Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 09-08-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, September 8, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimamo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Spacial Meeting Held on August 25, 1986, and the Regular Meeting Held August 25, 1986. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints. Old Business 6. Consideration of Ordering the Improvement of Minnesota Street as Petitioned by Installing Sanitary Sewer and water. 5. Consideration of Approving Change Order No. < to Construction Project 86-1. New Business �. 6. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Petitions from Kent Kjellberg for Annexation and Requesting Action from the Minnesota Municipal Commission. 7. Consideration of Granting Approval for an Application for 3.2 Boar/ Wine License - Applicant, Kenneth S. Chew. S. Consideration and Review of the Proposed 1987 Budget of the SNC6. 9. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting to Consider the 1987 Pralisinary Budget. 10. Adjourn. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 25, 1986 - 5:45 p.m. A special meeting of the Monticello City Council was duly held at 5:45 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room for the express purpose of interviewing computer consultants. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Absent: None. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Ms. Anne Carroll, representing Carroll, Franck 6 Associates, was present. Ms. Carroll provided a brief background of her company and a list of previous clients she has served. She then provided a brief summary and presentation addressing the in-depth proposal that had been presented in response to the City's request for proposals (RFP). Upon completion of her presentation, Ms. Carroll responded to questions. City Administrator Eidem inquired as to why Phase IB, System Analysis, was scheduled to only take one week. Ms. Carroll responded that the one week time line indicated when that phase would be completed after the completion of the previous phase. She noted that Phase IS would be happening concurrently with Phase IA. She also stated that based on her history and experience, systems analysis was occurring virtually at all times. Mayor Grimsmo asked Ms. Carroll whether or not she would be looking to install state of the art systems or pre -established systems which might be limited in use in the near future. Ms. Carroll indicated that, at this point, it was impossible to say, since the evaluation had not been done. She noted that the objective was to find a system that performed the tasks the City desired, and not just buy a system that could do many tasks. Dan Blonigen indicated his preference that she evaluate a system that would be expandable so that the City could stay close to the state of the art technology. Blonigen also expressed concern that any system the City acquire be wall proven in a government setting. Councilmember Fran Fair asked what role Anne Carroll would play once the system was selected and installed. Ms. Carroll responded that part of her proposal indicated that she would be available for a full year to assist with implementation and assimilation. She vent on to note that her objective is to phase herself out gradually, not suddenly terminate the contract and leave the City to its own devices. At the and of the questions, Mayor Grimsmo gave Me. Carroll an opportunity to sum up her proposal. Upon completion of the summary statement, Ms. Carroll was excused, and the Mayor recessed the meeting for approximately five minutes. Upon reconvening, the Council invited Mr. Bob Carlson of Gruys Johnson and Associates and Mr. Jim Snyder of Management Advisors, Inc., into the Conference Room. Mr. Carlson made the opening presentation on the Gruys Johnson proposal. He noted that Gruys Johnson wished to expand their capabilities in the computer field and had established an affiliation with Management Advisors, Inc. He noted that Management Advisors, Inc., would be the computer consultants, but Gruys Johnson, fiC V Special Council Minutes - 8/25/86 as the City Auditors, would lend their financial expertise into evaluating the needs assessment and the final RFP for a system. Mr. Snyder provided some brief background on Management Advisors, Inc., noting that they had worked for cities both in Minnesota and in Colorado. He vent on to indicate that MAI was not exclusively a computer consultant, but also offered the expertise of performing management audits, management evaluation, and team building. Mr. Snyder was asked if his home office was located in Colorado, and he indicated it was. All Council members expressed a concern about being able to respond promptly in times of need. Mr. Snyder indicated that the personnel at Gruys Johnson would respond if he were not in Minnesota. The question was then raised as to who would handle a problem if the personnel at Gruys Johnson were not able. Mr. Carlson responded that he would simply call Colorado to discuss the issue. The Council inquired as to whether or not in staff interviews any departments were identified as perhaps being more troublesome than others. Mr. Snyder responded that he felt the assessing department might be problematical since the County Asseesor's Office was not fully computerized as yet. He also noted that the deputy registrar's department might be a problem since he had not seen any municipal packages that tied directly in with the State system. Mr. Snyder also indicated that there might be some training problems with respect to staff reluctance to learn the system. