems, were asked to demonstrate their specialized software. DEMONSTRATIONS AND SELECTION OF VENDOR OF FIRST CHOICE Data Management Design and NCR/Eden Systems demonstrated their software on December 12 and 15 respectively. Staff concluded that while both vendors provided excellent software, as a group they selected Data Management Design as the vendor of first choice. REOUEST TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS We are therefore rerplesting approval to enter Into contract negotiations with Data Management Design, Inc. rantract negotiations involve the detailed identification of hardware, software, and costs, and will result in a proposed vendor contract and financing proposal to he 9hmitted for Council ainxoval In late January or February. QMO -01: Vendor and System Recommendation 17 December 1986 Page 1 0 DETAIL: VENDOR AND SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS V PROPOSALS RECEIVED At the bid opening on 25 November 1986, the City received proposals from the following vendors: NCR/Eden Systems Hewlett-Packard (HP)/Minnesota Municipal Leasing Corporation (MMLC) National Computer Systems (NCS)/Rodin and Associates McDonnel l -Douglas Data Management Design, Inc. (DMDI) Computoservice, Inc. Computer Concepts and Services (CCSI ) UNISYS (formerly Burroughs and Sperry) AmeriData, Inc. Wang/Information Development Consultants (IDC) VENDOR EVALUATION Purpose The proposals were reviewed to identify the vendors who offered the most comprehensive software capabilities, in relation to the needs specified in the RFP. It The object was to eliminate, at least initially, those vendors who did not propose to provide the majority of the items requested. While it is always possible to reconsider these vendors at a later date if no other vendors prove acceptable, that is usually not necessary. Evaluation Process The primary focus of the vendor evaluation was on software, not hardware: Once we confirmed that the proposed hardware met the basic specifications and the reference checks verified hardware reliability and ease of use, hardware was not used as a primary decision-making criterion. From the perspective of user fumctinnality, the various hardware products proposed by venvtors at this scale were nearly identical, and in itself, the hardware offers essentially no value to the user. It is the software that provides the computer capnillities -- the hardware is simply a means to access those capabilities. Selection of Top Vendors The top vendnrs were selected haled on their ability to provide comprehensive software capabilities. Even thotigh the implementation of the software may be MO -01: Vendor and System Recommendation 17 December 1986 Page 2 I staged, it was important to try to find a vendor who could be the sole source of all software for the City, thereby assuring long-term system integration and coordinated maintenance. The following vendors were eliminated for the reasons stated: Lactirg most or all property activity software HP/MMLC NCS/Rodin McDonnell -Douglas Computoservice CCSI Unisys Warp/IDC Lacking most or all ptblic works software NCS/Rodin Comput oservi ce Unisys That left NCR/Eden Systems, Data Management Design, and AmeriData as offering the most comprehensive software capabilities, all scoring over 859 and within 4% of each other. At this point, the issue of software cost became a decision-making criterion. This is not usually an issue at such an early stage in a system evaluation, hecause costs usually cluster within 20-30% of each other. In this case, however, the cost of AmeriData software was 1009 higher than one lop vendor, and 509 higher than the other. Compared to the other vendors, AmeriData's software capahilities were not relatively 50-1009 better, so AmeriData was eliminated from further evaluation. Reference Oledks: For the remaining vendors, DMDI and NCR/Eden Systems, several existing clients were contacted. We asked about quality of software, ease of use, training, software and hardware sport and maintenance, and general relationship. Both vendors received very positive reviews, SYSTEM DEMONSTRATIONS The top vendors, DMDI and NCR/Eden Systems, demonstrated their software for staff on Decemher 12 and 15, respectively. Both demonstrations covered finance and administration, community development and properly activity, and pblie works. Staff and the consultant CnnclLated the, following: 1. Roth vendors provided comprehensive and acceptahle software capabilities for finance and administration. 2. NCR/Eden Systems had a more sq-Jhisticated property activity/tHhlic works packarye, althrugh parts of it are still under development. 3. DMDI is the SOIL source for both software and hardware, though hardware would lie maintained locally. In contrast, NCR provided the hardware and Eden Systems provided the software; hardware would he supported locally. MO -01: Vendor and System Recommendation 17 Decemher 1906 Page 3 0 4. DMDI had a very user-friendly, flexible, and powerful report -writer; this f would allow staff to develop custom reports and files. 1. 5. The software offered by either vendor would require some modification. 6. DMDI is willing to develop some of the missing property activity/public works capabilities, and to do so for minimal cost. 7. The hardware proposed by DMDI allows more complete integration of generic software. 8. The base software package proposed by DMDI is almost 30% less expensive than that proposed by NCR/Eden Systems. SELECTION OF VENDOR OF FIRST CHOICE While the software proposed by both vendors offers comprehensive capabilities, and either system may require some modification, staff and the consultant concluded that the software and hardware proposed by Data Management Design best met the City's short and long term needs. Background information on Data Management Designs (DMDI): DMDI proposes to be sole source of both software and hardware. DMDI is based in Reston, Virginia, and has a variety of governmental and non-profit software installations. These are primarily in the eastern states, although the Science Museum of Minnesota (St. Paul) installed their software in 1984 and is +ery satisfied. They provide software support and maintenance to their customers via modem or in person if necessary. Hardware support is provided through the Wang office in Bloomington. I REQUEST TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS We are requesting Council authorization to enter into contract negotiations with Data Management Design, Inc. This process will take several weeks, and will include in the following: Software: Identify base generic and specialized software and costs Specify critical software modifications and custom packages, and costs Determine implementation schedule Hardware: Finalize hardware configuration, location, and costs Identify installation requirements that are the responsibility of the City (such as phone lines, voltage regulators, etc.) Determine implementation/installation schedule Costs: DMDI's hese price for software and hardware was r"3roxlmately $102,000. This does not include costs which are dependent upon or at the discretion of the City, such as software modification, custom packages, and cabling and installation. MO -01: Verdnr and System Recommendation 17 December 1986 Page 4 0 Financing: Concurrent with contract negotiations, the consultant will work with the City to identify the most appropriate financing method(s) and negotiate agreements. Final Contracts: The proposed vendor and financing contracts will be review by the City attorney, modified as necessary, and submitted to the Cotmcil for review in late January or February. Following approval by the Council, the phase one software and hardware will be ordered and conversions will begin. Anticipated implementation is April 1987. MO -01: Vetdar and Sylttem Recommedatlon 17 Decemher 1986 Page 5 O Council Agenda - 1/12/87 'v- 6. Consideration of a Request from the Monticello Fire Department to Purchase Paging Devices. (R.W.) Z A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the December 1986 Council meeting, the Council approved a resolution authorizing the Monticello Fire Department to join the Minnesota Fire Agencies Joint Powers Purchasing Consortium. As you may recall, the purchasing consortium currently has 87 fire departments as members, and the organization prepares specifications and has received contract bide for numerous items purchased by fire departments, including radio equipment. Fire Chief, Willard Farnick, and Fireman Scott Douglas have been in contact with the Motorola representative and the purchasing consortium for the purpose of purchasing new pagers for the firemen. The contract price for new pagers and related equipment such as carrying cases and a new encoder have been bid by the purchasing consortium; and if the City is interested in purchasing Motorola equipment, the prices available should be the lowest that the City could expect to receive. The Fire Department currently has 27 active mo- re, with eventually 30 members being the projected goal some day in the future. The department is considering adding possibly ono more member this year for a total of 28, but at this time the opening has not been filled. The department currently has 30 Reach pagers, and the additional throe or four pagers have been used as backups when the pagers aro sent in for ropaic0; but it is assumed with now Motorola equipment, the frequency of repairs should be minimal, and I believe the department would be satisfied with 28 pagers at this time with one being available as a opera, which may be issued shortly to a now member. The previous Motorola pager model was manufactured for over eight years before a now design was made. It appears that Motorola has excellent radio equipment; and if past history is any indication, the current pagers proposed by the Fire Department should be avallablo in a similar model for a number of years to tomo. That is ono of the reasons why it doesn't appear necessary to purchase more than one extra pager at this time, as they can always be added in the future. The pager modal requested by the Fire Department is a Minitor II, which has boon on the market for only approximately six months; and it was especially designed for fico department service and not adapted for fire department use from a general use modal. Mr. Farnick will be at the Council meeting to answer any questions the Council may have; but according to their survey, all fire departments within Wright County that have a pager system use Motorola except Clearwater. In addition, Elk River Fire Department in Sherburne County and the majority of departments in Nannopin-Metro Aroa use Motorola equipment, which speaks highly of this brand. -3- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 If the new pager system is authorized, it is the intent of the Fire Department to advertise the Reach pagers for sale in the League of Minnesota Magazine and fire department publications. It is estimated that the pagers have a value of approximately $50 each, or approximately $1,500 total. The following is a listing of the items requested: 28 Motorola Minitor II Pagers @ $344 each Total - S 9,632.00 28 Carrying Case Holders @ $28 each Total - S 784.00 28 Chargers @ $22 each Total - S 616.00 1 Encoder (transmits the page from fire department) @ $449 each Total - $ 449.00 TOTAL COST $11,481.00 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to approve the Fire Department purchase of the 28 Motorola pagers and related equipment as noted above. 2. The Council may reject the Fire Department's request and not authorize the purchase at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The current Reach pagers are approximately ton years old, and the City has had a history of numerous repairs over the years. The repairs and recalibrations of the individual pagers has occurred almost immediately after purchase, and it is aseumod that now that they are ton years old, the frequency of repairs may increase. with the largo number of surrounding communities using Motorola radio equipment, it is certainly recommended that if now pagers are authorized. Motorola equipment should be purchased. During the adoption of the 1987 Budget, the Council removed the 512,000 request from the Fire Department from the 1987 Budget and noted that sufficient funds would be available from the Fire Hall Construction Fund if the purchase was authorized. Because the problems the City has had with their pager system and the likelihood of more frequent repairs in the future, Motorola equipment should be considered. The Fire Hall Construction Fund does have excess money that can be used for this purchase. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -4- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 7. Consideration of a Request by the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority to Set a Public Hearing for January 26 for the Purpose of Amendinq the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Tax Increment District R5. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On March 11, 1985, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved and adopted the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Construction Five and requested the City Council to set a public hearing for the purpose of establishing a Tax Increment Finance District. On March 25, 1985, the City Council held the public hearing and approved Tax Increment District 05. District 95 was also certified by the County Auditor. The District includes Outlot A; Block 1, Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, and 5; and Block 2, Lot 1, Construction Five Addition, City of Monticello. The District was not created for the purpose of land exchange, rather a subsidy of the cost of public improvements (streets, curb and gutter, water and sewer, etc., along Fallon Avenue and Louring Lano extension). Construction Five constructed the 18 -unit apartment dwelling on Block 2, Lot 1, in 1985, but not the 25,000 sq ft office/manufacturing facility as described in the Development Plan. Construction Five has approached the City staff with a proposal to construct two additional multiple apartment dwellings in 1987 with rental availability scheduled for August 1, 1987. The proposal includes a 20 -unit apartment with a total square footage of 25,608 (3 floors with 8,536 aq ft per floor) on Block I. Lots 1 and 2; and 30 -unit apartment with a total square footage of 32,010 (3 floors with 10,670 aq ft per floor) on Block I. Lots 3, a, and 5. City staff has met with the City Engineers to establish public improvement costo. Public improvement costa have increased from $390,000 in 1985 to 5530,000 in 1987. However, improvements include streets, curbs and gutter, water and sower, and storm sewer along Fallon Avenue, Lauring Lane extension, and washington Street. The approximate project cost of $530,000 may include $105,000 to be assessed. Duo to the now proposal one new project cost, a public hearing is necessary to amend the Tax Increment Finance Plan. At the January 7, 1987, Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting, the Authority amended the Tax Increment Finance Plan and request the City Council to set a public hearing for January 26, 1987, for the purpose of amending the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Tax Increment District 45. Lot me restate that this agenda itam is requesting the City Council to set a public hearing only, not to amend the TIP Plan. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. Sat the public hearing for January 26, 1987, for the purpose of amending the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Tax Increment District 05. 2. Do not sot a public hearing for January 26, 1987, for the purpose of amending the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Tax Increment District 45. ME I R Council Agenda - 1/12/87 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council set a public hearing for January 27, 1987, for the purpose of amending the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Tax Increment District 45. With the help of tax increment financing, the City can help defray a portion of the improvement costs to all concerned, thus eliminating a useless sand/gravel pit. Setting the public hearing allows us time for publication in the Monticello Times. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution setting a public hearing. -6- RESOLUTION 87-1 RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 273.71 TO 273.78 INCLUSIVE, THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT. WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority has adopted a Resolution amending the plan for the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District 05, dated January 7, 1987, pursuant to the provisions of MS Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive, and WHEREAS, said resolution requests the City Council to set a public hearing on said Tax Increment Financing Plan 05. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA THAT: 1. A public hearing shall be held at 7:30 p.m., on Monday, January 26, 1987, in the City Council Chambers. 