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Snyder wore given a brief opportunity to summarize their position, and the interview was than ended. During deliberation, Mr. Eidem responded that reference checks on both firms indicated a high level of excellence and expertise. He noted that all cities checked were extremely satisfied with performance. He noted that the proposals submitted in response to the RFP were, in his judgement. relatively equal. It was noted that the Carroll. Franck 6 Associates proposal was $3,025.00 less than the Gruys Johnson proposal. Some concern was expressed with respect to the Colorado location of MAI, even though Gruys Johnson is located both in Monticello and Buffalo. . Motion by Blonig an, second by Fran Fair, and carried unanimously to award the contract for computer consulting services to Carroll, Franck 6 Associates for the stipulated price of $8,975.00. There being no other business for the special meeting, the meeting was adjourned. rt- J Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator -2- 0 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 25, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. The August 25, 1986, regular meeting of the Monticello City Council was duly held at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Monticello City Hall. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Maxwell, second by Blonigen, to approve the minutes of August 11, 1986. Voting in favor. Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Abstention: Bill Fair. 3. Citizen Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. During Citizen Comments, Mr. Ken Catton requested an indication from the City Council as to whether or not they would be amenable to amending the City's zoning Ordinance to allow day care centers in commercial zones. Mr. Catton indicated that he has been involved in day care development for the last several years. He noted that he was in the past affiliated with the Learning Tree Day Care Program. He also noted that in virtually all instances, the day care proposal required zoning changes and conditional use permits to allow the proposal to exist In commercial zones. He went on to say that he would like to start a day care cantor in Monticello and his experience indicates that it should be located in a commercial zone. Mayor Grimsmo acknowledged that this was not on the agenda but that Mr. Catton had come to him late in the previous week with his inquiry and that Mayor Grimsmo invited him to attend the mooting tonight. Counciimembor Maxwell asked if the proposed site was along Highway 25 south of I-94. Mr. Catton stated that there were a number of sites under consideration at present, but all ware commercially highway zoned. Mayor Grimsmo asked the Council whether or not there was any obvious objections to such a potential rezoning. He noted that it would be difficult for Mr. Catton to assume all of the financial responsibility to go through the entire rezoning process and than moot with stiff opposition at the Council loyal. All Council members indicated that there seemed to be no apparent objection. and that the process prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance be followed. can u Council Minutes - 8/25/86 4. Consideration of Executinq a Contract with PSG for the Operation of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mayor Grimsmo acknowledged receipt of the report on the contract negotiations with Professional Services Group and receipt of the final statement from the City Attorney. Mr. Mike Robbins and Mr. Steve Sunt of PSG were present. Mayor Grimsmo asked the Council if they had any questions, this item having been discussed by the Council for several months. Councilmember Fran Fair asked Mr. Robbins if PSG was aware of the City Attorney's recommended language changes in Article VI. Mr. Robbins indicated yes, they were aware of the suggested changes and they had already been agreed upon between PSG and the City. Mayor Grimsmo noted that the process had gone on for a long time and that the discovery and review of the entire process seemed to indicate satisfaction from all parties. Mayor Grimsmo asked if the City Engineer had any conclusory comments. John Badalich of OSM indicated that everything seemed to be in order and that they were satisfied that the process was complete. Motion by Fran Fair, second by Jack Maxwell, and carried unanimously to enter a contract with Professional Services Group, commencing September 1, 1986, for the operation and maintenance of the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant facility. 5. Consideration of Granting, an Advance Guarantoe that a Ron -Conforming Use clay be Rebuilt if it is ever Destroyed to more than 50% of its Value. Mr. Mike Lundquist, a realtor, spoke to the Council on behalf of Mike Olson, also present, a potential buyer of property at 106 East 4th Street. Mr. Lundquist noted that Mr. Olson had been having some difficulty securing a mortgage since the property in question is a non -conforming use under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance being located in a 8-4 Zone. Apparently, the lending institution was reluctant to provide the mortgage if 'the residence could not be rebuilt in the event of damage to greater than 50% of the value. Mr. Lundquist noted that their first response wes to sock assurances from the City Council that if there were destruction by fire or some other catastrophic cause, there would be provisions to allow rebuilding. Mr. Lundquist noted that they had now found a financing resource that did not require such a statement and that such a letter was not a necessity. He did go on to note that a letter indicating the possibility of rebuilding would be considered an &soot to the lending institution. Administrator Eidom explained that such a letter should not be provided since one Council cannot bind a future Council and further, such a latter, guaranteeing a specific type of land use, would essentially be re Zoning the parcel in conflict with the procedures outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Grimsmo and the Council concurred that advance assurances could not be given by this Council, but Monticallo's Councils had always boon receptive to reviewing case by case requests. -2- Council Minutes - 8/25/86 The Mayor noted that if the block were predominantly residential and a structure was destroyed to more than 508 of its value, a Council might evaluate the merits of allowing reconstruction. He went on to note that the future development of the neighborhood would have to be evaluated at the time a request for reconstruction came in. Mr. Lundquist then indicated a desire to have an assurance that a building permit would be issued to allow the expansion. Again, being that the ordinance prohibits the expansion of a non -conforming use, the Council indicated that they could not guarantee the granting of a building permit, but would indicate that they would review any request as it comes up. Mr. Lundquist asked about other owners who might face the same problem with mortgages and/or building permits. Councilmember Fair indicated that it seemed that the problem was predominantly caused by lending institutions, and that the City should not be changing its ordinance to accommodate lending institution policy. Upon consensus that the City Council could not grant advance: guarantees or assurances, this issue was closed without formal action. 