2. The City Administrator shall cause proper notice to be given in the official newspaper. �, Adopted this 12th day of January, 1987. Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator C� Council Agenda - 1/12/87 8. Consideration of Establishing 1987 Salary for the Monticello Senior Citizen Director. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the December Council meeting, when 1987 non-union salaries were ratified, we omitted consideration of the salary for the Senior Citizen Director. The reason for the omission was that there were conflicting points of view as to the status of that position. It was my understanding that the Senior Director was to be considered a half time position, while Karen Hanson contended that she had been elevated to full-time position. The reason that presented a problem is that under the comparable worth law, if she is. in fact, a full-time position, she needed to have her salary increased to over 520,000. It was concluded at that meeting that this matter needed to be clarified, and that the salary would be addressed at the first meeting in January. In the interim period, while I was doing the research to clarify the statue of the position, I received information that this entire question had become quite emotionally upsetting for Karen Hanson. There was apparently a major misunderstanding such that my initial conversation with Karen about the position had been translated into a personal attack on her performance. I was so stunned by this interpretation of what had occurred that when I spoke with Arve about the issue, I :imply ::road to withdraw myself from ell further consideration. I simply assumed the role of historical rasoarcher and provided the data to Arve. I met with Arvo on Wednesday. January 7, 1987, and it is my understanding that he has had an opportunity to moot with a number of people on this issue and will present it to the City Council. If I understand the content of our conversation correctly, it is essentially his opinion that the Senior Citizen Director ought to be considered a full-time position, and in accordance with the comparable worth lav the salary should be increased a total of $6,000 over the next two years. If the City went with a 50/50 split, that would mean Karen's salary would be increased $3,000 in 1987 from $14,400 to $17,400, and another $3,000 in 1988, putting the position at $20,400. My main question during our conversation had to do with the position in the abstract. If you can, please attempt to remove Karen from the position in your mind to evaluate the position absent of all personality. By certifying this position a: a full-time supervisory position in the City of Monticello, and reporting it as such to the State of Minnesota under the provisions of the comparable worth lav, that position will warrant a starting salary of S20,400 regardless of the personality in the position. My question is meant to help delineate whether or not the Council is compensating for the position or for the individual who is currently performing in that position. This is the significant question with respect to the comparable worth law, not in relation to Karen Hanson's salary and performance. -7- 4. Council Agenda - 1/12/87 Based on Arve-s and my conversation, it is my understanding that he wishes to address this issue at the Council meeting in depth. Consequently. I am providing no alternative actions, nor staff recommendation on this issue. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the historical research provided to Arve earlier. -B- `3 The attached packet conte lne photocopies of all minutes which refer i 'V to the Senior Citizen-* organization from 1967 up to including 1982, my first year of service with Monticello. The reason I stopped at this point is that a brief check through my salary information files shows nothing changed relative to the position (except salary, annually). From the minutes I conclude or speculate the following: Autumn, 1967 - Sr. Center Club was originated. City contributes to club, S loo/mo. By July, 1970 - JoAnne Kj ellberg hired, appointed, engaged, volunteered, whatever, to serve as director of club. No mention made in minutes. No City payroll record for her. I assume appointment made by Sr. Citizen Board, not City. November, 1970 - Request from Seniors to increase monthly contribution to absorb salary. January, 1971 - Council approves allocation to Sr. Center to help with heat and salary. Council set salary at $200/mo. Aasumpti on: Council intended to make a contribution to Seniors, not hire a now staff person; but probably easier for City to issue paychecks monthly, so director put on City payroll. Council doesn't grant raise anywhere; must have been done by Sr. Board. October 10, 1972 - Kjoll.berg resigns. Assumption: gave resignation to City, since City was L asuing checks. October 26, 1972 - Karen comes to meeting to request position - Council approves. Assumption: former director resigns from City, new one must apply to City. No call for applicants or authorization to advertise/oolicit applicants. City took no action till Karen appeared. First official roferenco to City hiring. Problem: No approved job in the City. No job deacription. 1973 and 1970 - No official records authorizing salary increases, yet City payroll records show increase granted. Question: who approved? August, 1974 - Karen granted an official increase. First salary reforence Since January, 1971 . January, 1975 - Annual salary. Not included with other staff. 3 December, 1975 - Annual salary. From this point on Karen included with all staff on salary actions. December, 1976 - Annual salary. '�- November, 1977 - Annual salary. Clear statement of part-time status, no benefits. 11 February, 1978 - Council grants full-time status (for benefits). Both agenda supplement and minutes indicate full-time status is for benefits, since clear statement that Karen intended to assign others to work the extra hours. November, 1978 - Annual salary. November, 1979 - Annual salary. December, 1980 - Annual salary. December, 1981 - Annual salary. November, 1982 - Annual salary. Conclusions: City never really created a position for Sr. Center Director. Have no job description, no statement of intent, no expectations. Assumed position through "adverse possession." Always assumed to be part-time, but no delineation of hours. In November, 1977, Council says definitely part-time, no benefits. Two months later. Council eeys they'll consider job full-time for purpose of benefits. No discussion of additional duties or hours. My understanding to date: benefits are paid, but salary based on 20-28 hours per week. Recommendation: Council evaluate total position. Prepare job description to match. Redo Occupational Analysis Questionnaire and Time Spent Profile for Control Data/Comparable worth Study to reflect new job description. Set salary in accordance with law. NOTE: Absolutely nothing contained herein relates to the performance of Karen Hanson. All statements relate solely to the position, totally separate from the individual engaged to fill that position. 0.16- SENIOR CITIZEN DIRECTOR SALARY HISTORY •lot ties eaLery paid by City. --Karon Hanson hired in October of 1972 to replace JoAnne Kjollberg. D_ 1968 1969 1970 1971 $200.00 per month Jan. 1972-oct. 1972 $210.00 per month 5% Oct. 1972 -DBC. 1972•• $210.00 per month 5% 1973 $220.50 per month 5% Jan. 1974 -Aug. 1974 $238.14 per month 8% Sept. 1974 -Dec. 1974 $297.65 per month 24:9% 1975 $400.00 per month 34.3% 1976 $430.00 per month 7.5% 1977 $450.00 per month 4.7% 1978 $475.00 per month 5.5% t1979 $550.00 par month 13.6% 1980 $725.00 per month 31.8% 1981 $814.00 per month 12.3% 1982 $920.00 per month 13.0% 1983 $1,000.00 per month 8.7% 1984 81,050.00 per month 5.0% 1985 81,107.00 per month 5.4% 1986 81,192.00 per month 7.11 •lot ties eaLery paid by City. --Karon Hanson hired in October of 1972 to replace JoAnne Kjollberg. D_ Council Agenda - 1/12/87 i 9. Consideration of Approving the Relocation of the Intersection of County Road 391 County Road 75, and County Road 118, and Appurtenant Construction. (J.S.) A. REPERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As discussed at the November 24 meeting, the County, with participation from the City, will be reconstructing the above intersection to provide a much safer flow of traffic and provide for future installation of traffic signals. At that time, preliminary cost estimates were for approximately $87,000, with the City picking up $33,500. This, of course, would be without the signals. These original figures included only a minor ro-alignment of the north/south routes of County Roads 39 and 118. The Council authorized the City -s participation in the project as per the County -a municipal funding policy and authorized additional engineering study and cost analysis. Since that time, we have met on several occasions with the property owners in the area and have further analyzed the intersection. Three problems came to light which needed to be addressed. The first problem, as we discussed at our earlier meeting, involved the inability to be able to make a left turn into the Riverroad Plaza after completion of the concrete median. A second problem which developed was the detrimental effect of a minor relocation of County Road 39 easterly. The property in between the new County Road 39 and the Riverroad Plaza would be of little benefit to anyone. The third problem we encountered was with County Road 118. A minor relocation of County Road 39 to the oast did not alleviate the problem with the large trucks or other vehicles or buses attempting to negotiate this angled intersection. A tentative solution which came out of one of the joint meetings in December between the property owners and the County involved the relocation of the intersection to a point 320 foot east of the current intersection. This relocation, along with a alight change in the concrete median length, would allow a loft turn into the Riverroad Plaza approximately 150-200 foot west of the existing location of their driveway. In addition, this relocation would place an easily developable piece of property containing 3.7 acres between the alignment of old County Road 39 and the now County Road 39 and would actually Increase the value of this property rather than have a detrimental affect. In addition, this move would now make the intersection of County Road 118 to the south at a true 90 degree angle. The next step was to contact the two property owners from which right-of-way would be needed, and the third property owner, Dahlhoimor Distributing, to which property would be turned back. In two separate meetings with Maurice Hoglund, I found Maurice to be vary cooperative. He wished only a reasonable price for hie property and that it had no detrimental affect on the property of Anna Mao and Curt Hoglund. Jay Morrell, from whom right-of-way was needed for 118, was vary -9- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 recept ivo to the project. Jay has been a spokesperson both for himself and fox the School Board in attempting to got the County to make improvements to this intersection and County Road 39. In my discussions with Greg Dahlheimer from Oahlheimer Distributing, he indicated a willingness to purchase the turnback property when the road is relocated to the east, wishing only to maintain at least one access to County Road 1 18. After the general approval of the design concept by all parties involved, we had an additional meeting on Monday morning with Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund; City staff; Jim and Ken Maus, the lessees of the Riverroad Plaza; and the Wright County Highway Department. After much discussion, it was decided by all parties involved that a frontage road would be necessary to best serve the Riverroad Plaza, the now apartment building, and the townhouses. The frontage road would be built primarily on County right-of-way, utilizing the portion of existing County Road 39 which would minimize the cost of construction. In order for Learge vehicles to turn in off of County Road 75, It would be necessary to acquire some additional right-of-way from Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund for a radius for access to the frontage road. It is oxpocted that the payment for this right-of-way may be negotiated through some turnback of property near the Riverroad Plaza. It appears that a portion of the fuel tanks may be on County right-of-way. This frontago road on the northeast would then connect back to the now a lignmont of County Road 39. Because of the major ro-alignment of County Road 39, it would not be necessary to utilize an urban section, and the rural design would be utilized and better provide for storm water run-off from the highway system. Our final discussion with Curt and Anna Mao Hoglund was that we would attempt to work out the cost of the frontage road so that the Hoglundo would bear little cost and certainly no more than a benefit which they would receive if any benefit at all. The City staff than continued Ito meeting with the County to work out the now cost estimates and proposed cost sharing. The now cost estimate for County Road 75 will increase from our original cost estimate of $87,000 to $107,530 duo primarily to the need to remove the ®mire road surface at County Road 75 rather than just overlay it. In addition, we have the frontage road costs• built in. Of this $107,530. City costs aro expected to be 543.970, or an increase of just over $10,000. The cost of relocating County Road 39 and County Road 118 soma 320 feet to the east comes to approximately $85.800. If the City wishes relocation of this intersection, the County asks that the City participate 504 in the coat. or $42.900. This amount includes no construction on the now County Road 39 right-of-way. The construction costs of the highway Itself with normal design will be 1001 County funded. At tha Tuesday County Board meeting, the Wright County Board unanimously approved the new cost estimates and the ro-alignment of the intersection contingent on approval of City participation as outlined above at Monday ovanIng Is Council meeting. The County Board also discussed -Note : Prontago road 100% City cost and 100% City maintenance. -10- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 i® the installation of paved 8 -foot shoulders on each side of this rural section of County Road 39 all the way from County Road 75 to County Road 19 just north of Albertville. The County Highway Engineer told the County Board it would cost $100,000 for these paved shoulders. When paved shoulders are installed on rural sections within municipalities, municipalities are expected to pay 100% of the cost of such paving; and it generally runs in the neighborhood of $15,000 per mile. There have been few exceptions to this County policy. One exception was along County Road 75 where other funds were involved and the County did pick up a portion of the paved shoulders. Our cost to pave the shoulders to the City limits would be in the neighborhood of $15,000. At this time, Commissioner McAlpine brought up the point that he knew the City was considering annexation of another approximately 1y miles of property along County Road 39. It would be the County's intent to have the City pay for 100% of the road shoulders in that area if the portion were annexed into the City prior to completion of the project. I informed Chairperson McAlpine that the City had already expended a largo sum of money in payments to the Township for road maintenance and other items within the OAA and may find it difficult to again pay for such items. The County does not request reimbursement from the Township in areae where they place paved shoulders. with the coat estimates for the remaining portion of County Road 39 easterly to County Road 19 being $380,000 over initial estimates, County Board members were reluctant to expand an additional $100,000 in this area, which may have to come from other County projects already scheduled for completion. In a 3 to 2 vote, the County Board approved the installation of paved shoulders along the entire stretch of highway contingent upon the City paying 100% of those shouldering costa within the City limits and contingent upon the City paying 100% of the shouldering costs in the OAA should that property be annexed into the City prior to the completion of the project. During the discussion, Chairperson McAlpine asked an opinion as to what would happen if the project ware completed and annexation occurred on the same day. I informed Chairperson McAlpine that I felt the City would negotiate in good faith, as we had a cooperative spirit with the County and its staff for many years. If the City ware to pay for the additional 1.3 miles of paved shoulder, It would coat approximately $20,000. I don't think there is a doubt in any residont's mind or anyone who travels County Road 39 to a great degree that the road shoulders are, indeed, needed. There are no separate grants or funds available for road shoulders or bike paths along this road, even though it is the Groat River Road; so the burden comes back to the local levels of government. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to accept the revised cost estimates for County Road 75 and to agree to participate 50% in the relocation of County Roads 39 and 118, with the total City share expected to bo $ 86,870 for construction. Thio alternative also request• the Installation of paved shoulders on the new County Rod 39 at an estimated cost of 915,000 to the city limits and the possible liability of an additional 920,000 to the end of the OAA. 2 9 Council Agenda - 1/12/87 2. Thesecond alternative would be to accept the revised estimates for County Road 75, to agree to participate in the relocation of County Roads 39 and 118, but to delete the paved road shoulders on County Road 39. 3. Tho third alternative would be to accept the revised cost figures for County Road 75, but not agree in the relocation of County Roads 39 and 118, nor the paved shoulders. This would result in a closing off of the Riverroad Plaza entrance for persons eastbound, and a return to an urban section along County Road 39 at a cost of about 347,000. The overall cost to the City would be about the same, with the exception that the urban costs could be assessed back to the property owners. This, however, would not be in the beet interests of the City, as we have an opportunity at this time to correct an alignment problem with this intersection. C. STAFF RECOMMIENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the City Council opt for alternative •1. All those parties actively involved in our meetings and discussions, including those individuals doing the right-of-way appraisals for the Wright County Highway Department, firmly believe this is the beat possible solution and takes into consideration the future growth of Monticello as well as the safety of its citizens and travelers. In addition, it addressee the pedestrian and bicycle traffic that currently exieta on County Road 39 and that which will exist in the future as the density in the area on the east side of Monticello increases. It is a small price to pay for such a big improvement. D. SUPPORTING DATA. Copy of the proposed re-alignmont of the intersection; Copy of the revised cost estimates. .atm CSAR 75 COSTS Description Quantity Price County City Medians 1200 yd 520-522/yd2 501 $12,500 $12,500 Bituminous Removal 2000 ft 51.50/ft 701 2,100 303 630 Bit. Surfacing 2100 ton 516/ton 70% 26,460 301 11,340 Base Class 5 $10,000 701 7,000 301 3,000 (Conditioning) widening $15,000 701 10,500 301 4,500 Underground Signal $10,000 501 5,000 501 5,000 Frontage Road S 7,000 01 1001 7,000 R/w Frontage Road 01 1001 75 TOTAL $63,560 $43,970 Paved Shoulders to City Limits 47 COUNTY ROAD 39 $15,000 TOTAL COSTS - 5101,670 8 11 C COUNTY ROAD 39 AND 118 COSTS Intersection Shift 320' Description Quantity Price County Costs City Costa Permanent R/W 2.1 A 20,000 AC 50% 21,000 508 21,000 Hoglund Slope Easement 2.25A 1,000 501 1,125 50% 1,125 Tlurnback (39) 5,000 501 -2,500 50% -2,500 CR 118 R/W Permanent 0.57A 15,000 50% 4,275 50% 4,275 ,rurnback 1.0 A 8,000 50% -4,000 50% -4,000 R.R. R/W 1,000 50% 500 50% 500 R.R. Track Imp. 25,000 501 12,500 50% 12,500 ltaad Imp. CR 118 20,000 50% 10,000 50% 10,000 $42,900 $42,900 NOTE: Costs incurred to improve CSAH 75 will not change. Cost of turn lanes: Bit. - $1,000 Grading - $1,000 $2,000 Max. C9-) FIIVEp 27•.._ DR111C. 39 - N. Council Agenda - 1/12/87 10. Consideration of a Procedure to Resolve Cost Conflict Connected with the 1977-3 Force Main Construction. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you may recall, early in 1986 the City staff discovered major problems with the force main installed during the 77-3 Project on Elm and Fourth Streets. It appears that the force main was never drained of water after initial testing, and consequently froze and damaged the force main. In addition, we discovered that the force main in some areas was buried at a depth slightly lees than 5 feet. After all was said and done, the force main on Third Street was replaced, and the force main on Elm Street was repaired. The total cost of the replacement and repairs was $29,852.51. At the June 23, 1986, regular Council meeting, John Badalich indicated that his firm would share in the responsibility for the failure of the force main. He indicated that his firm would not likely be 100% responsible but that the contractor, Arcon Construction of Mora, would also be responsible. On Monday, December 1, 1986, the City staff met with John Badalich and Chuck Lepak from OSM to discuss the 77-3 force main replacement and repairs. John Badalich indicated he felt his firm would contribute one-third or approximately $10,000 toward tho repairs. He said he felt the contractor was also at fault, and the City also assumed some risk. John stated that he had recently written a latter to Arcon Construction and may be receiving word back from than in the future. we discussed tho length of time it had taken to discover the problom and questions were raised whether we could pursue the contractor for damages duo to the length of time since the original Installation. John Badalich indicated his firm probably wouldn-t be obligated oithor, but that he would be willing to contribute the $10,000 toward the repairs. we also discussed some of the possible small benefits to the City for having a new pipe installed. Thera would be a alight increase in the design life of the roplacoment portion, and we now have half of a street roplacod on Third Street. it is doubtful, however, that in the future wo would replace half of this straot or overlay half of this street so tho benefit is rathor small. we may be able to recover a fow hundred dollars by obtaining a valva that was used on the project and a few of the fittings, but that would be the extent of the recovery for the City. Tom and I discussed this and decided that we should ask for Gary Pringlo-a opinion. In our initial discussions with Gary, he indicated that the statute of limitations on Chia typo of legal question begins on the date of discovery, which was early in 1986, so we are well within the statute of limitations. We discuseod the possibility that the City Engineer and the contractor were at fault, but certainly the City could not be at fault for this problem. Garyeekod that I detail all of this information to him in a memo. 1 did ao on Docambor 3 and informed him that we would wish to have -t3- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 �✓ hio rooponso no that we could make a prosontation to the City Council at the first meeting in January. I met with Gary Pringle on the afternoon of January 8 to gat hie opinions as to the 77-3 force main repairs. It is Gary Pringle's opinion that the City should pursue this matter to recover the total amount of $29,852.51 from OSM and Arcon Construction. Gary Pringle wishes the Council to authorize him to pursue this matter first by normal procedures and attempts to recover damages; and if he is unsuccessful, to immediately commence suit. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize Gary Pringle to pursue this matter as necessary to recover damages in the amount of $29,852.51. 2. The second alternative would be to accept the $10,000 payment from OS14 and have City staff attempt to recover a like sum or the remaining portion from Arcon Construction. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It in the staff recommendation that we authorize Gary Pringle to proceed as outlined in Alternative 61. It is the staff's opinion that while OSM has been cooperative in this matter, we are likely to gat little or no cooperation from Arcon Construction. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Soo previous agenda items. S -14- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 a I1� I. Consideration of Resolving a Conflict Concerning the Differential in the Sever Sludge Truck. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrading and appurtenant work which was EPA Project 0C270855-03, the City of Monticello, in conjunction with the City Engineer, prepared specifications for two sludge trucks to be delivered with the construction of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. One of the sludge trucks, a large 6,000 gallon over the road unit, is typically a highway vehicle with some special features. The second unit, a 2,000 gallon applicator unit, is an off road vehicle with 4 chisel type injection plows for field work. When drafting our specifications in mid -1980, we contacted two manufacturers who were well known in the area of such off road vehicles. One manufacturer was Ag -Chem in Jackson. Minnesota, and another manufacturer was Field Gimmy, a firm from Glandorf, Ohio. Both of these manufacturers were well into the off road vehicle market for fertilizer and sludge applicators. We drafted our specifications and included them with the construction project which was bid August 20, 1980. The Paul A. Laurence Company of Minneapolis was the low bidder. In December of 1980, we began receiving information from the IME Corporation of Galva. Illinois, who were to supply the sludge vehicles to the Paul A. Laurence Company and on to the City of Monticello. The first submittal on the 2,000 gallon off road applicator unit shoved rockwall axle. We questioned this ax la when we received further information in 1981 and questioned whether it met the spocificatione. We had specified a 28,000 pound capacity planetary rear axle and torque proportion roar differential. we also specified that the chassis shall be designed to carry this anticipated load and allow for a factor of safety. The chassis moans the entire frame, front axles, rear axles, whoola, engine, cab, otc. In July of 1981, we received information from Clayton Dickerson of the IM1Corporation indicating that he felt the existing axle was satisfactory. On July 22, 1981, the City and our engineer rejected the axle and the sludge applicator truck, as it was not a planetary axle, and we felt it could not withstand heavy duty continuous field use. On August 3, 1981, IME agreed to furnish an Eaton Model 035327 planetary double reduction axle rated at 35,000 pounds, which International Harvestor would install at their factory. The document included with that August 3 submittal is from the Eaton Corporation and shows that the axle is a planetary double reduction axle of 35,000 pounds capacity. It further shows in the foot notes that applications require Eaton axle engineering approval. This latter of August 3 was followed by a submittal from the Paul A. Laurence Company, the general contractor, on August 7, 1981. In that latter the Paul A. Laurance Company goes on to state that thisaxle is being provided through the assistance of the engineering department at International and that although the axle does not have WE Council Agenda - 1/12/87 a ratio which we requested, it does meet our specifications and should do the job with no problems. They did say in their letter that they would supply an axle with a higher ratio number if we would pay the increased coats. I discussed this with the project engineer, Jerry Corrick from OSM, and wrote him a letter on August 16, 1981. Both of the other manufacturers which we looked at were supplying axle ratios in the area of 20 to 1 which they felt with the planetary was proper for the extreme torque of the large flotation tires. However, because of the references to International Engineering Department and the Eaton axle engineering department approval, we felt confident that we were being supplied an axle that met our specifications and would do the job. Jerry Corrick and myself made a trip to Galva, Illinois, to inspect the vehicles in March of 1982. At that time it was noted that the rear axle had been changed in the applicator unit. Clayton Dickerson indicated that the truck had been driven to the International factory where the axle had been exchanged. Since the treatment plant was still under construction, the trucks were not needed. The delivery of the trucks was delayed until late 1982. The trucks arrived in Monticello in September of 1982. The trucks were not needed yet, as the plant was still under construction and had not generated significant amounts of sludge for land disposal. The trucks, after a short start- up period, were put into storage. The warranty became a question over the winter, as the trucks vara already two years old and had not been used. We received a confirmation of a now starting date for the warranty from Overbaugh Equipment Company in Galva. Illinois, which in right next to the IME factory, that the warranty would start ou January 4, 1983. International offers a two year warranty on the roar axles. The odometer reading on the form we received from the Overbaugh Equipment Company indicated 2,000 miles. There was not 2,000 miles on the truck at that time. In 1963 and 1984, the trucks received vary little use. In 1985 a small amount of use was given to both unite. In 1986, the City of Monticello contracted out its operation at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the contractor, Professional Services Group, saw fit to begin reducing the amount of sludge at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. In October while applying sludge to a nearby field, the roar axle failed in the sludge applicator unit. The unit had 248 hours and 1,319 miles on it. Professional Services Group took the applicator unit to the local International dealer, Hoglund Bus Company. The Hoglund Bus Company disassembled the differential from the rear axle and noted that the tooth had boon stripped on the pinion gear and also damaged the ring gear and some bearings. They made note to Steve Sunt, the Manager at the Wastewator Treatment Plant, that the rear axle wan extremely light duty. Upon checking further into the parts availability, they indicated that the wrong axle had been installed in the truck, and 12 it we not the Eaton 035327, but that it was a lighter duty axle. -16- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 () I contacted the Paul A. Laurance Company, IME Corporation, and the Overbaugh Equipment Company of Illinois and asked them to check into their records as to how this axle got into this unit. I then proceeded out to the International dealer in Monticello and after further checking, it was determined that the axle was the 35327 Eaton and that the parts, the ring gear and pinion, also fit other light duty axles. The dealer in Monticello was slightly reluctant to fix the unit because he felt that with the massive tires, the unit could go out again. Since we were in the middle of sludge application, Professional Services Group made the decision to have the unit fixed at the cost of approximately $1,800 so that the unit could be placed back into service. At this time the unit is being babied and surface application is being used where possible. After I began researching all of this information and noting what the local International dealership had told me, I decided to contact the Eaton Corporation and ask them about this rear axle. After some phone calls. I located the correct individual and department within the Eaton Corporation. Mr. William Eckland of Kalamazoo. Michigan, indicated that I should make any requests in writing and he would answer as soon as possible. I wrote Mr. Eckland a letter on October 30, 1986, questioning the suitability of this axle and the diagnosis of our problem. I sent copies of this letter to Mal Allison of the Paul A. Laurence Company, Lavorn at IME, and Bob Overbaugh of Overbaugh Equipment Company, and Jerry Carrick, Project Engineer for the City with OSM. I received a reply to my letter indicating that the Eaton Corporation felt that this was an improper application of their axle and that our machine should be retrofitted with the proper axle. I than placed a call to Field Gimmy to ask them whether thay could retrofit their axle to our truck, as they use a heavy duty planetary rear axle with a reduction in the range of 20 to 1 which is ideally suited to the massive torque roquiremonts of those 66 -inch tires. They indicated that it was possible and that they would look into it for us; but since they use a GMC chassis and we use an international chassis, a certain amount of ro-onginaering would have to be done. The estimated cost to switch the axle in their shop in Ohio would be approximately $10,000. I then placed a call to Ag -Chum in Jackson, Minnesota, and asked them the same question. Ag -Chow utilizoo International chassis so the evap would be somewhat easier, They estimated to send an axle up here to Monticello and have someone also install it, the cost would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $13,299.70. It is possible It could cost 51,000 or 52,000 more to have this axle mounted, which moans between Ag -Chum and Field Gimmy we could expect to pay in the neighborhood of $14,000 to $10,000 in addition to the 51,800 already spent on repairs. -17- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 �. I asked Gary Pringle to reviet, this matter and give his opinion prior to the January 12 meeting. I met with Gary Pringle on the afternoon of Thursday, January 8. Gary -s opinion was that after weighing the significant problems in pursuing this case, the significant expense of calling expert witnesses from equipment and manufacturers, and the fact that one of the companies was no longer in business, and the chance of success make it not worth pursuing formally in court. Gary -s recommendations are to bite the bullet, so to speak, and make the necessary repairs to our sludge truck. He did indicate that we could forward a letter to the International dealer and possibly on to International Harvester in an attempt to recover some damage3. If the dealer or International Harvester realized their error in this matter, they may be willing to contribute toward the replacement of the truck axle. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to repair and replace the Sludge truck axle at City's expense and not to pursue a court case but to request some assistance from the International dealership as outlined by Gary Pringle. 2. The second alternative would be to authorize Gary Pringle to commence normal procedures and follow with a suit, if necessary, D to attempt to recover our damages. This does not appear to be practical, as Gary has indicated it may lead to a higher expense than replacing the axle ourselves. 3. The third alternative would be to do nothing. This does not appear to be practical, as the sludge truck is needed in the spring. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that we proceed with the purchase of the planetary rear axle from Ag -Cham, estimating the total cost of repairs to be botwoon $14,000 and 515,000. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of quote from Ag-Chom; Copy of the letter from Eaton Corporation; Copy of the spec shoot for the rear axle originally installed in the truck. -1s- SERVICE AND MFG. PLANT, INDUSTRIAL PARK, JACKSON. MINN. 56143 U.S.A. PHONE: 507/647.2690 4900 VIKING DRIVE. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55435 U S.A. PHONE: 612/635.2476 TELEX NO: 290630 ANS. BK: AGCHEM EDNA CABLE ADDRESS: AG-CHEM JACKSON, MINNESOTA 56143 _ _ November 5, 1986 1 I ag•chem Mr. John Simola EQUIPMENT CO. INC. *u City of Monticello 250 E. Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Dear Mr. Simola: Below is the quote you requested by telephone on October 31, 1986. The parts shown are those used by Ag-Chem Equipment Co., Inc., when mounting the John Deere axle on a 1604 Terra-Truck. I have included the axle, driveline com- ponents, carrier weldments for mounting the axle to the frame, and wheels. Any parts requried for installation in addition to those quoted, whether purchased or fabricated, will be at your expense. QTY. PART NO. DESCRIPTION EACH TOTAL 1 513911 Axle 9,226.00 9,226.00 1 403313 Carrier Weldment L.H. 473.62 473.62 1 403312 Carrier Weldment R.N. 473.62 473.62 8 560850 Bolt, 7/8" x 10" Cr. 5 6.90 55.20 8 605361 Nut, Hex Lock 4.31 34.48 1 304883 Driveline, Front 684.78 684.78 1 304884 Driveline, Rear 514.86 514.86 2 310770 Rim Assembly, Rear 905.63 1,811.26 2 600512 Valve, Tire 9.75 !9.50 2 600539 Adapter, Valve 2.30 4.60 2 600520 Cap, Valve .89 1.78 GRAND TOTAL $13,299.70 Since the above components are not being mounted on an Ag-Chem machine, Ag-Chem will not be responsible for fit, installation, or operation. Ag-Chem will not be responsible for warranty of any kind. Prices are net, payment terms are cash on delivery. Sincerely, AG-CHEM EQUIPMENT CO., INC. O"eixkz' - _ Howard De tchman Parte Administrator cc: Frank Brantman, Ron Sinn, Denny Hample Bonnie Cameron, Kim Anderson, Jim Sudbeck SERVICE AND MFG. PLANT, INDUSTRIAL PARK, JACKSON. MINN. 56143 U.S.A. PHONE: 507/647.2690 NANurAEUMS Or ALL -HYDRAULIC MULTI -USE JET FOR s SEVIER AR3 Cf :CH EA' IN CLEAnJIC LIQUIO WASTE REMOVAL T 1 AUXILIARY FIRE FIGHTIiIG 33 VERT CLEA'HNG A ALL•HYORI L;LIC TRUCK MOUNTED JACUUM INDUCTORS FOR It.00SiR,AL A',O cohm-IHCTAi .loo WASTE FFAtO.:d i ,I P I,: I A'.K SPECIALIZED EOUIPMAENT IUiLT TO YOUR 'FECIFICATIONS e t s LLUTION C0tiTR0L EQU"O ENT UI IA +H r: P O: SPILL RllulER9 _. SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL (.�7 DIV/ �.PAUL A. LAURENCE CO. .-`. IV/a, .^'..�a ANSMIT'TAL NO. /-7/-Z; _:�• W.W.T.P. A4ONTICELLO..' P. 0. BOX 61 U.S. RTE. 34 EAST -- GALVA. ILLINOIS 61-14 SPECIFICATION NO a Approved 0 Approved as Note, ar':",i...... t_ VERHOU PEARSON PHONE W9-932-'.'016 i- t. PEARSON August 3, 1981 Paul A. Laurence Company P.O. Box 1261 Minneapolis, Mid 55440 Attn: Mr. Warren Peterson/14r, druce Hanson Re: Mo,lticello Wastewater Treamnt Plant Section 1155E - Sludge Trucks O.S.M. Letter Dated July 22, 1931 Dear Sirs: Listed below is our reply to the above wentioned letter from Orr-Schelen-tiayeron and Associates, Inc. 4000 gallon unit 1. The 70 amp, alternator will be an original unit supplied by International Harvester. 2. lie will install the single hoist on the unit and paint both units with D.iPont Aaron. Plc.:.4 clarify rhethcr the City wants dual float level indicutcrs on Mott, units Or Just the 4000 gallon transporter. we will -Wo insull the hydraulic rear door on the transporter. 3. There was one incorrect t,:+ed on thn Irawin'1 we supplicJ. I hura corr(4 WJ th,S ueisut' OaL "'J the weight loading rc-Tins unch.ioUed. ^000 ntlIon unit 1.`W# have supplied ti,e en.Iinevein,J cokiarti'Wr of !nt.—national Harvester at their f„ctcry J Lopy .f the :; rciTicdticn,, on the rear axle that the City ±,lui,;s. Trey )law(, ayreod to *,%N change the existing rear n Ie to A rodel that exceeds all original specific_tiens. 1 I?v* enclesrd a SE,ec'`Tcatiun sheat on the Eaton t:,,del :5327 p_l,nctary LGu:,le reduction axle rated at 35.000 lb. capacity. wrTch I.H. will install at their factory. tt al Paul A. Laurence Co. Page -2- 2. The front standoff assembly we have proposed clearly meets the specifications, which were not written with specific detail as to what exactly constitutes "reinforced for field use". lie have proposed our standard design. which we have used for approximately ten years and have not had one instance of failure in that area. Some of our competitors models do not even use an axle stand brace, so we are obviously a leader in this field, in regard to state of the art design. I also would remind the City that the braces are fully warranted by I.M.E., Inc. 3. The code number on the line sheet for the "CC" 'Tame is 02472. Doth units are equipped with tha double "CC" reinfcr:ed frame. Please see enclosed sheet. Orce again, I sincerely hone that this information will satisfy all interested parties. I ttould again invite representatives of O.S.M., the City of Monticello, as well as Paul A. Laurence Co., to inspect our factory and deal personally with our engineering staff, if they have questions or need additional information on our equipment. I feel that we are perhaps being treated unfairly in that certain things which our competition stresses are certainly not the only way to build an applicator unit, and perhaps not even the best way to build the unit. I await your comments. CLD: kh Enclosures Regards, `I (',t.,w� t:�� t L � •i.:, -tea•, Clayton L. Dickerson ..:a,tonO Single Drive Axles Ants, III Gm Gear "is WIA N ide Modelf'rytim Obs.) (11 4 018. 11 4.•M. Sham Awl* Ratios 0 13101w tool: 4.50.5.14, S.83, 8.37 S 15101 Red. 404 141. bodydia. 15,000 35AW • -'12- �. 4" j... -. 4 16 splines 4 3310.01 I POR3) V do 14Y., 1.750' dia. 6 34. 7.16.8.12.8 81 16121 Single Ml)(3- 62-000 424 15' 4 02.4." 5.57.6.14. G.w. /.17 body d12. G. M111 17,500 % 1!2!�•• 2-.. Spoll 0 45.0w10 splines C.50,0.04.7.17./3.97 163" POR 1.1375* dia. 6 34.6-78.7.75. 6 9 W !1.97 17101 Single Rao. 507 IV 3/0,4.}t• 4,30.. 1.58.4bd. 5.29.5.5,' 17121 Single Red\ sit 16%, 557. 8.14.6 W. 7.17 `17M' --•• Goo Is. body dia. 16 tiplines :, 7C. 5 MSG% 4,c-, q1-6 6i. !.25 7.--:. 174h 2 -Sped 585. _ 161,,. . 1 98D• tlia 5 57. ?M. 6 173DI P OR 571 61 Tow, I, 5.61. 5.91. 6.21. 845. 7.:1-.7.c0 17321 -, POR Set GO. 6 30. 3 86.9 77 1111101 Single Red' \rill 11061111 310,43 I0121 • Single Rod 6 .50. 7.17 1870'1' 2-Spoed 635 3 FO.'5.05, 4.11/3.61.4.33/5.01, 4 56/0 -1 65p00 - 4 MGM, 5.20%7 21.5.571,li 111221 - 2-Spoed GAS 5.5717.60.6.14ta.39 18701 ' POR 631 Ir 5 05, 5.61, GAI. 6.21, G,65, 7.ca 22.000- 1 m POR 441 1 GW' Pody dia. 7 (A. 11,35.8 55. 9.77 Red. N/A I&#plines 17" 3 70.3.90,4,11, 4.33.4 62,4 83.5 20.5 57, 22121(51 Single 2.1 017650.7.17 •3MI5,32:4.111561. ' . 4 3315 91,4 f,711J, 31 22221(5)• i-Spead N/A`'� 1.- 4.11816 G5. 57317 21.5,5717 0.6 1. X41, • •65011180,7.171977 22221(5) Pon WA 17, Abe. 9.77 23121 5,44 Rod. 705 to, 3,0.3 90, 4 Ed. 5.4J. 23&21(4) Single Red. 65,000 772 Ir 0 , 7,667 23,000 2-5,med 751 ir 3;01-5,04.4111 (2) tri:- 4M/S64.5.4Jfq71).GI Kl tl. MIFIC: V= Pon 756 tr b -Ay dia, 501,560 5 M. fl P16 f4,7: 1 (1 If yam%I29121 !.Ingle HBO. Us 1 Ir 22wilnes 2 3M" d -s. 3 ILI, 393. 4 t 1. L,4j, 2(4) Single Mod. " 712 OIA Ir G 17. 6 U -S"Peeli . 781 Is, /20 -110000 4 'j. m21 Wc-njI 77 0 it 5,; 1, . f 1. -a. ---b- 35 ODD 36327 Pon 00.010 1111111 body dia. 30 splinen Model Code: First two d.giiii-1108 Wits; 411144110.1-iii.to too; launh and Lith diot- qe.a dwnsivis mo dts.Cn;e,cJ Color Code: single Riaiss�upt r sm, "I I ila;J"y Pti!ductiom 9. Notes, 111 an '%"! = 4wace fiwww FA A.8 I.M. M. M I11,11 =' a 4'801.80= I".1 b. 0 c Seat I 11, M. " III Immrwil I&, - .1 el ."c M. .1. 11 .-V Tel'. whwo kill" VwV w1h "O"C&Iqp.s WN, .9fta, Ambl&lPs "WIM, 11 "; 1.21 fir b... I. I S, t, Eaton A-4 fine"" APP -041 01 on TWAII" -III, , S.A.4a4. 811111 L4 .%ffA,WAII1t1 171 PON -MAPA" Dow" limewlis" LOSS L.s, a. @ 2ha"s A.-dow wo M" litsition thlimmItel A's. Cie. lu. I41,es 2 to 3 ?-kin 5n Eaton Eaton Corporation Axles a Brakes Ade 8 Brake Division P.O. Bo. 4008 Kalamazoo. M1cn igen 49003 (616) 342-3018 V November 4, 1986 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245 Tn1m 224707 Tmocop.m 10181 742-3019 Smop,ng 400181. 13190 E. k4+cmgan Avenue. Galesburg, mic*ngm 4203r / j ATTN: Mr. John Simwla Public works Director Fi eN Dear Mr. Simola: I truly regret the problem encountered with your sludge injection vehicle and in particular the Eaton model 35327 axle. Unfortunately, however, I am not really surprised since similar problems have not been uncommon in machines equipped with these "Hi -Flotation" tires and mid range diesel engines. Fertilizer spreaders that surface spread as opposed to injecting have also experienced problems, not, however, at such low hours. The Injector bar just accelerates the failure. Because of the large loaded radius of these tires and the draw bar pull of the injectors, the axle must work considerably harder and over a longer period of time to put the required tractive effort to the ground. This duty cycle is extreme when compared to a typical truck application. Realizing that our axles were finding their way Into this type of service with less than satisfactory results, a letter was sent to the major vehicle manufacturers stating that Eaton did not approve of using their axles In these machines. This was in an effort to 'Head Off' similar situations before they materialized. unfortunately, when many spreader manufactures order a Cha nils, its ordered with standard tires and wheel equipment that is later removed for the large flotation variety. My only recommendation would be to retrofit your machine with e planetary type hub reduction axle that has the ground load as well as pul 11nD capacity to meet your requirements. Eaton's only offerings in this type axle would not be will suited for truck installation since they were designed around the logging Tn1m 224707 Tmocop.m 10181 742-3019 Smop,ng 400181. 13190 E. k4+cmgan Avenue. Galesburg, mic*ngm 4203r / j T' Mr. Simola ti Page 2 Novmeber 4, 1986 and earth moving industry. You might try contacting Rockwell International, Inc. in Troy, Michigan. They have a general help line and hopefully can provide a suitable solution. This number is 1-800-535-5560. I'm sorry that I cannot be more optimistic in my assessment of your problem but I do believe that this axle is under capacity in this service. If you have any questions or if I can be of further service, please contact me at (616)342-3208. Sincerely William Ecklund Applications Engineer WAE/kls (5137e) I Council Agenda - 1/12/87 12. Consideration, Discunni on, and Response to a Lettor Submitted by Stuart Hoglund Concerning a Letter and Drainage Recommendation from OSM. (T.E.1 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The attached letter from Stuart Hoglund is addressed to the Mayor and members of the City Council, so I am assuming you all received a copy of the letter. I received a carbon copy on Tuesday, January 6. My plan was to contact John Badalich to discuss this further, but on Tuesday afternoon Mayor Grimsmo requested that I place this item on the agenda so that the Council may respond directly to Mr. Hoglund. I have advised Mr. Badalich that this will be an agenda Item, and we discussed the matter briefly. Neither John nor I could really get a feel for what is being proposed in the letter. As Consulting Engineer, OSM reviews plans that are submitted to the City in order to protect the City's interest. It occurred to John and I that if there is a more feasible or practical solution to the drainage problem, the burden of designing that system would be on the developers. City staff and consultants are here merely to respond to proposals, not to actually design proposals for private development concerns. It is my understanding that John Badalich will like to address the broader issue of storm drainage south of I-90, as long as this issue has come to the forefront. Not really knowing what the heart of the issue is or what is intended, there are no alternative actions nor staff recommendation being presented. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the information received from Stuart Hoglund. -19- 1. lanuany 2, 1987 Nono,abte Mayon 06 Mon.tice.tLo, Memben6 o6 City Council, I was in the p4ox.4s o6 eetting a paneet o6 Land to Steve Upgnen and Lionel Kutt, P.O. Box 1842. St. Ctoud, MN., bon developing into an eight to twelve unit apan.tment bui.tding complex. (See attached.) In attempting to get city appnovat bon eu46ace water drainage, my pno4pect6 were etunned by a Letter 6nom the engineering 6ilw Leta.Zned by the City o6 Mon icetto. (See copy o6 eetten attached.) Thein necomendation to rai,6e the whole paAcee 24 beet ted to cancellation o6 the punchaee agneemen.t and con4equentty the whole pno- C� ject. ♦ 1 would tike to know i6 there may be a more 6eaeibte on prac scat eotu.tion to tlu,e drainage and poeeibty get the project back into happening. Sincerely, �Sutant Nogeund Route 03, Box 15 1/ Mon.ticetto, MN 55362 cc* Steve Upgnen Li.onet Ku.tt Realty Wo -ltd, Maxwell enctoeunee a 0 ZONING MAP SCALE: 10 900' 93 IoM 62 9! 11. µM• ��.� I t � e Z2 .i Af. 93 LMet* I 93 ► C . 0 Ite utdersigted herieby armee that a Rarhase Agreement dated as :elating to prape:ty at I l,./ e., lr; •.i' Is hereby cancelled ad trzztnated. 7te earnest money (Qteck or Ncts) is,-,((- =mection vI& said ageemeit is to be r. -i.,. . <.: r and the b4w(e) ralease(e) all ruts in the promises, 'ate seller(a) an to have no Sather obligation to sell tiatder said agmena►t nor the &qpsr(e) to pt mhwe. eke, •� zz r yid (BLvYe!. Seller and their epmaee and agent moat •W Foam apptared by MUvwap•lis Beard of Realtors. -r• / E.., ORR-SCHEIEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES. INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors December 11. 1966 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Attn: Mr. Gary Anderson Building Official Re: General Concept Plan Proposed Apartment Complex on Cedar Street Monticello, Minnesota Dear Gary: The concept plan for the proposed apartment complex on Hoglund Property east of Cedar Street has been reviewed and we offer the following comments. Our review centers on the drainage and utility requirements for the 8 acre site. No comments are being made regarding zoning and other subdivision• regulations. I believe some basic decisions will have to be made at this time as to the character of the development along the T.H. 25 corridor and on adjacent Cedar Street. Is this area going to continue to be developed rural in nature or are we going to start developing urban roadways? It seems that all development south of the interstate except for Meadow Oak has been developed with rural roadways indluding ditches and no storm sewer. The general concept plan now before us for the Hoglund/Upgren parcel contem- plates an apartment complex consisting of 8 buildings with 12 units each on 8 acres of now agricultural land. The stormwater runoff from this area will be substantially increased. The concept plan as presented shows long distances of surface runoff throughout and from the property ending up in a ditch on the east side of Cedar Street. it appears that curb and gutter will be placed in the roadways within the development area that will direct the runoff a long distance to this ditch. From this ditch, the runoff is landlocked as no posi- tive drainage currently exists. The only outlet available would be northerly at the intersection of C.R. 117 and Cedar Street to a culvert. This culvert under Cedar Street outlets to the west to a ditch along the south side of C.R. 117 to its intersection with T.M. 25. At T.H. 25, a culvert under C.R. 117 carries the drainage north to a ditch west of McDonelds to another ditch and culvert east of T.N. 25 and under the On ramp to 1-94 (sestbound). At this point. the entire I-94 and T.H. 25 ere& is a complexity of culverts finally draining north to the so called Pine Street storm sewer, a 24" RCP at the Off ramp of I-94 (westbound) at T.M. 25. This storm sever then ties into the Walnut Street storm sewer river outlet at 5th Street. The 24" Pine Street storm sewer was not designed to carry the runoff from the ? area 1n Question at the time 1-94 was constructed in 1973/1974. This was veri- W fled in 1975 when we developed the Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan for the City of Monticello. Reference to this pian shows that the property in question is in Drainage District V and the drainage outlet for District V is the wetland 2021 East Hennepin Avenue - Suite 238 - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 612/331- 8660 Page Two Mr. Gary Anderson December 11. 