6. Consideration of Crantinq an Increase in the Individual Pension for the volunteer Fire Fiqhters Relief Association. Mayor Crimamo made an opening statement that he had attended the last meeting of the Fireman's Relief Association and that they had voted to increase their pension amount from S10.000.00 to $16,000.00 lump sum payment. The Mayor noted that that lump sum reflects a 20 -year term of $800.00 per year of service. The Mayor noted that he had received information from the Finance Director that the increase can occur without the need for tax levy. He noted that the last increase occurred in the early 80's when the Relief Association increased from $300.00 to 5500.00. As side notes, the Mayor indicated that the City is looking at engaging a cleaning/custodial service for the now Fire Hall so that the fire fighters won't have to take care of the building, and that service should be provided soon. The Mayor also noted that the City had investigated installing remote switches in the fire trucks that would give them control over traffic signals. Ito noted that the cost of installing the remote light control would be approximately 533,000.00, and thus felt these control switches would not be considered further. Returning the conversation to the Relief Association, the Mayor asked the Council their position. Couneilmomber Bionigan indicated he was totally opposed to putting the City at risk to potentially have to levy taxes to fund the Association. IIlonigen noted that the Association had the ability to raise their pension amount to $575.00 without Council approval and that the cash on hand would fully fund such a pension. Administrator Eidem indicated that the financial workshaote indicated that the pension amount could be increased to 516,000.00 without levy based solely on the revenue generated by the State Piro Aid and interest income. The question was raised by the Mayor with regard to if a number of members retired at once, would the funding be depleted. Dave Kranz, member of the .3- Council Minutes - 8/25/86 Fire Department and Relief Association, responded that only two members could retire this year. He noted that the Association required a minimum of 20 years of service to retire and that the retiree must be at age 50 before receiving any benefits. The Mayor asked what would happen to the fund if the two qualified people retired plus there were some injuries such that there was early retirement and payment of immediate benefit. Eidem noted that the Relief Association was funded on an accrual basis and that there was a certain historical pattern built into keeping the Association funded. Eidem noted that it was not uncommon to create a deficit in the accrued liability when projections of state aids and investment income would cover those deficits without tax levy. Motion by Bill Fair, second by Fran Fair, to increase the Relief Association pension from 510,000.00 to 516,000.00. Under discussion, Jack Maxwell asked if it was true that the City would not ever levy taxes to support this fund. Blonigen responded that the City must levy if the fund should hit severe financial straights such that it could not pay the benefits. The Mayor noted that it was projected that the fund would not require levy; and if there was a drastic avant, the City and the Relief Association would have to got together to work out a solution. Voting in favor of the motion: Jack Maxwell, Arvo Crimsmo, Bill Fair, Fran Fair. Voting in the opposition: Dan Blonigen. 7. Consideration of Awarding the Acquisition of a Loader. John Simola, public works Director, reported that the City received two bids, one from Carlson's Lake Equipment and the other from Ziegler. The groan bids as submitted ware $89,034.00 for a Caterpillar 936 submitted from Ziegler. Inc., and 579,000.00 for a John Deere 644D submitted from Carlaon-s Lake State Equipment Company. Simola reviewed with the Council the various alternatives that were includod in the bid proposal, including guaranteed maintenance expenses, minimum repurchase in five years, and guaranteed buy back and/or trade-in value of the City's existing 1981 Caterpillar loader. Councilmember Blonigan asked what the actual cash outlay would be if the City were to buy the Caterpillar at this offer. Simola responded that the cash would be $19,634.00. Simola then reviewed the 5 -year depreciation schedule for both the Caterpillar and the John Deere and indicated that over the five year projections, the Caterpillar equipment came in at $2,279.17 less than the John Duero. Motion by Maxwell, second by Blonigen, and carried unanimously for the City to acquire a Caterpillar 936 loader. 8. The Mayor suspended the agenda at this time to make room for members of the Monticello School District Administration and School Board. The Mayor noted that the School Administration had approached him with respect to the development of the selected middle school site, -4- 0 Council Minutes - 8/25/86 80 acres south of the City lying west of County Road 118. Grimsmo noted that the school had concerns because they hope to be ready to accept students and start classes in the fall of 1988 and that they had concerns with respect to the delay caused by the City/Township conflict over annexation. The Mayor noted that the Minnesota Municipal Board had scheduled an annexation hearing for September 10. Eidem informed the Council that he had been notified by Pat Lundy of the Minnesota Municipal Board that they had received a request to delay the hearing. He noted that the request had not yet been acted upon by the Municipal Board. The Mayor noted that it seemed that the school district had two options. First, the school district could wait for the annexation to be complete before taking any construction action, or second, the school district could build in the Township and request the City to provide public services beyond their corporate limits. The Mayor noted that there is a third option that seems unrealistic, and that is for the school to build in the Township and construct their own sower and water systems. Sheldon Johnson, Superintendent of the school district, stated that the real concern of the school district is over public utilities, namely, can the school be served before annexation is complete. Councilmember Fran Fair asked if there were any legal problems with extending services beyond the City limits, providing there is full agreement on how such extension would occur. Eidem indicated there were no legal problems. The Mayor noted that there was no action required on this issue, only that he wanted the Council to be fully aware of the school's position as the City enters the annexation hearing procedure. 9. Consideration of Ratifying an Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the Maintonance of Traffic Signals. A joint agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Monticello was presented for adoption. The agreement calls for joint financial participation for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of County Road 75 and Highway 25, the intersection of 7th Street and Highway 25, and the intersection of Oakwood Drive and Highway 25. Financial participation required of the City will be $13,300.00 for the City's share of the three brand now signals, and an additional $8,802.00 for the City's share of the temporary traffic signal which was installed at Oakwood Drive and Highway 25, making the total local share of $22,162.00. Simola noted that the City expects to enter an agreement with Wright County to pay approximately one-half of the local share and consequently, the City's liability would be $11,071.00. Eidem noted that the formal documonts had been signed by the Mayor and the Administrator the previous weak when a Council quorum could not be assembled for formal action. Not wanting to delay construction any further, Eidam indicated he sought the advice of the City Attorney about signing the agreement with Council ratification to follow. Eidam noted that the City Attorrev had indicated the procedure seemed acceptable since the lighting agrebvant was ancillary to the major Highway 25 reconstruction project agreement which the City had already executed. Council Minutes - 8/25/86 Motion by Fran Fair, second by Jack Maxwell, and carried unanimously to ratify the traffic signal agreement with the State of Minnesota. See Resolution 86-20. 10. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to the First Phase of a Planned Unit Development Known as Victoria Square. Mike Boner was present to present a final plat for the Planned Unit Development to be known as Victoria Square. Administrator Eidem explained to the City Council that this PUD had already been given final approval by the City council, but due to the time lapse, it required additional approval. He noted that the only significant change from when the FUD was originally approved was with respect to timing and phasing. Mr. Reher would like to go to final platting and recording on Block 1, but leave outlots A-E at the preliminary approval stage with final recording to come in development stages. Mayor Grimsmo asked if the PUD could still handle a commercial day care center, and Mr. Behar responded that it could in Phase II. Motion by Councilmember Bill Fair to grant preliminary approval to the Planned Unit Development known as Victoria Square. Second by Jack Maxwell. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Fran Fair, second by Bill Fair, and carried unanimously to grant final approval to Block 1, Lots 1-55, in the PUD, Victoria Square, contingent upon final conformance with engineering design standards. 11. Consideration of Granting a Variance for a Reduction in Required Perking Spaces for the Monticello VFW. The VFW has submitted a request for a variance to allow a parking lot providing 28 spaces less than is required. The VFW had not had a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The VFW had presented to City staff a statomant signed by all adjacent property owners within 350 foot waiving their right to a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Fair expressed soma concern that the statement of waiver did not address the variance in detail, but rather talked about the proposal of the VFW to expand their building. He stated that tho property owners were asked to sign a statement waiving objactions to the VFW's building expansion. Mayor Grimsmo asked the VFW representatives if the adjacent property owners know, in fact, what they were waiving. Sandy Tanner, representing the VFW, indicated yea, she told them what the variance request was about. Sha indicated that Gary Anderson, City Zoning Administrator, had instructed her on how to go through this process. City Administrator Eidem indicated that the point raised by Councilmembar Bill Fair was significant. He noted that on one earlier occasion, in order to facilitate tho parking lot expansion for the Hospital District, the City staff had attempted to streamline the process by utilizing atatemonts of waiver. He noted that the earlier attempt was, in his estimation, reasonable since the majority of adjacent property owners in tho Hospital District issue were party to the construction activity. Eidem admitted that it was a side stepping of the formal procedure, and the process had now coma back to haunt City staff. Council Minutes - 8/25/86 Eidem noted that this was not meant to be an option for other property owners, but simply a reaction to an emergency situation on behalf of the Hospital District. Motion by Blonigen, second by Bill Fair, to send the entire issue back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. Voting in favor: Dan Blonigen, Bill Fair, Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell. Voting in Opposition: Mayor Crimsmo. 