1986 area west of T.M. 25 at Dundas Road extended. This wetland area has been brought up from time to time during the past few years. i believe it may be appropristo at this time to consider acquisition of this wetland area for pending and holding; purposes in light of development as is now occurring in the area and annexation in the limelight. As to the development at hand. the following will need to be considered. First of all the entire property is and proposes to be at an elevation below Cedar Street which to me will create drainage problems. For example. the south entrance as shown is 2.5 feet lower than the grade of Cedar Street. It would be my recommendation to raise the entire parcel of land above Cedar Street so as to accommodate drainage and the internal roadways so that they will enter in on Cedar Street at the existing grade of the street. An internal storm sewer system should be designed to eliminate long travel distance in carrying and conveying runoff on urban streets. The internal storm serer system should be so designed to carry the runoff to a temporary storm water holding pond on or near the apartment site. As previously noted above. because of the limited outlet available the holding or detention pond will serve in the interim until the City decides as to the total drainage area plan also noted above. The pond could then be eliminated and the internal storm serer system tied into the City system. As to the layout of the sanitary sewer and watermain, these utilities appear adequate and can be developed into final plans and specifications. The Concept plan in general is well laid out except that further consideration must be given to the overall drainage and the elevation of the site in general. If you have any questions. please give me a call. Yours very truly. ORR-SCNELEN-NAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES. INC. John P. Badaiich. P.E. City Engineer JPB:Mlj cc: Robert F. Kotsmith. Williamson-Kotsmith. inc. John Simola. City of Monticello H Council Agenda - 1/12/87 r. 13. Consideration of Entering a 1987 Maintenance Agreement with Wright County Highway Department. W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Each year the Public Works Department performs snow and ice removal and limited patch and crack sealing, etc., on certain County State Aid Highways within the city. In an agreement with Wright County, the County reimburses the City each year for those services based upon the actual County coats of maintaining its own highway system the previous year. Payments to the City are based upon a per mile cost for each type of maintenance. Those highways maintained by the City are primarily CSAH 39 on Elm Street, CSAR 75 from Willow Street east to the Riverroad Plaza, and CSAH 58 and 59 which consists of portions of walnut Street, Locust Street, and Fourth Street. The amounts paid to the City by the County are as follows: 1983 $5,402.60 1984 $4,265.07 1985 $5,433.19 1986 $4,717.64 iB. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 11 1. The first alternative would be to approve the maintenance agreement with Wright County as proposed. 2. The second alternative would be to not maintain those portions of the highways as outlined in the maintenance agreement. I believe this would result in a lower level of sorvice to the community and would not be in our best interests. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council approve the maintenance agreement as enclosed and as outlined in alternative 01. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the maintenance agreement. -20- MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the Cityof Monticello hereinafter referred to as the 'City' and the County of Wright hereinafter referred to as the 'County'. WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes, permits the County to designate certain roads and streets within the City as County State Aid Highways, and WHEREAS, the City has Concurred in the designation of the County State Aid Highway within Its limits as identified in County Board's resolutions of August 28, October B, November 5, December 3, December 27, 1957 and January 7, 1958, and WHEREAS, it is deemed to the best interest of all parties that the duties and responsibilities of both the City and the County as to maintenance on Bald County State Aid Highways to be clearly defined, NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard to said County State Aid Highway maintenance: That the City will be responsible for routine maintenance on the following highways. A. CSAR 39 - From City Pub. Works Bldg. to W. Jct of CSAR 75 0.32 ml B. CSAR Se - From T.R. 25 to CSAH 75 0.465 mi C. CSAB 59 - From Walnut Street to CSAR 75 0.234 m1 D. CSAH 75 - From Willow Street to E. Jet. of CSAH 39 3.74 ml (Includes four lane portion.) TOTAL T� mT That the routine maintenance shall consist of the following for the above listed sections. A. (CSAH 39) - 254 of the snow and Ice removal B. a C. (CSAR 58 a 59) - Patching, crack -sealing, drainage maintenance, snow and ice remove!, end tree trimming a brush removal. D. (CSAH 75) - Snow end Ice removal That when th• City deems it desirable to remove snow by hauling, It shall do so st lta own sips ne*. That the County will be responsible for all other maintenance . That In December of 1987 , the City shall receive payment from the County for their work.? FST -amount shall be based on the 19 86 average annual cost per mile for routine maintenance on Municipal CounFy State Aid BIghways. The average annual cost per mile will reflect only those costs essoelsto6 with the areae of routine maintenance for which the City is responsible. ADOPTEDs , 19 ATTESTS Mayor City Ciera CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the shows is a true and correct Copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council of meld City on , 19_ City Clerk APPROVED AND ACCEPTEDS Nem* of City COUNTY OF 3 Chairman or the soar• ATTESTS County coordinator G133) r MAP OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY POP.StII "'., C1.607 .--Z Council Agenda - 1/12/87 i� 14. Consideration of Adopting the 1987 Sewer Rate Schedule. O.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Operation and maintenance expenses for 1985 at the Wastewater Treatment Plant lab and collection system totaled $268,065. For 1986, the rates were not increased. The total operation and maintenance expenses for 1986 are estimated to total $302,590. This is approximately $7,103 over the revenues expected for 1986. Because of small surpluses from past years, however, we expect to have an overall surplus of $2,085 going into 1987. The 1987 Budget for plant, lab and collection system is $311,050. Of this amount, 5265,000 is a contract with Professional Services Group. The 1987 Budget represents a 2.6 percent overall increase in 0 6 M costa. The collection system saw an increase of 12.8 percent, while the plant and lab increased 1.4 percent over 1986. The overall affect of these two percentages when calculated together is 2.8 percent. Excluding hookup fees, interest, and depreciation, we expect revenues, when calculated at the 1986 rates, to be short of expenses by $8,015 for 1987. We, therefore, feel a small increase is in order, not only to make up the surplus, but also to restructure our rate system so as to correctly reflect the actual cost for each segment of the wastowater treatment ouch as flow. SODS, and total suspended Bolide. Please refer to the sewer rate worksheet. As can be seen on the worksheet, the proposed sewer rate• for 1987 are as follows: Minimum Billing for first 500 cu ft: S 10.00 Industrial Rata Flow: $0.805 per 100 cu ft BOD: $0.093 per pound TSS: $0.185 per pound Combined Residential. Commercial, and Institutional Rate $1.33 par 100 cu ft This rate will make up for our expected shortage in revenue and results in an approximate increase of 3.1 percent to the majority of our users. In addition to the slight rate increase for 1987, the staff wishes to use the sewer hookup charges to sot up a sewer improvement fund. This money, as outlined by City Ordinanco, would be used for major improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Plant collection system and related equipment. A definition of a major or capital improvement could ba as follows: Any oxponditures for 1) the purchase of new facility or system items or equipment that costs more than 82.000, or 2) major repairs which significantly alter or extend equipment or facility or system service life and costs more than $2,000, or -21- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 3) major expenditures that aro planned, non -routine, and are not applicable to the general operation and maintenance budget. This definition is similar to the one found in the Professional Services Group contract. The hookups for 1987 are expected to generate in excess of $15,000. One major or capital repair for 1987 may be the complete replacement and modification of the sludge truck applicator rear axle, which could cost in the area of $15,000 to $18,000. This fund would cover this expenditure and would not require ad valorem taxes. As time goes on, this fund could be used for many items including overeizing for new customers, which is often paid for by old customers through ad valorem taxes. In addition to setting up this fund, staff is considering increasing the hookup chargee to more realistic figures. This is discussed in another agenda item. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to approve the rate increase as proposed and to authorize the hookup revenue to be transferred to a sewer improvement fund. 2. Alternative number two would be not to increase rates. This does not appear to be in the beet interests of the City of Monticallo and could lead to unfair chargee for different user classes. 3. Alternative number three would be to increase the sewer rates as proposed but not to allow the transfer of hookup chargee to a sewer improvement fund. This does not appear to be in the beet interests of the City, as it would again put the burden of capital expenditures and/or extensions back on the existing users rather than the now users. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the Council authorize the rate increase and sower improvement fund as outlined in Alternative 11. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Sower Rate worksheet for 1987; 1987 Sewer Rate Data; 1987 sewer Rate Increase Effect Table. -22- 3 H SEWER RATE WORKSHEET 1987 I. 1987 Budget for Operation 6 Maintenance. 1. Collection System S 42,850 13.8% Total 2. Plant 6 Lab 268,200 86.2% Total $311,050 3. Credits/Debits: 1987 Special Revenues S 5,950-- 1983-1986 Excess Revenue Over Operation 6 Maintenance fest.) S 2,085 TOTAL CREDITS S 6,035 4. User Fees Required for 1987: $311,050 0 6 M 1987 Budget- - 8,035 Credits $303,015 User Fees Reg. for 1987 A. Collection System 13.8% of $303,015 - S 41,816 B. Plant 6 Lab 86.2% of $303,015 - 5261,199 II. Unit Coats I. Flow - 100% Col. Sys. Coat + 40% Plant 6 Lab Costs: 100% of S 41,816 - S 41,816 40% of $261,199 - $104,480 TOTAL FLOW COSTS S146,296 Estimated Billable Flow for 1987 - 136 Million Gallons or 18,181,818 cu ft Coat - $146,296 divided by 181,818 - $0.805 per 100 cu ft 2. BOD - 30% Plant 6 Lab Costs 30% of $261,199 - 578,360 1987 Estimated Total Pounds of BOD - 846,400 lb. $78,360 divided by 846,400 Lb. - 3.093/pound 3. TSS - 30% Plant 6 Lab Coats 30% of $261,199 - 578,360 1987 Estimated Total Pounds of Suspended Solids - 424,170 lb. $78,360 divided by 424,170 Lb. - 50.185/pound 111. Industrial Loadings Estimate 1987 Wrightco 17.8 MG 500,000# 150,000# NSP 3.0 MG 10,0001 5,0000 Bondhus Tool 0.5 MG 2500 1704 TOTALS 21.3 MG 510,2506 155,1700 Costs: 21.3 MG O $0.805/100 cu ft - 522,411 510,250 lb. 0 5.093/pound - $47,453 155,170 lb. 0 8.189/pound - 528,706 TOTAL SM 0 Sewer Rate worksheet 1987 Page 2 IR, IV. Residential, Commercial 6 Institutional Loadings Estimate for 1987. 4/' Rate Res., com. , 6 Inst. NOTES: •1987 Budget loss $5,550 dep.-or-q. assets. -•1987 Budget less 83.800 inap. foes 6 int. income 6 spacial assessments. H FLOW: Total Billable Flow All Users 136.0 MG Less Est. Industrial Flaw 21.3 MG - Res., Com., S Inst. Flow 1 14. 7 MG 114.7 MG X .805/100 cu ft - $123,440 BOD: Total BOD - 846,400 Less Est. Ind. 800 - $10,250 - Res., Com. 6 336,150 Inst. SOD 336,150 lb. X 50.093 - $31,262 TSS: Total TSS - 424,170 Lase Est. Ind. TSS - 155,170 - Ree., Com., 6 269,000 Inst. TSS 269,000 lb. X 5.185 - $49,765 TOTAL RES., CON., S INST. COSTS: $204,467 RATE: $204.467 divided by 114.7 MG (Total Res., Com., 6 Inst. Flow) or 153,343/100 cu ft - 1.33 per 100 cu ft RATE COMPARISON Change Over 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Change 5 Years Ago Flow $0.680/100 cu ft $0.641 $0.688 $0.688 0.805 Up 17.0% Up 18.4% BOD .133/pound 0.072 0.095 0.095 0.093 Down 2.1% Down 30.1% TSS .183/pound 0.160 0.185 0.185 0.185 No Change Up 1.1% Combined 1.28/100 cu ft 1.25 1.29 1.29 1.33 Up 3.1% Up 3.9% Rate Res., com. , 6 Inst. NOTES: •1987 Budget loss $5,550 dep.-or-q. assets. -•1987 Budget less 83.800 inap. foes 6 int. income 6 spacial assessments. H 1987 SEWER RATE DATA �9 BODS 1. 1986 Year End Estimate: Industrial Expenses 510,250# Plant 6 Lab Oper. Exp. $261,890 Collection System Oper. Exp. 36,500 SUBTOTAL $298,390 Add One: Vehicle, House 6 S 3,000 Boiler Ins. TOTALS Tax. Lindberg House 1,200 TOTAL O 6 M $302,590 Revenue based User Fees 5290,000 Permits 843 Other 294 Rent 6,350 TOTAL REVENUE $295,687 A. Short Fall (7,103) B. Surplus from 83-85 9,188 EXPECTED SURPLUS (B - A) S 2,085 ,; 2. 1987 Estimated Flows 6 Loadings: 3. Budget for 1987: Plant 6 Lab 5268,200•• Collection System 42,850 TOTAL $311.050 This is a 2.8% increase in O 6 M cost for 1987. The collection system saw an increase of 12.8%, while the plant and lab increased 1.4%. The overall effect was 2.8% when calculated overall. 4. For 1987 the revenue from hookups will go to a special fund. In addition, project inspection fees, administrative fees, and interest income will not be considered as user fees. ••NOTE: Does not include 15,550 depreciation-aoquirel assets. 0 Billable Flow BODS TSS Industrial 21.3 MG 510,250# 155,1700 Residential 76.4 MG 186,150#• 219,000# Commercial 6 Inst. 40.3 MG 150,000# 50,0004 TOTALS 136.0 MG 846,4000 424,1700 •NOTE: Population equivalent .171 BODS/day 6 .201 TSS/day per person based on population of 3,000. 3. Budget for 1987: Plant 6 Lab 5268,200•• Collection System 42,850 TOTAL $311.050 This is a 2.8% increase in O 6 M cost for 1987. The collection system saw an increase of 12.8%, while the plant and lab increased 1.4%. The overall effect was 2.8% when calculated overall. 4. For 1987 the revenue from hookups will go to a special fund. In addition, project inspection fees, administrative fees, and interest income will not be considered as user fees. ••NOTE: Does not include 15,550 depreciation-aoquirel assets. 0 1987 SEWER RATE INCREASE EFFECT C Average 1986 1987 Quarterly Average Average Usage Quarter Quarter Increase Small Business (620 cu ft) $10.00 $10.00 S 0.00 Older Couple (520 cu ft) 11.29 11.33 0.04 Family of 5 (2,820 cu ft) 40.96 41.92 0.96 Stella -a Cafe (9,575 cu ft) 127.39 131.03 3.64 7 stall car wash (27,425 cu ft) 358.30 369.10 10.80 6 station 6 store Laundry (46,805 cu ft) 607.42 625.94 18.52 Very Large Restaurant 472,045 cu ft) 933.64 960.95 27.31 Very Large Industry (578,209 cu ft) 22,787.13 23,213.05 425.92 C Council Agenda - 1/12/87 n 'a 15. Consideration of Adoptinq the 1987 water Rate Schedule. W.S. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: During 1979 the City increased the water rates approximately 30-356 and added a cheap water rate after usage of 75,000 cu ft. The 1980 new rate was 35e per 100 cu ft for the first 4,000 cu ft; from 4,000 to 75,000 it was 18e per 100 cu ft; and after 75,000 it was 10.5e per 100 cu ft. The minimum at that time was based upon 1,000 cu ft and was S6. The rates were increased at that time to slightly curb the deficits which had appeared in the water funds for many years. In 1982 deficits continued with the only change being that the $6 minimum billing was based on 500 cu ft rather than 1,000. The deficits over the many years have been made up through ad valorem taxes rather than use collection. For 1987, in an effort to keep a lid on taxes, the staff prepared a water budget for this enterprise fund which was self supporting through user fees and did not place additional tax burdens on Monticello residents. The logic used in the past for assisting the water department with ad valorem taxes was tied to the tax base of NSP. Thera are disparities, however, within a system such as a utility or enterprise fund where the coats are spread to non-users. In the past, 756 of that coat for the ad valorem taxes had been spread to NSP. The remaining costs, however, were spread to other low or non-users in the City of Monticello. One example would be an older couple living at home in an upper valued home with little water usage. Their property taxes would increase to pay for and support and oubsidizo in part the usage of another. Another example would be an office complex or small business with, again, little usage. Those businesses would pay a higher share of the disparity. Another example may be the individuals washing clothes at home, but yet having to support the water usage for the local laundromat. Based upon the 1987 budget, excluding $5,000 in hookup fees which staff proposes to use to oat up a water improvement fund much like that in the sower fund, the revenues are short for 1987 by $34,050. This would require a significant increase in overall revenue to the tune of 536 overall. Knowing for several years that our water rates were extremely low and we had been subsidizing the water department with ad valorem taxon, I made a check of several nearby communities to determine other water rates. The communities I chocked were Buffalo, Elk River, and Big Lake. These throe communities have water rates two to six times that of the City of Monticello. while thorn was a significant disparity at the upper and, the greatest disparity was at the lower and of the declining scale. The City of Big Lake is over two times our rate. The City of Buffalo is four times our rate. And the City of Elk River is six times our rate. After examining those rates carefully, it bocamo apparent that the average rate of !� drop on a declining scale was 606 for Big Lake and Buffalo. Elk 1j River had no such drop and also has demand charges which are higher yet. -23- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 VSwed upon the above information, I calculated a new rate and three step scale which would bring our water rates more in line but yet cheaper than any other community and would raise the required revenue for the 1987 Budget. The following is a table of those rates and the 1987 proposed rate. 1986 WATER RATES --PROPOSED 1987 WATER RATES (Price per 100 cu ft) Proposed Elk Sig Current 1987 % Buffalo River Lake Monticello Monticello Increase Base Rate 51.03 $0.80 $0.60 $0.35 $0.50 62.9% Step 1 0.49 0.62 0.53 0.18 0.30 66.7% @ 4,011 cu ft @ 4,011 @ 1,337 @ 4,001 @ 4,001 Stop 2 0.44 0.62 0.38 0.105 0.20 90.5% @ 16,043 cu ft @ 4,011 @ 2,674 @ 75,000 @ 75,000 Step 3 --- --- 0.30 --- @ 4,011 Stop 4 --- --- 0.23 --- @ 5,348 As can be seen by the above table, the base rate increases about 42.9%, while the bottom scale increases about 90.5%. This stele effects the heaviest users most for the simple reason those users have gained the most over the past years by the disparity. The following table shows the affect on a wide variety of users within the City of Monticello. 1987 WATER RATE INCREASE EFFECT Average Average Average Increase Quarterly Quarter Quarter par Usage 1986 1987 22arter Small Business 420 cu ft S 6.00 S 6.00 $ 0.00 Older Couple 790 cu ft 7.05 8.00 0.95 Family of 5 2,690 cu ft 13.70 17.00 3.30 Stolla'e Cato 9,575 cu ft 28.13 40.30 12.17 7 stall car wash 27,425 cu ft 50.55 94.00 43.45 6 station 6 store SLaundry 46,505 cu ft 95.47 152.20 56.73 Very Large (72,045 cu ft) 140.65 227.50 86.85 Restaurant Large Industry (1,135,050 cu ft.) 1,259.05 2,356.50 1,097.45 I 3 Council Agenda - 1/12/87 As can be seen by the above table, there is a very minor effect for single family residents. In addition, since we are not changing the minimum rate, many small users and small businesses will see no increase whatsoever. It is difficult to say what effect the water system improvement will have on the future water rates in Monticello. Currently, we are struggling with the methodology for which to finance the new system. If we are able to finance the system without the use of revenue bonds, I would not expect to see a significant rate change with the future improvements. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative 11 would be to authorize the now rate structure of a descending scale of 506, 304, and 20C using the same minimum of $6. In addition, allow the transfer of $5,000 (the hookup fees) to a water improvement fund. 2. Alternative 12 would be to authorize the rate increase as proposed but not transfer the hookup fees to a water improvement fund. 3. Alternative 13 would be to continue to use ad valorem taxes to subsidize the water fund to whatever degree the Council feels appropriate. For 1987, we could remove the required amount from the capital outlay fund or some other fund, and in 1988 raise property taxes the required amount. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff prepared a water rate structure which generates the revenue required for the approved 1987 budget for the water fund. The rate structure is fair to all user classes, aligned somewhat with other communities, yet still cheaper than any of our neighboring cities. The staff foals that the fund, which is an enterprise fund and should be run like a business, should also be self supporting. we also realize that we have a unique situation with NSP and our enormous tax base, and thorofore leave the final decision to the Council. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the 1987 water fund budget. -25- P FUND NO. 63 REVENUE 3074 Use Collection 3075 Rook -ups 6 Permits 3078 Penalties 3582 Interest 1601 Special Assessments 3583 Miscellaneous 4591 Inspection/Administration Fees TOTAL REVENUE WATER FUND 1987 $ 93,050.00 10,000.00 800.00 1,450.00 50.00 200.00 2,500.00 $108,050.00 5106,050.00 if♦.ffla.♦♦.f♦.••W•f•........•f♦..f......R••F• EXPENDITURES .............................. Personal Service 7511 Salaries, Regular S 33,950.00 7512 Overtime, Regular 1,800.00 7513 Salaries, Temporary 400.00 7515 PERA 1,450.00 7518 Insurance, Medical 6 Life 4,200.00 7519 Social Security 2,550.00 S 44,350.00 Supplies 7523 General Operating Supplies 21,000.00 7524 Motor Fuels 6 Lubricants 700.00 7525 Clothing Supplies 200.00 7526 Maintenance of Equipment Supplies 600.00 7527 Maintenance of Vehicle Supplies 100.00 7528 Maintenance of Building Supplies 100.00 S 22,700.00 Other Services and Charges 7536 Professional Services 2,500.00 7537 Communications 1,800.00 7538 Travol-Con ferance-School a 250.00 7542 utilities, Electrical 20,000.00 7544 Maintenance of Equipment 7,000.00 7541 Insurance (Non -personal) 8,000.00 7546 Duos, Memberships, Subscriptions 50.00 7555 Miscellaneous 1,400.00 3 41,300.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $108,050.00 -51� r; I Council Agenda - 1/12/87 16. Consideration of Adoptinq a Revised Schedule of Fees for Services Rendered Within the City. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello has numerous licenses, permits, and other fees that are charged for certain activities and permits annually. At the beginning of each year, the City staff reviews the license and fee schedules for all activities and recommends adjustments where applicable. Enclosed with the supplement you will find a listing of the most common licenses issued and fee schedules for such activities as conditional uses, variances, subdivision fees, along with sewer and water permits and hookups, etc. I will briefly describe the general categories and our rationale for recommending increases if noted. The first general category is liquor and beer licenses, and only minor changes are recommended for a few of the license fees. The major on -sale liquor licenses remain the same, and some of the fees such as club liquor licenses are set by statute. The fee schedule recommended for items such as conditional use permits, variances, rezoning requests, and subdivision applications show increases over our previous schedule, as we believe our previous rates were notcovering actual expenses incurred by the City and staff. Most conditional use permits, along with variances and subdivision requests, etc., require review and staff time by the Administrator, Finance Director, along with the Public Works Director and Zoning Administrator. In reviewing the wages and benefits for just these four individuals, the City should recover over $98 per hour in wage cost from the applicant or developer to compensate the City for its time. Although each individual request varies, even the simplest request probably accounts for at least an hour of the staff's time. This has been reflected in the recommended fee by increasing conditional use permits and variances, along with rezoning and subdivision base fees. In regards to actual PUD -9 and plat subdivision requests, our old charge of $200 plus $10 per acro has never come close to covering the staff-@ time and the consulting fess incurred by the City. This is the primary reason for increasing the subdivision charge to $300 plus $100 per acre up to a plat size of 10 acres, and then reducing the deposit to S25 per acre for anything over 10 acres. It should be noted that the subdivision fee requirement, except for the $300, is a deposit by the developer to cover the City -s outside consulting expenses, and the developer would be billed for additional charges incurred by the City or refunded. It should also be noted that the majority of the fees listed on the schedule have not been adjusted for a number of years, and the fees now more closely reflect current cost and are competitive with other surrounding communities. -26- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 Another area of service charges which has been neglected for a number of years is the sever and water connection charges for all residential and commercial structures. Public Works Director, John Simola, has contacted some surrounding communities to get a feel for what they charge for water and sewer connections for new homes and businesses; and this information, along with past discussions with our City Engineer, has resulted in a new hookup schedule for water and Bever. For example, a single family home previously had a water hookup charge of $50 plus the cost of the meter, and it 18 recommended that this be increased to $300 plus meter cost. As far as the sever connection is concerned, a single family resident previously paid $100 as a hookup charge, and it is now also recommended that this fee be $300. All multiple family residential, including apartment buildings along with commercial and industrial uses, are determined by a chart previously adopted which reflected their water usage. Each type of business was broken down into a unit basis, and this charge would now be 5300 per unit versus $100 per unit previously. Another fee schedule change that has not occurred since 1982 is in the building permit category. The City is currently using the state recommended fee schedule of 1982. The City currently uses the 1982 schedule and also chargee a plan review on each building permit for multiple housing buildings containing four or more unite and all commercial and industrial buildings. The Building inspector has always done a plan review on single family and duplexes and tri-plexes, but theCity has not charged for this additional review. It Is recommended as part of tho new building permit foe schedule that a plan review charge be instituted for all one, two, and three unit single family buildings in addition to commercial and industrial permits. The now 1985 schedule of building permit fees would result in a $60,000 valued home increasing the permit approximately $145 ($313 versus $459). The plan review charge recommended for all single, duplex, and tri-plex building permits would help recover the cost of the time spent by the Building Inspector, as the plan reviews have to be done and are generally currently subsidized by the taxpayers rather than the buildare/developers who aro using the services. The recommended 1987 sower and water rates are listed on the fee schedule, which have boon addressed separately by the Public works Director in the previous two items on the agenda. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be a single motion to adopt the fee schedule for 1987 as recommended. 2. if the Council would fool that a particular license, foe, or permit should be adjusted, this could be noted and then the schedule adopted. 3. The third alternative could be to not adjust any of the fees as recommended. -27- ,. C. STAFF RECOYI-MNDATION: 0 Council Agenda - 1/12/87 City staff has spent considerable time reviewing the fees listed and feels that the increases recommended are necessary and fair and reflect the actual cost that should be passed along to the applicants/ developers, etc. It should be noted that in almost all cases, our new recommended fee schedule is still very competitive with surrounding communities and, in most cases, lower than other areas charge. The majority of the fees have not been adjusted for a number of years, and it is the staff -s intention to review all items annually. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed license and fee schedule with comparison to previous schedule; 1985 state recommended building permit fee schedule. -28- City of 4�icello y License and Fee Schedule Page 2 1987 Recommended Previous Gambling, Annual $ 50 per device S 50 per device Gambling, Single Occasion 20 per device 20 per device Bingo 75/yr. for more than 75/yr. for more 5 events than 5 events 20/yr. for 5 or less 20/yr. for 5 or less Traveling Shown 100/first day; 100/tat day; 50/day thereafter 50/day thereafter Pat License S 10 one time charge S 10 one time charge Dog Impoundment let occurrence 12.50 + 4.00/day 12.50 + 0.00/day 2nd occurrence 25.00 + 4.00/day 25.00 + e.00/day 3rd occurrence 35.00 + e.00/day 35.00 + 4.00/day Excavation Permit S 25 permit $ 10 permit Street Vacation 150 + expenses 50 + expenses Scavenger (septic tank pumping) 50 License Foe 50 License Fee 5 Dumping Charge Transient Merchant Daily fees, independent transient merchant S 50/day + 3.50 app. fee S 50/day + 3.50 app. fee Annual fees, private premise 75/yr. + 3.50 app. fee 75/yr. • 3.50 app. foe Daily fees. transient merchant operating under 10/day + 3.50 app. foo 10/day + 3.50 app. fee authority of annual permit Water shut-off. then turned on $ 20 + delinquency S 15 + delinquency water Connection Permit 20 Previously combined with newer water [lookup Charge - 1" lino 300 + material cont 50 + material coat 1%. 425 + material cost 80 + material coat 1%" 550 + material cost 150 + material coat 2" 700 + material coat 300 + material coat 3" 900 + material coot 500 + material cont a" 1,200 + material cost 750 + material coot 6" 1,500 + material coot 1,000 + material coat B• 2,000 + material coat 1,500 + material cost O ld' wine, On -solo Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale 3.2 Beer, On -sale 3.2 Boer, Off-eale Liquor, On -sale Liquor, Sunday Sales Liquor, Set-ups Liquor, Club (Veteran's Org.) membership 200 or loss 201 - 500 501 - 1000 1001 - 2000 2001 - 4000 over 4000 Moving Buildings Building Inspection (non -permit related) 14 CITY OF M7NTICELL0 LICENSE AND PEE SCHEDULE 1987 R Ocommr nded S 250 per year 450 per year 250 per year 75 per year 3,300 per year 100 (statutory limit) 250 per year $ 300 (statutory limit) 500 (statutory limit) 650 (statutory limit) 800 (statutory limit) 1,000 (statutory limit) 2,000 (statutory limit) S Conditional Use Permit Setback Variances All Other Variances Roroning Requoot (all necessary consulting expanses) Simple Subdivision plat Subdivisions 6 PUD's (bass) O 100 + expenses 30 for tot hour 15 par hour thereafter 125 + expenses 50 + expenses 125 + expenses 250 + expenses 125 + exponsee 300 + 100/acro up to 10 acres; 25 par acre after 10 acres + expenses if it exceeds what collected --if under. City will refund the excess of the per acro deposit. Previous S 205 per year 400 per year 245 per year 50 per year 3,300 per year 100 per year 250 per year S 300 500 650 800 1,000 2,000 S 75 + expenses 25 for let 2 hours 15 par hour thereafter 75 + expanses 25 + expenses 75 + expenses 75 + expenses 75 + expenses 200 + 510/acre + expenses City of Monticello License and Fee Schedule Page 3 1987 Recommended Previous Water Rates, 1987 - 0 - 500 cu ft $ 6.00 minimum $ 6.00 minimum 501 - 4000 cu ft .50 per 100 cu ft .35 per 100 cu ft 4001 - 75,000 cu ft .30 par 100 cu ft .I per 100 cu ft over 75,000 cu ft .20 per 100 cu ft .105 per 100 cu ft Sower Connection Permit $ 20 g 10 Sewer and water Combination Permit 30 Previously not available Sower Hookup Charge - Residential - Single Family 300 100 - All others per unit equivalent 300 100 Sower Rates, 1987 $10/first 500 cu ft $10/first 500 cu ft 1.33 per 100 cu ft 1.29 per 100 cu ft thereafter thereafter Building Permit roan 1987 "Sao attached Schedule" ------ (1985 Rates) a I % 931 57A7E /jerow,117eIVA'W SGA e d t, I e- TABLE NQ 3-A—BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE 51.00 to 5500.00 515.00 5501.00 to 52.000.00 515.00 for the first 5500.00 plus 52.00 for each additional 5100.00 or fraction thereof. to and including S2,000.00 52.001.00 to $25.000.00 S45.00 for the first S2.000.00 plus 59.00 for each addi- tional SI,000.OU or fraction thereof, to and including 525.000.00 525.001.00 to S50,000.00 S252.00 for the first 525.000.00 plus 56.50 for each additional S 1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 550,000.00 550.001.00 to SI00,000.00 5414.50 for the first 550.000.00 plus 54.50 for each additional SI,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 5100.000.00 5100.001.00 to 5500,000.00 5639.50 for the first $100,000.00 plus $3.50 for each additional S 1,000.00 or fraction thereof 5500.001.00 to S2039.50 for the first 5500.000.00 plus 53.00 for each S 1,000,000.00 additional S 1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1.000.000.00. S I ,000,001.00 and up 53539.50 for the first 51.000.000.00 plus 52.00 for each additional S I ,000.00 or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: I . Inspections outside of normal business hours .................. S30.D0 per hour* (minimum charge—(wo hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of j Section 305 (g) ......................................... 530.00 per hour* j 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically j indicated ..............................................530.00 per hour* (minimum charge—one-half hour) 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans .............................. S30.00 per hour* ( minimum charge—one-half hour) 'Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees it involved. 16 a. "FOR REFERENCE" 1986 HOOKUP CHARGES SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES F LJ •NOTE: Combined Rae. Charge Res. Sever 6 Water - $775 I Ree. Sever Res. Water Permit Elk River 5725 to $1.000 $300 + meter S12 ea. Big Lake •5387.50 •5387.50 + S25 combo. 5100 meter Buffalo $100 $100 + $70 meter $30.50 combo. + S3 per fixture Monticello $100 S 50 + $70 meter $10 combo. Existing (I unit) F LJ •NOTE: Combined Rae. Charge Res. Sever 6 Water - $775 I a, - CURRENT 1986 BUILDING PERMIT PEES OTHER COMMUNITIES City of Buffalo: 1982 Schedule + 65% Plan Review for all permits. City of Big Lake: 1982 Schedule (Plan Review charge only occasionally for commercial). City of Elk River: 1982 Schedule + 65% Plan Review charge for commercial and industrial and 25% Plan Review charge for all residential. Sherbume County: No Schedule --just $1.50 per $1.000 of valuation. Wright County: $200 fee for all residential and commercial. Council Agenda - 1/12/87 17. Consideration of Making Annual Appointments. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Minnesota Statutes require that at the first meeting of the now year certain appointments be made. Past practice has been to pass a single motion adopting all appointments at the end of discussion. Hence. Ism submitting to you a list of the required appointments and requesting that at the completion of discussion, a single motion be passed making the appointments. a. City Depositories This past year you designated four official depositories. They are Wright County State Bank, Security Federal Savings 6 Loan, First National Bank of Monticello, and First Bank of Minneapolis. In addition, under Minnesota Statute 239, you authorized the Chief Financial Officer to designate additional official depositories for the purpose of investment. Since financial institutions not within the City are depositories only for investment purposes, I believe it would be most efficient to simply name the three local institutions as official depositories, and let the authorization for the Chief Financial Officer to designate other depositories stand. Consequently, the official appointment of City depositories will name Wright County State Bank, Security Federal Savings 6 Loan, and Firat National Bank of Monticello. b. Official Newspaper - Monticello Times c. Health Officer Historically, Dr. Maus has served as the City Health Officer. The duties and service of the Health Officer have been limited. I suggest you simply renew the appointment of Dr. Maus. d. Acting Mayor Annually, one person of the Council must be stipulated to act as Mayor in the absence of the elected Mayor. This past year, the role has been filled by Fran Fair. a. Representatives to Other Multi -Jurisdictional Bodies These three appointments are simply a matter of selecting the City representative to serve on each of the following bodies: Community Education Advisory Board, Joint Fire Board, and the OAA Board. f. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Annually, one appointment is rocluired for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. HRA appointments are mads by the -29- F, u Council Agenda - 1/12/87 Mayor with formal ratification by the City Council. RRA terms are for a period of five years. The term of Ken haus Is the one expiring at this time. The HRA, however, does have a vacancy created by the resignation of Roger Hedtke. we have, to date, been unable to find anyone interested in taking that seat. For the present time, I believe it would be beat to reappoint Ken Haus to the HRA for a second five year term. g. Planning Commission The Planning Commission is made up of five members serving one year appointments. For 1987, four Planning Commission members have agreed to accept reappointment, while one member will resign to serve on the City Council. Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Barbara Koropchak, and Richard Martie have agreed to accept another year appointment. As we have done in the past when faced with a vacancy, we have attempted to solicit interested parties rather than poet a general help wanted type ad in the paper. The only name submitted to date was submitted by Joyce Dowling, and she recommends that Ellen Maxwell be considered as a Planning Commission appointment. According to the note submitted by Joyce, Ellen served on the Mound Planning Commission and has a real estate background. Based on the Council's conversation with the Planning Commission, I believe it is Important to evaluate this appointment. Of the four returning members, two presently live in the MacArlund Plaza towmhouses, one member Is involved in real estate sales, and the fourth member in involved in the construction industry. with the appointment of the one name currently submitted, the Commission's make up would be comprised of three persons residing in the MacArlund Plaza townhouses, two persons involved, either directly or indirectly, in real estate sales, and one person in the construction industry. while these issues are not necessarily problems, and certainly do not constitute an official conflict of Interest by any moans, there could be Questions raised based on appearances. f simply advise the Council to be alert to the potential Issue. If the Council wishes to solicit other names. I recommend appointment of the first four members and authorization to place a general advertisement for persons interested in serving. h. Library Board The Library Board, by Ordinance, requires a Mayoral appointment with Council ratification. Only ono term expires this year, Marguerite Pringle. Ms. Pringle has agreed to accept another three year appointment. -30- Council Agenda - 1/12/87 v The following appointments are not required to be made annually by Statute. Each of them are designated to perform services on an as -needed basis and may or may not be finalized with a contract. In the past, you have made a practice of making these appointments at the annual meeting. i. City Attorney Gary Pringle from Smith, Pringle, and Hayes has filled this office for the City for many years. In 1985, the Council made the official designation of Smith, Pringle, and Hayes as City Attorneys. I suggest this appointment be made in the same fashion. J. Consulting Planner Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban has been the City's planning firm for a number of years. Again, while this need not be a formal appointment, such an appointment can be made at this time. This appointment does not preclude the Council from engaging other consultants at any time they wish for any job they wish. k. City Auditor �+ Thia, also, is not a required annual appointment but can do be done on an as -needed basis or by specification. Historically, we have used Gruys Johnson to do our audit. 1. Consulting Engineer 3 For the past three years we have not made the annual appointment for Consulting Enginear within the context of this agenda item. Rather, we have evaluated and analyzed the contract services with OSM as a separate and distinct Item on the agenda, usually at a later mooting. Since we have not yet met with OSM on any of the terms and conditions In the engineering contract. I suggest that we simply pass over the engineering aspect and plan to have this mattar come before the Council at a later meeting. No appointment would oven bu nocassary during tho interim period since all sarvicos are randerod by contract agreoment. The attached shoat, as supporting date, lists all of the members of the various commissions and the appropriate appointments, both required and discretionary, for this year -s meeting. The underlined names are the ones needing appointmont this year. -91- I 1 ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS Official Depositories: Wright County State Bank Security Federal Savings 6 Loan First National Bank of Monticello Newspaper: Monticello Times Housing and Redevelopment Authority: 1. Ken Maus 12/91 15 -year staggered terms) 2. Ban Smith 12/90 12/87 3. Bud Schrupp 12/89 5. Marguerite Pringle C. vacant 12/88 5. Marlys Erickson 12/87 Planning Commission: 1. Richard Carlson (1 -year term) 2. Joyce Dowling 3. Barbara Koropchak 6. Richard Martis 2--JIA. R�oaEwwV Health Officer: Dr. Donald Maus (1 year) Acting Mayor: (1 year) Joint Commissions: Community Education Fire Board OAA Library Board: (3 -year staggered) Attorney: Planner: Auditor: W. S -;44- 1. -;4L Smith, Pringle 6 Heyes Dahlgren, Shardlow, 6 Uban Oruys Johnson 1. Warren smith 12/87 2. Dr. Donald Maus 12/88 3. Joel Erickson 12/87 i. Pat Schwarz 12/88 5. Marguerite Pringle 12/89 Smith, Pringle 6 Heyes Dahlgren, Shardlow, 6 Uban Oruys Johnson I I Council Agenda - 1/12/87 18. Consideration of Selecting a Name to Submit to the Minnesota NBA Basketball Association Stating the City of Monticello's Preference for an NBA Franchise Name. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: I believe the attached letter is self explanatory. At the end of the meeting. if you so desire, the Council should vote on whether or not you would like Minnesota's NBA team to be the Minnesota Polars or the Minnesota Timber wolves. Based on your position. I will mail your final choice to the organization. There definitely is no staff recommendation on this issue. 51,15 MINNESOTA NBA BASKETBALL 5525 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 612 -544 -DUNK December 17, 1986 City Council RE: Minnesota NBA Basketball Dear Council Members: As you know, we have been working hard to bring exciting NBA Basketball back to Minnesota. It has been 26 years since the Lakers left, and our chances are excellent for an NBA franchise to be awarded April 20, 1987, when the league has committed to announce expansion sites. In order to maximize the input of our fans, we have had a "Name The Team" contest which ended December 15. After only one advertisement, we received suggestions from over 5,500 peoplet We have decided upon two finalists, and want to ask for your help in choosing the eventual team name. We see your council and the other city councils throughout Minnesota as representatives of all parts of our state. tach council has one vote, and we hope that you will consider the two name alternatives and write us with your choice at the address above by January 9. The majority will rule, and the choice of the most city councils will be our 11BA team name. You should know that we have tried to select names which are marketable, consider the personality of our state and its people, and reflect on the geography, recreational opportunities and other unique characteristics of Minnesota. The two choices are: 1. Minnesota Polars, or 2. Minnesota Timber Wolves. Thank you for taking the time to help us choose a name for the NBA team which will soon represent our great state. Sincerely, MINNESOTA NBA �atne BASKETBALL If,v �� Ha ve olf son Robert A. Stein ® •Minnesota NBA Basketball is a Division of Northwest Racquet, Swim 6 Health Clubs, Ine.46 0 Council Agenda - 1/12/87 .,,. ;iq. Consideration of the Purchase of Two Air Compressors, One Each for the Maintenance Building and Fire Hall. U.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Public works Department budgeted in 1987 for a permanent 5 HP air compressor for the maintenance building. The small portable compressor is on its third compressor pump and extremely undersized for the work performed at the maintenance building. For the fire hall, it was decided to leave the compressor and its piping out of the general contract for the construction of the fire hall. It was felt that the compressor could be purchased locally along with the necessary piping and avoid the add-on profit and overhead of a general contractor. The Fire Chief, Willard Farnick, and the Street Superintendent, Roger Mack, discussed the specifications for air compressors and found that requirements for both the City shop and fire hall were similar. Willard had mat with representatives of National Bushing of Monticello, so we asked them to prepare a bid per compressor. The bid enclosed is $1,485 for each unit. They come complete with a magnetic starter. To check the quotation, we chocked our wholesale price with Grangere of Minneapolis on a similar Ingersoll-Rand unit. This unit, complete with starter, sella for $1,988.61 our cost. For the shop, we have budgeted $2,300 for the compressor, wiring, --� and piping. Based upon the price from National Bushing and our estimated cost for the remainder of the work, we should come in wall under budget. For the fire hall, there was not a specific figure, as the bond monies were to be utilized for the compressor and piping, and there are sufficient funds for that work. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative 41 is to authorize the purchase of two comproeeors from National Bushing at a coat of $1,485 to be used in the City maintenance building and the fire hall. 2. The socond alternative would be not to authorize the purchase of these compressors. This does not appear to be practical, as currently the fire hall does not have an air system, and the air system at the City shop Is inadequate. C. STAPP REMMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director and Street Superintendent and Fire Chief that the City authorize the purchase of two air compressors as outlined in Alternative 01. D. SUPPORTING DATA: i,. Copy of bid from National Bushing and price shoot from Grangors, r Minneapolis. -33- I NATIONAL BUSHING & PARTS COMPANY =' A • �` OF BUFFALO P.O. BOX 49D • ST. CLOUD. MINNESOTA EM JsnL.ary 7, 1:`37 TO: City of Yanticello SUB,7XT: Air Conrressor Bid DESCUPT"I07: lir coapressor 5hp single phase with 230 volt. Tank size is 80 gallon and is ave-iable in either vertical or horizontial type. The five hp motor rune at 968 rpm, with air disrnlocment of 21.3 oft, and actual air delivery of 17.0 cfm. These units come equiped with a magnetic starter. PE .TURBS: See attached. DELIVERY: Immediate. ',rRRR3;TY: Cre year . AZ PRI CU: 114 85.00 4ub'•nittod by: National Bushing & rts. P.O. Boz 8 Wanticello, Va. 55362 295-2916 STORES BUFFALO. MN • PAVNESVILLE. MN • MONTICELLO, MN • SAUK CENTRE. MN 0.2121 243-2729 te5247e 152-2251 r C' -AIRF "E" LINE THE FAMILY OF 5 OUTSTANDING QUALITY COMPRESSORS CU -E58 ? CU -E? i CU -E15 CU -E23 CU -Eft I FEATURES f. Continuous Running Unloader For continuous -running —i arced to insure tong isle and tmooin operation Journals anCOmpressors unlnaderlots unit tale load. free until air are ground precisely to extend bearingwo supply drops to rut in messure aworriabcaily lets unit idle agJui aftt'1 nigh fuPSsure hnut iS rearhed (Tubing 14. Cratdicue: The extra largo Crankcase with n+ry sed reMr- and 1-111-195 not rnr luded on baro pumps 1 von assures cooler running slid tkriter Whitcation 2. Valve Assembly: All units use large diacdype valve& 11, Ssttlded Fon-Type Fly~: Airfoil -type spokes pro• made from Swedish steel for high efficiency and long videsContinuouspowerful blast ofcooling air for allpor- wear tions of the compressors. botancing assures smooth vi- i. Suction Strainer permanent typo strainer effectively lit- bratlontess operation tars sit endmutgeEnpgeol air intake Easily remoWdfor 12. Main Ileerlings: To insure tong isle and easy rnarmen- period+e cleaning &nee, high quality bait bearings or tapered roller beer - Cool Cylinder Heads: Deep directional fins provide quick cooling Compact streamlined air passages U the in" are used, 13. Gay ds Cluck: The Od levet check is in a convenient to. cylinder heed permit fast efficient flow of cooler intake aeon for "tall of a plant!" reading of oil level in crank sir and rapid removal of citscnarge air S. Long -Litt Cysndara: precssion machined cylinder walla ata honed glass sn:uoln to reduce friction and Wear to a minimum Extra loop tins provide increased cooling SPECIFICATIONS and grestst strength _ T` err i $0N.5overall 1 S. inter -Canting: urn rP.isetl etfKieni y and greater asr ds• w tuMt °a" wt av livery era ALhiovett with nigh capacity +ntercootore iw cu Ell ' ', i ISO 'ft r50 lit lir which Sorer the sit temperature between stages Extra is 073 me x r Ions interCoolor with multiple radiating fins orov+dss E a- s to ON 90 ' maximum heat 01"108140n s Cu^eras 61r lei �s i - f. Rings: Long life industrial design comoreuion eel oil i M Control rings are unit to assure maximum performance ' Olt as0 G" ;mss s T iiia S. Connecting Reds: All units contain precision bared, in. --- 760 Re outurI quality designed connecting rode a splash d wort l sa pas is 1 n5r lubrication is used thrdughout r�' Islas - + - � We 9, Sahaoed Crankshaft: Made It run a high, tensile feread � ` �cu,e is • ra pia a w +� � alloy steel ano plot iseiy around and dynamicaity bat. _ r y y . , i i -AIRF® "INDUSTRIAL QUALITY" CUSTOM BUILT COMPRESSORS 3-15 HP, 2 8 3 Cylinder Two Stage Compressor Packages Mrs •L Ion • Smooth and quiet operation � 3 �AT units are teal run after assembly for pump up and recovery time, motor rmp draw and quality control assurance check CUSTOM P • ASME TANK MOUNT Vertical or horizontal 20.240 gallon, 200 psi. • AUTOMATIC PRESSURE SWITCH Start/stop control Or Constant Speed head Unloeder Control • TOIALLY ENCLOSED ©ELTGUARD • SAFETY RELIEF VALVE. GAUGE. TANK DRAIN. AND TANK SHUT OFF VALVE • DRY TYPE REPLACEMENT INLET FILTER/ SILENCER • ELECTRIC OR GAS DRIVEN • 13ASEPLAIE MOUNT ;yids up tNAee'' TANS etre NOatL VM. @MODEL tgLMUa 1 PH 30 GAL. YES YES CU110320•11 14 1 PH 80 GAL, YES YES CUIID520.11 2 t PH 60 GAL, YES YES CU21OM-23 t vH a0 GAL. YES YES CU310SM-23 3 N 60 GAL, YES YES C1.1310820-50' I t PH m GAL. YES YES CU410620.50 5 60 GAL. YES YES CU43DB20-50 I ; PH a0 GAL. YES YES CUA 10820-50 5 3 PH 60 GAL. YES YES CU•30820.50 5 1 PH 120 GAL. YES YE 9 CW 11220.50 3 PH 120 GAL. YES YES a 7te 3 PH 80 GAL. YES NO C1.15210820-711 3 PH 120 GAL, YES YES CU53t220-71 3 PH 110 GAL, YES NO CU630a20-r1 10 13 PH 120 GAL. YES YES CUIS31220-71 3 PH 120 GAL. YES NO CU63t220.15r I 15 3 PH 120 GAL. YES NO CU731220 15 Most any reasonable tank, pump, motor Combination available. (-9)— H. 3 to 25 HP, TWO-STAGE AIR COMPRESSORS 2 to ] Cylinder Stationary Models With ASME National Board Tanks a ASME H."..I 428.47 eI!J T 71° tUU7_. , Freight PrepaidY -,.A Separately Cut Cylinders. Individually hnited to restarts. cratin nkcase. Air Connect on Cyl indors, so head Full -Time Low -Oil Level Protection on 7! ID can be removed wLLhuul dtewrbing pt nna. ilnu• )nod 1 only nroclded by lumUerpruufa4•Itct)lkn KIerC connecting rods require no a�lustment, autamallcall)' &lops cumnrexsor if crankcase all a.e ho bolts or nuts to Como loose nets toe low', will not rc%tnrt without addinaetl Equalfired Pistons provide smooth ninning bill, Cor Viion Resistant Stainless Steel Vateo are de. soca Low Pres+u re piston made of aluminum, &tpi;ed in easy syn reins. Inn? life FinCer trio III ah rrcuure piston of cast iroii to a unitso on ] to b lip models. concenlne rine on 7'A un muss. Two comprvsaon ones and two oil ones 23 IIY comprudaun. oar each piston. Bdt Guards Eneless Drive On All Sides. Rigid, Balanced Overhung Crankshaft liberally used with healT duty ball bearings. ASME Not anal Board Tanks are made and tesitf Finned Copper Interceelers die6ipnto heat cis to meet Amenene tinaeU of Mechanical Eat rimes faster than cast iron• need not be rrntov tad rivers standards. Cunihcute of registration a to take oR cylinder head. available Centrifugal Unloador on 71.k thru 25 HP models Open, Drippraef CapaNtar•Start Motan made u releases tar in pump cylinders ahenover unit NEh1A /tandards. Single or J•phase. stops. Reduces load on motor a hen compressor Blue Metallic Finish. Ingersoll-Rand brand. INGERSOLL-RAND COMPRESSOR PERFORMANCE AND 01..:I:;ION DATA ASME Ire AuCFM seek P—p Dlepl (� Teas FN C71,a/u& Orenll olaeestan NP Gel, RPM C t M too IN too Ne tare Busse length Width Nola ] aD lois 115 04 ax BU 2 ]4 14. 1•.' 2z 49' N' ? tU Yea l a B I s l I c a „4 7 7 A&- x'k ^ x1 G4 904 _ ten 94 4 3-5 285 s s . & 4 :Y W tl lur0 1kU 620 450 ]Sa '"' J4a A •.� 4 29 07 $76 13 120 I IIK) Gi 2 10 1 i7 S 4S 1 " :,1a a J a 21= 07 N U 1210 11Nt1) us 5 7] ] 7'i 5 1 " ] S, S i 1' ° 4 :94e 07 al 95 120 tUaU 11:1 x a5 N 84.7 N 8 ] 5'S S't '' i 4 .- W 0 Moe,loss Lisle, Manu . Wr.h t.:aaneu& suns Von Mt, a Bleck' Shps, 'J.".Qrcos Sit! Np phare so Ni Madel Na. Retail tach WI so 11 61:6. t,isll tech R 1 ] x10410 ]C7 8210 t:71ad 81411tl 6x0 '•^ r:y}51 S1413$1 Bill _ 7zc71 eSn even a I I 1 IIS 21Jo X 7z1118 1:1!10 I614.10 516v,•� TiiH ASO 172361 C ' 11 S Me Am 1D11 uSSO X00 tu1.11 00"•1 17:1. JoiOto 1Boo 41 SO 010 i 12[77 11, .100 17/611 IS! 1 1 :]U Sol lzssi 123000 16[84 a::a nY fist)_ S:=W 'InIg1I �% IX ll! ] n14a0 7111.) 3zs17 41p100 8111141 ;21:1 :I^ VLSI$ 01:700 118141 =1 72111 ..'100 111115_ 11 ] nu 401 lee lieu 5111936 341847 12:: 0 L.0 4'011 '• 5110 111=1$1 IF /rd ]711 _50 791101 G - 1s 0 no An ISE 321114 lkkow lino 1:6:0 0,1 12616 t .!' I it8118 s T9' 7 Ss0411 I WE 1216 SiNSe tau 7f IS760 I ';'1 77Br1 ► Y5e unx Ip 4� j I] _4 i r7a]1 ..Ba SE07u IC M• 1 ±"aro ..,.. - ..., .. I• ',.. ;.' ..0 .,,1s ' GFNERAL FUND- BALANCE OF DECEMBER AMOUNT CHECK NO. : ' Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 18.00 23496 Dept, of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 200.00 23497 AME Ready Mix - Material for hockey rink 259.49 23498 Wright County Treasurer - Police contract for Dec. 10,357.50 23499 MN. Fire Agencies Purchasing - 87 membership dues 25.00 23500 Coast to Coast - Parts b supplies 573.74 23501 Northern States Power - Electricity 2,687.04 23502 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 112.80 23503 Monticello Times - Legal S minutes 585.92 23504 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 827.35 23505 Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase 250,000.00 23506 Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase 198,000.00 23507 VOID -0- 23508 Monticello Firemen - Wages thru 12/11/86 1,680.20 23509 MN. Municipal Board - Orderly annexation fee 200.00 23510 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 422.00 23511 Dept. of Not. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 80.00 23512 I.C.M.A. Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded. 74.67 23513 Monticello Dep. Reg. - Title and reg. fee 15.25 23514 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded. 204.00 23515 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 90.04 23516 Thomas Eidem - Car allowance for Dec. 300.00 23517 PERA - ins. premiums 27.00 23518 Wright County State Bank - FWT 2,216.00 23519 Melchert/Block Assoc. - Eng. fees on Boyle Project 7.475.54 13520 r Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,350.82 23521 izua f Employee Relations - Medicare W/H 28.90 23522 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 2,684.96 23523 Petty cash - Reimburse petty cash fund 41.55 23524 Banker's Life Ins. - Insurance premium 4,008.72 23525 Gruys, Johnson - Computer charges for Nov. 290.00 23526 Maus Foods - Library supplies 34.41 23527 Fair's Garden Center - Trees for 86-1 Project 891.00 23528 Marlene Hellman - Misc. mileage 56.75 23529 Olson 6 Sons - Repairs and parts - lift stations, etc. 655.48 23530 Double D Electric - Work at hockey rink 332.95 23531 Audio Communications - Repairs for St. Dept. radios 121.30 23532 Gary Anderson - Misc. supplies fnr meeting 8.47 23533 Autocon Industries - Repairs at reservoir 427.80 23534 Earl Andersen - Signs for Hwy. 25 project 571.95 23535 Feed Rite Controls - Supplies for water dept. 1.279.73 23536 Simonson Lumber - Supplies for all depts. 947.90 23537 Bowman, Barnes Diet. - Drill bits 79.09 23538 Safety Kleen - Mafnt. of Street Dept. equipment 38.00 23539 AT&T Inf. Systema - Fire phone charges 3.96 23540 Davis Electronic Service - Fire Dept. pager repairs 162.94 23541 Conway Fire & Safety - 30 pair gloves - Fire Dept. 810.00 23542 interstate Detroit Diesel - St. Dept. supplies 150.00 23543 Granite City Electric - Installation of at. lighting 2.078.40 23544 OSM - Engineering fees 13,133.33 23545 Unitog Rental - Uniform rental 121.20 23546 as 6 Craven - Prof. services 17.00 23547 s?�}hc3ca1 a- Big Lake Pat Hospital - Animal control expense 459.00 23548 Monticello Lawn 6 Garden - Mowing grass on vacant lots 30.00 23549 Smith -Pringle -Hayes - Legal 595.00 23550 Buffalo Bituminous - Class 5 348.00 23551 .,GENERAL FUND Monti Truck Repairs -!Bolt Martie's Farm Service•- Dog food Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control ".-Al 6IJulie Nelson - SUb.' D [:Maus 'Tire Service - Repair tire 4oC!Moon'Motors - Generator for Fire Dept.' ''Metropolitan -Fire Equip. - Air comp. parts - Fire Snyder Drug - Supplies �Rockmount Research b Alloys' - Welding rods :"(�Willerd Farnick- Misc. mileage '' Monticello Printing - Misc. printing =l'Aspenglow Arta - Certificate for • Jack Makwell "'Flicker's T. V. - Scanner and "power supply - Fire Century Labs - Supplies Ben Franklin - Foam = Elk River Machine - Steel 'The Glass Hut, Window for tractor Rational Bushing•- Parts and supplies General Industrial Supply - Parts -` Harry's Auto Supply - Parts and supplies ;`•Gould Broe.'= Repairs '^-Hoglund Bus - Parts ! `�-Gordon Link- Gas VOID' - '1�6`Monticello' Library - Petty cash reimb. for 1986 ^1141. Park Supervisors Assoc. - Membership dues �.. I VOID =Dept. of Nat.'Res. - Dep. Reg. fees Dept. of N6t:'•Ras. - Dep. Reg. fees expense Dept Dept G:L b G Rehbein •- PaymenIt 09 - Interceptor sewer project t.�Rea. - Dep. Reg. fees '•Dept. ,of Na (CF-Dept. of Nat;Aes. - Dep. Reg, fees '.ticDawall Co. - Furnace mtce. at Library and City Hall Viking Pipe'Seivices - Television insp.; Inter. Sewer Wright County Highway Dept. - Sand 6 mist. supplies '(Share Corp: -'Solvent spray n 4dam'a Peet Control - Contract services for Library -'1St. Cloud Rest. Supply - Towels for Library and City Hall -^tRick Wolfsrel•lar - Travel expense Braun Eng. ;Teiting - Testing expense Anne Carroll - Computer consulting fees -General Safety Equip. - Fire Dept. repairs Central Eyewear - Glasses Broadway Rental - Bobcat rental for hockey rink Mobil Oil -' Gas " Water Products - Water maters James Preusaa:-.Cleaning city hail Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library YMCA of Mple..- Monthly contract payment David Stromberg - Animal control expense Mrs. Beversly Johnson-ihnimal control expense Mr. Arve Grimame - Mayor salary Mr. Daft Blonigen - Council salary Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary Mr. William Fair - Council salary Mr. Jack Maxwell - Council salary Corrow Sanitation - December payment -2- AMOUNT CHECK NO. 5.25 -:"23552 31.56 or --'3M3 30.00 23554 13.72 23555 6.50 23556 702.58 23557 104.47 23558 5.00 23559 274.61 23560 73.75 23561 111.95 23562 5.00 23563 150.00 23564 556.33 23565 19.12 23566 81.00 23567 71.50 23568 105.19 23569 31.50 23570 196.64 23571 204.94 23572 4.11 23573 321.17 23574 -0- 23575 178.52 23576 20.00 23577 -0- 21578 170.00 Ago 79.'147 - 18.00 2358u 70,607.08 23581 150.00 23582 4.00 23583 247.35 23584 1,280.00 23585 2,552.60 23586 76.35 23587 42.00 23588 69.80 23589 89.00 23590 43.00 23591 1,530.00 23592 132.50 23593 24.25 23594 623.70 23595 78.53 23596 338.38 23597 337.50 23598 206.25 23599 529.17 23600 287.50 23601 775.00 23602 175.00 23603 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 23607 6,423.90 23609 J GENERAL FUND /.!'_ 1 F3"3AMQUNT GHECX-NO. CL -„ - .L In, a ennent Curb. Cont. - Replace curb add"sidewalk'- i5'; ? 2,877.00 23609 Prentice -Hell - Sub. for Public Works, l.,,y _ 34.50 23610 Northern Hydraulics - Utility trailer - Mcce. .__, 159.95 ,;23611 Maus Tire Service - Repairs _ 115.36 _; 23612 Cylinder City - Snow plow repair 320.30 23613 Keith K,lellberg - Install water heater at rental house ., .325.00 4; -13614 OSM - Eng, fees r 7.318.80 23615 ICMA Ret. Corp. - Payroll ded. , . 74.67 4 23616 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. .. 90-04n r 23617 Wright County Auditor - Delinquent taxes on Oakwobd 12,,223.62 r '23628 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees .220.00 •23619 Dept. of Nat. Rea. - Dep. Reg. fees 174.00 23620 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees , _ 58.00 93621 Commissioner of' Revenue - SWT' .2,,107.00 23622 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 2.597.80 23623 Wright County State Bank - FWT 2.153.00 _•23624 State Treasurer - PERA 1,356.63 23625 Social Sec. Ret. - Medicare W/H 8,80 .23626 Gary Anderson - Mileage for Dec. 59.04 23627 Coast to Coast - Supplies 178.74 23628 Harry's Auto Supply - Supplies 269.96 23629 Golden Valley Furniture - Vinyl, glue 59.95 23630 Team Laboratory - Root destroyer 712.80 ' 23631 Hoglund Bus - Parts 52.79 23632 Unocal - Gas for Fire Dept. 77.18 x0633 r Agftb4to Parts - 3 wheels _ 15.00 23634 Mottle's Farm Service - Dog food 20.83,•, ;, 23635 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone expense 836.93, - 23636 Smith -Pringle -Hayes - Legal 1.7,36.00 23637 General Rental Center - Rental of power auger SQ. 35 23638 Olson 4 Sons Electric - Sen. Cit. bldg. repair, 188.89 23639 Fyle's Excavating - Misc. digging and repairs 816.24 43640 Earl Andersen - Signs 136,02 , 123641 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies .37D.61 23642 Simonson Lumber - Supplies 46.55• _23643 National Bushing - Supplies 290.12., 23644 Snyder Drug - Camera and film 39.98 -, 23645 North Control Public Service - Gas 1.862,45, 23646 Feed Rice Controls - Sample 10.00 23647 Unitog Rental - Vniform rental 103.00 23648 Autocon Industries - Pump house atco. 763.50 25649 Northern Stated Power - Electricity 4,992.16. 23650 Payroll for Dec. Z6. 17.9.50 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR DECEMBER - 1996 3672,388.57 ' LIQUOR FUND jWP ^LANCE OF LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR DECEMBER - 1986 AUT CHECK �� NO. Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. 112.96 12806 Ed Phillips b Sons - Liquor 3,313.08 12807 Quality Wine d Spirits - Liquor 36.00 12808 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 74.39 12809 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor 8,463.49 I28I0 Wright County State Bank - FWT 274.00 12811 Social Security Retirement Div. - FICA W/H 309.72 12812 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 170.00 12813 Ed Phillips 4 Sons - Liquor 4,253.01 12814 Twin City Wine - Liquor 969.28 12815 Quality Wine - Liquor 519.29 12816 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 178.68 12817 Banker's Life Ins. - Ins. premiums 321.94 12818 Gruys, Johnson 6 Assoc. - Computer chargee for Nov. 110.00 12819 Olson b Sons - Repair light track 33.00 12820 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - Nov. 7,043.11' 12821 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 1,618.10 12822 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor 229.02 12823 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor 3.318.64 12824 Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase 124,000.00 12825 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 27.72 12826 Twin City Wine - Wine purchase 3.099.26 12827 ``$.__'fillips 6 Sons - Liquor 1,668.89 12828 Twin ity Wine - Liquor 2,077.99 12829 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 170.00 12830 Wright County State Bank - PWT 257.00 12831 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Dec. 196.00 12832 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 167.95 12833 Social Sec. Retirement Assoc. - FICA W/H 291.12 12834 Coast to Coast - Store supplies 7.62 12835 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone expense 65.74 12836 Liefert Trucking - Freight chargee 637.97 12837 North Control Public Service - Utilities 193.66 12838 Northern States Power - Electricity 540.09 12839 Monticello Office Products - Store supplies 14.16 12840 December payroll 3,392.72 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR DECEMBER - 1986 $168.155.60