12. Consideration of Bilis for the Month of August. Motion by Fran Fair, second by Dan Blonigen, and carried unanimously to pay all bills except final payment to Fullerton Lumber for the construction of the City Fire Hall. 13. Consideration of a Promosal to Extend Sewer and seater Utilities Down Minnesota Street. John Simola, Public works Director, explained that the City anticipated receiving a petition signed by 100% of the affected property owners requesting the installation of sower and water on Minnesota Street. Tom Holthaus, one of the affected property owners, indicated that they had not yet received 100% of the signatures. Eidem informed the Council that without 100% of signatures, the Council was not in conformance with Minnesota Chapter 429 and no project decision could be made at this time. Simola did ask that the Council consider the design standard at this time since a number of property owners in the Orderly Annexation Area south of 1-94 were present to hear discussion. Simola stated that the question at hand was whether or not to install the sewer line at a depth sufficient enough to allow the extension beyond 1-94 and into the OAA in the future should annexation occur, or should the line be installed at a -much shallower depth for the exclusive benefit of the property owners submitting the petition. John Badaiich indicated that the assessable portion of the sower would cost approximately $13,000.00, while the City cost could be substantial based on the depth and the amount of dowatoring required. The decision the Council is faced with is whether or not to incur the added City coat for future re -assessment to properties that may benefit after annexation. Several OAA property owners indicated that before making any decision or agreeing to anything, they would like to know the amount of tho assessment. Eidem indicated that there would be no assessment at this time, but simply that City cost would be recovered in the form of an assessment when the services actually were extended into the OAA. No individual assessments had been computed or realistically could be computed at this time. Stuart Hoglund and Mal Wolters felt that the City Council should install the proposed sower line at the shallow depth thereby keeping It cheapest. Eidam noted that such an action would necessitate a brand now sower lino in the event there was an extension into the OAA. Eidem stressed that the only -7- 0 Council Minutes - 8/25/85 queation that really ought to be addressed at this point is whether or not the property owners currently in the OAA would be receptive to eventually being served in the future, or would they be opponents to annexation for an extended period of years. Eidem noted that the City ought not consider extending any lines if the City would meet with substantial opposition to the eventual growth. John Michaelis, a property owner in the OAA, indicated he had talked to some neighboring property owners, and that their position differed from that of Hoglund and Mel Wolters. He indicated that he hoped the City would install the line at this time to accommodate eventual expansion, hopefully in the near future. The Mayor concluded the discussion by saying that perhaps the completed petition would be available at the September 8 meeting, and that perhaps additional information might be available after the annexation hearing. He noted that since the Council could not take action, he would close this issue. 14. John S imola provided a brief update on the softball field construction. He noted that the construction goal was to begin the seeding as of September 10. 15. There being no other business, the Mayor adjourned the meeting. Thomas A. Eidam City Administrator -8. 0-%- Council Agenda - 9/8/86 4. Consideration of Ordering the Improvement of Minnesota Street as Petitioned by Installing Sanitary Sever and water. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last meeting we discussed the possibility of a sever and water extension on Minnesota Street. Two of the property owners on Minnesota Street were present, Tom Holthaus and Tom Brennan. The third property owner, Marvin Kramer, was unable to attend. I spoke with Mr. Kramer on the morning of September 4, and it is his intention to sign the petition when presented to him by the other two property owners. We have, therefore, again placed this item on the agenda. Much of our discussion at the last meeting centered around whether to install the line at a depth which would allow gravity sever from a large portion on the south side of I-94. During that meeting there were mixed feelings on the part of the property owners within the City limits and the OAA on the south aide of I-94. As you may recall, I made the recommendation that if there was not a way to recover the oversizing and over -depth costs, the City should install the line only to serve the petitioners. I made this recommendation because of the anticipated high cost of such a deep sever. Since the meeting, I have had time to rethink the situation; and I believe I have a solution that would be in the beat interest of the City of Monticello and those residents of the OAA area. At this time I think it would be appropriate to install the sanitary sever at a shallow depth but size it rather than a 10 -inch for commercial property, a 12 -inch diameter line to handle additional flow south of I-94. I would propose that we pick up the area south of I-94 by a lift station installed at a low point somewhere near Olson -a Electric. We then pump the sewage across 1-94 to a force main laid at a shallow depth to the collector road where it would be discharged into a properly sized shallow sanitary sever. The lift station and force main could then be sized to take in just the,t area needed, and the cost of such a force main and lift station would then be assessed to those property owners benefiting from it. Evan with a lift station having to be refurbished every 10 or 15 years with new pumps and possibly controls, 1 believe this would result in a lover cost per parcel assessment for sanitary saver than the gravity system as originally proposed. It would require some additional maintenance coats over and above a normal gravity sanitary sever system, but I don't feel that those costs would be significant. I had a brief chance to discuss this proposal with Chuck Lepak of OSM. He indicated that it was feasible but that many communities often pay more to have gravity sanitary sever installed, so they do not have the headaches of a lift station. In this particular case, however. I feel it is appropriate. Our original feasibility study indicated a cost for the standard size shallow 10 -inch water main and B or 10 -inch sanitary sever would be $15,000 and 813,000 respectively, for a total of 928,000.00. CIO Council Agenda - 9/8/86 The final feasibility report, however, included a figure for 57,060.00 •� for restoration and more refining of the actual coat. This brought the total cost for standard size water and sever to $33,700.00. Tom Holthaus has indicated a willingness to do the restoration and pay for the restoration as part of their up front money on this project. This would bring the total cost of the project to be assessed at $26,640.00. These are construction costs. The City'e cost to oversize these lines would be $4,000.00 for the water to go from a 10 -inch to a 12 -inch; and I believe it would be in the neighborhood of $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 to go from the proposed B or 10 -inch to a 12 -inch sanitary sever. This would bring the City's cost to under 56,000.00. If the City approves of the project, we must then get approval of the three property owners involved based upon the estimated costs; and the Council would then have to make a tentative agreement with them regarding some up front money and possible assessment of the construction coats. This should be worked out before the project is ordered. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative 01 is to do the project Shallow and oversized as recommended by the Public works Director after making agreements with the property owners. 2. Alternative M2 would be to not go ahead with the project in any way, shape, or form. 3. Alternative 03 would be to go back to the idea of putting a gravity sever in deep for that portion of the OAA area south of 1-94. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that we proceed as outlined in Alternative Y1 attempting to make agreements with the property owners for some up front money and assessments and plan for a lift Station in the future. I would recommend that we hold the $6,000.00 ovarsizing cost in soma sort of a fund to be assessed to the benefiting property owners at a later date. 0. SUPPORTING DATA: Project Coat Calculations. -2- MINNESOTA STREET SEWER AND WATER EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 Preliminary Feasibility: Petitioners Water 500- $15,000.00 Petitioners Sewer 500' 13.000.00 Estimated Construction Costs $28,000.00 Final Feasibility Report Petitioners Water 500- $15,000.00 Petitioners Sewer 500• 11,640.00 Restoration 7,060.00 $33,700.00 Oversizin9 Coats to be Added to Above Costs to Cross I-94 for Purposes of Lift Station Water Change 10" to 12" DIP S 4,000.00 Sewer Change 8" to 12" FVC 2,000.00 Total Ovarsizing 5 6,000.00 TOTAL PROTECT COST $39,700.00 POSSIBLE PROPOSAL FOR PETITIONERS Restoration Costs and Work by Petitioners Water $15,000.00 Sever 11,640.00 Construction Coats $26,640.00 6.58 Engineering Design 1,731.00 Inspection 6 Staking 1,731.00 Legal and City Administration 1,050.00 TOTAL COST $31,152.00 $31,152 z 3 - $10,384.00 each Petitioner possibly assessed over 10-15 years at 9% same as others in project. City Oversizing Costs Water 5 4,000.00 Sever 2,000.00 Construction Costs 3 6,000.00 6.5% Engineering 6 Design 390.00 Inspection 6 Staking 390.00 Legal and City Administration 225.00 TOTAL OVERSIZINO COSTS 3 7,005.00 The 37,005.00 would be held and assessed to those benefiting from a future project. We should include interest. J Council Agenda - 9/8/86 5. Consideration of Approvinq Change Order No. 4 to Construction Project 86-1. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: During the backfilling operations along the Burlington Northern Railway between Cedar Street and Washington Street, the contractor was required to thoroughly compact the backfill materials above the pipe as to stabilize the soils for support of the nearby railroad tracks. When the grading operations were completed, we became aware that we were short of backfill material. It appears that the compaction operation may have densified the soils in this area by at least 5%. We experienced very few problems between Washington and Ramsey Street, as we had excess material in this area due to regrading of an embankment for the nearby apartments. The area between Ramsey Street and Cedar Street, however, is a different story. In this particular area, the area near the railroad tracks was already somewhat low and land locked in that there was no drainage outlet provided for this area. we hauled a significant amount of material in this area to bring it back up to an acceptable elevation. we have a problem in that water does pond on the railroad right-of-way and back lot lines on the westerly end of this area just east of Cedar Crest Apartments. An a solution, we propose to haul in some additional fill material to raise this area again and to place a small pips underneath tho Burlington Northern railroad tracks to drain the railroad ditch and this area during periods of heavy rain. Under normal circumstances, most of the rain will then soak away rather than run through this pipe. This pipe would be approximately 40 feet long and discharged to the south Burlington Northern railroad ditch, which discharges directly to the storm sower on Cedar Street. we have a change order enclosed in the amount of $2,450.00, which includes the pipe and the jacking of the pipe under the railroad tracks. The railroad has approved of the construction, given us authorization and a pipeline permit to construct this drainage pipe. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to approve the change order no. 4 in the amount of $2,450.00 and install the drainage pipe in conjunction with slightly raising the area also. 2. The second alternative would be to haul significant amounts of material back in this area to bring the whole area back up to the elevation it was at prior to the installation of the interceptor sower. This would spread the rain water over a larger area, but the area would still continue to be land locked, and it would be difficult to gat grass or sod to grow. 9. The third alternative would be to do nothing. This does not appear to be in the best interests of the City, nor would be acceptable by those residents in the area. -3- Council Agenda - 9/6/66 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the Council approve the change order no. 6 as outlined in Alternative 91. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of change order no. 6; Copy of OSM's letter dated August 13; Copy of the application for pipeline permit; Copy of the cross sectional V Sew. -0. ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021 E. NENNEPIN AVE. • SUITE 238 MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55413 CHANGE ORDER NO. .......1........ S. . 2.A50.a0........ RE: .PrOleCt.A15-1... Interceptor Sever L.b. G .Rehr?env ............................. Contractor 6.$05.-.20th.AY6nue.South.................... Hugo,.Minnesot4..55038....................... Dear Sir (a) Under your contract dated .................. Ap.r11..8...................... 19.0. with be, City, of, Monticello Interceptor ....................................... Owner for ............. $ewer,and .Appurtenant. work r, Project. 8671 we are authorized by the owner to hereby direct you to .1ost.411. A .10-.lnCh..414Ct,i.le. lim culvert d0 feet lon9.beneath the Burlington Northern tracks in conpliance .............................................................. .With .the.B-H.letterS.of,Apri,l,�,and,Auguat,22,,.,1986.by.meana.of angering or .jacking.................................................................................. ............................................................................................ sod to add to 7(OmMii)f1o0DIK the contract 1n accordance with croatract and @VWM dM the inion of lWo IT�ousand.Four 1100 Daum Nundred There will be an extension of .... zero..... days for completion. The ate of conaplatlon of concoct was .10/3119 .86. and now will be ..10/31.. 19 86 ... a.nmove of original Cantrell Total Addltlona Total Deductions Contract to Data $935,720.75 I $15,976.58 1 $3,000.00 $968,697.33 Approved .......................... 19.... Rally 9ahmatiffmiL ........................................... Dew OR!-SCHELEN-IMAYERON a ASSOCIATES, INC. ........ par . t�t,Kr Ctm'rTbs' �: 'LepdR;' p:E:...... tS INC. DRR•SCHEtEN•MAYERDN ftASSDCIATE . Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors August 13, 1986 Burlington Northern Railroad 80 - 44th Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55421 Attn: his. Ruth H. Hayes Division Superintendent Re: Utility Construction Mile Post 35.0 Railroad Station 1849+00 Monticello, Minnesota Dear Ms. Hayes: The work in the City of Monticello as approved in your April 3, 1986 letter has been completed; however, backfilling of the trench north of the tracks from Station 1842+00 to 1853+00 has caused consolidation of materials. The ground surface parallel to the tracks and 30-60 feet from the tracks is about one foot lower than before construction. This low elevation and the consolidation of materials is causing water to pond in this area and the water cannot seep into the soils as rapidly as before construction. The standing water is Considered a nuisance but could become a health or safety concern if not remedied. The proposed drainage pipe will alleviate this situation. The City of Monticello proposes to install a 10 -inch ductile iron pipe 40 feet long at Station 1851+50 to drain surface run-off from the north side to the south side of the tracks. In 1981, the City constructed a ditch on the south side of the tracks for conveyance of total surface run-off. The proposed pipe will be installed at elevation 927.3. The top of tie elevation is 930.5; there- fore, the depth of the pipe from bottom of pipe to top of tie is 3.2 feet. This clear distance is less than desirable but the flat terraine of the area prevents any greater separation as the ditch outlet has an elevation of 926.9 approximately 400 feet west of the proposed crossing. Refer to attached photo copy of your Exhibit "A". The standing water is preventing ground surface restoration from being com- pleted. It is therefore imperative that this plan be reviewed as soon as possible to allow the area to dry and eliminate a nuisance condition. We would 2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneopolis, Minnesota 55413 • 612 / 331.3650 Page Two Ms. Ruth H. Hayes August 13, 1986 like to do the crossing before August 31 if at all possible. As in other City projects crossing the Burlington Northern tracks, a permit is not necessary because the tracks are constructed on City street right-of-way. The permit application form is enclosed, however, to facilitate your review process. Please contact me at 331-8660 about the request to do the work by August 31, or if you have any other questions. Thank you, ORR-SCHELEN-NAYERON A ASSOCIATES. IN . �)arle,. Lepak P.E. CAL:mlj enclosure cc: John Simola, City of Monticello James Bryan. Burlington Northern Railroad Larry Gustayson, L 6 G Rehbein 0 APPLICATION FOR PIPE LINE PERMITMwinimm To BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC. Date August 13, 1986 1. At what City or Village is permit desired? Monticello, Minnesota 2. Full name and address of Applicant City of Monticello z5u Last droacuay, mont.ce_lo, minnesota »3oL 1 If Applicant is a corporation, in what stets mcorpontad? If an individual. under what firm name is business conducted? if partnership, give name of ail parbters 6. product to be handled in pipe line Storm water Run -Off 5. Pipe Data: CARRIER PIPE CASING PIPE CARRIER PIPE CASING PIPS is, Outside diameter 11-10' f. Actual working praaur b. Inside diameter 10.00' p, Typsof joint e. Pipe material Cast Iron h. Coating d. Specifications I. Method of installation aro gradeClass 50 j, Will cathodic protection e. Wall thick nar 0.55' by provided? 6. a. Depth of pipe under track (top of tie to bottom of Coingl_.3r 7 b. Angle of crowing 90e 7, if pipe is to be placed longitudinally with track. give I a. location of pipe in rotation to Centerline of nearest trarl' b. depth of coverage (ground line to top of pipe) S. if installation Is to be by jacking or boring method love location of Jack ing and receiving pits a. Depth I F—' . b. Distance facing wall of oil to centerline of nearest track (measured normal) to reel: 9. Reference plans Ito be forwarded with original apoticationl Orr-Schelen-Mayeron b Associates. Inc. a. Drawing Number 11. Prepared by App/icanr sprees that It installation requires any or all of ren following work, removal and ra bMmnr of rwk, br *AV, protacrion of track or other nilwo y fadlitio by work or flsggirrg, erry7irleerinp and far soomm ienr. such work is to be 000b Nd ble railway emplovea and dna cost borne DY Applicant. It In Of opinion of ON RalhlraP CornpanY sufficlant hazard Is im ahed the Aoplks-1 -11 be required to furnldr debility and profs" denepe kmnance in farm and amounts astwWrory to Burlington Northern, By City Engineer Charles A. Lepak, P.E'Avo�"Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 41.M1 RECOMMENDATIONS: (11 additional space la rwtWrod attach supplemlenul Sheet) Oats 19 APPLICATION APPROVED: (gwrparrha,rrwt) Uaw. Vko Pglatlwe+-�elelloPal )o~sl wariager Left") Nliegw annoy *.ew Nl S stake Iowa ase ftkAMMNJA- CONSTRUCTION OF PIPE LINES ON RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Plpo .nee u riitw&V Stec.. a RCIRN. IN Y." r.I— ,'rift At wax Cnaii COntorm to tent Arad A ReAww Sna.n.erana A.ticlit•an SaKfNCitf.n. •t cOmi/uctetl in M. Unitaa Stat!{ ..a malt ..,,Omni 10 Currant ryaulition. Notualne Dred It- "Ine..p..Ma re.lmaatl i, it-- no .m.n.etl ., In. Do.,. of Tm...ePrtCOmmItMOnC11.1 Can. 1 COn.lrYttea in C.muge In wnF. Nw, a iY aa-, a ani ou,n_ pre.Cl.Oa i nagnw tlgree at pr OlwlaOn Inln .wtilNa nR.ln. inwl the np At aOtaCt+M b A.Krlad Rion wl a iQrt puns antl spaC.tKatram for D/Ow.ea tort Nfal•tln i De W t0 ra v olYn.On ayOwrnranOenl .M m t tM1. aPpmw.al 01 M. 'llC.mwn, wnOre cOn.i,ucl.On n bemoan, Pf int Mill ma Oriwn t.mw1np [n wit`.- Of Ina pit-.- p.Y. 1. ry la Ae ang01 [rgwarp, n OI nd­I­ vw�ee, ra11WaY yrvee .iron, rrgh[ Of wN un. If0­41,I.YOu1 e, "..t . N Ii tictlltlas. PNn w•auna stip tram. a cea,t twtiOn to tactiOn , team fit i0 tun et, Ma[PrOe M ewatrpn t0 aC Suit gaff Ya o1 Pro.nO and YACs., Conim.C. ita'trop Of m..... At t0 b! u.ee, ." ..."an O1 rycs lna am rec.nna all.. 11 0 rna O ,.trop .. n v, A.,..., alt ee1.n0 an. m.lnop .1 -..a, ".a "... w d' -.9[u now Ma41a to MO.M. Ino es Ku\pn at In. w '. ant . r4•waY m.q.l at w '..n"u.+ne the wpaartirr/ Or 41­Nwi be -a , to tim MtaCtipn and .blab«.4 tM Aeyionai .a.m., Engi. /ep at in! OR—— COmpi.y, P:o. Ilnw Mall Da InntallW unO.r I,.c s. by ..rine tlr Iic.lne it al."Ced.. 6arina......... i muw at .tCeeo mi aynm. ar.m.[ar Ot diet plea. Jct{np or aanna m a 'im Iwa m w Diw, Cot Bran P.p. - wD! -,I, flinpw. Dap. ar Cauplinw nu; -, be parmntM. R. line, M.I, be loc.t.O,t.n.a. mfictictlow. to C10.6 IrKs1 of .oplee imalelV rent .nerya tnwllo Wt Pmletably al rt t, N., than .b mmeet and ,wall mw eNC.tl more n.n •Curer 1, unOOr NafwiY br,.eet.r t'..' Ina. a5 I— la any elation at MY teuw.Y ar a.a. bu•p+new m.. --It ant p..Cwn. eseeDt in ,oaC CCN. -0 tnM Dy .tetaw Cmign A. nemo.ee OV In. Awnt.nt V.. erau.tnt E1yi,lwMa.1 in. Rwt ., Co...". oiOR :in ee .... IOfN.Ytllni.y On raalwiY r.onl of w+Y m611 as Ioclll. 4.:tlr a1 oraCl1CMD14 If— an, train, a at", ampala.1 atruCtY Ploe lines Carr Y.no flammable Droo,Cl, O, orbquctt uno., Dleiwr! '...tee r.1nM 2b N!1 a1 In. Carne".. W enY trKR w .terra tow. n aan .t d.maee tram, tee, net to 4AV WiGea, bu.N,tp M Omar ,mpwtwtt w/uCtury, Inwi w lnca[ed Or Of 143,111 Cal"A a, aomIna0 by the A,iiv an, Vice PretidMl•En .Memo', .1 Ina Rau-aY C.mD.ny. PIP. Ii.M Iiad NnpetYoin.fly on In. ra•IwaY r•aM1i at way, $0 feet Or Ia1t tram in* CMtwtiM Of I,—t hall we bur.. rpt Now man 4' 6- 1n tlr. arapnp WrtiC. t. loo:,.p , ppa. Wnw• Pape floe at f..0 mar. I... 56 IOiI from In. I .... r l int an 114111, m.n.m. in C -0 be 7 felt. if iOtlat i.rtit ,attic. ir. Canu-clq. .n In. future, it, RiuwaY COnrylo., liur-inn that ra dmid t,0utq be weaned, no .._a ,nett a .atMtlaa Carr.tOonO.nply. ' PIPELINES CARRYING FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES Thi, i.0.0. 0.1, eat, pmol.,., pCtrOleum PrOd.Ct, or ptner tlwlimw7N .t h+pllY YONCN! Wb,lance undw preaW.. APPROVED CASING PIPE: Steel m Catt Iron tot at. matwraa. ALL MINIMUM DIMENSIONS MEASURED NORMAL TO t OF OUTSIDE TRACK r 75' Min IGuna Pia Saoleaa 75' Minimum ICaunq P1w reheat 45' Mm fCa.ng Pipe Oolni0 45"Minimum lCasino Diw .pant x zy nm IzV( ..Van ft t0 be .1 Or O.I.im A/W line i i um>L Q i'— ' 45' MinrmYm 1 SNna.,O A.R.E A. pro.- .0 I Slanaerd A,R.E.A. 0,00 line sign stop. air„ Ditch ling +eryC_ X T �MIN� MIN f' f`` may...,.•i,,.�%'�..,...,.��,Y,.•..y,....Y� �., yr,.PW 1 4'6"M1 N. .r 7' MIN. 6' 6" MIN. SEAL _ �ASING P11' f5ae 1-1. for m.mmum wall m.cafryal u SEAL” CARRIER PIPE TO MEET CURRENT AA E.A. SPECIFICATIONS Initial. qumetfrr al .ming p.m en.11 li W00u R.tl! Orymatw of Crone p,w by 7" fail .moms a', I... tnan E" d.ameler, 31W, tot a" to t0" awror piw ane a%" for Catiar Piw pasts than 10' dNmeum. PIPE LINES CARRYING NON-FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES CASINSPIPE IDR F t! LO►GING iwi`vlr� eifito Sss 1nt..CEiT. is 000 i Nit sit PIPE COATED OR CAT ODICALLV PP. NOT Coo It00p Cl Awl Ttoo, PC PROIECTEO CATYOGICALLI IaIN.T.ICRNt ES MIN IMICR1a Eat taKNtE 4Cat1i W -fl; o iii a In UNDER 1a 1711 also 07117 a 3,7 la Role, 1 426, 43,T Glu 0.776 70 77 a 711 o a 74 077E Oats Dam cattle, » ti A.07o Dam 000077 o"e obw 0►71 0047 74 ANo 76 7E.eo x.047 CAST IRON PIPE: Inufflat— mutt b OY Raw, nanch. Pipe Mau CantOM al A~ ten Stiandarde Ali n, Spec.hcw.en A71 cfal 160 to, 17' and under end Pon 760 for o 17'. PIw /a hail Th., Mll.dn .loam, -afar Pr MY nan•Ilammable tubaNnCe —it- ft*- -11 nawta Pr fall sn.Ca. Iglna m Coma.A uct..6.011.1p, prltturt m.g1t rave,0ilnaw ,t VICADing on a in the vKlnttV of rail-1DY mat ertV. Se Wart REINFORCE. CONtRETt P/PE: and dram do not Iw7.a1e CAa.ng PIOe unlOp Conditions e,nl wn.ch Will ondengn wcu,,N of Pipe ,hall Conlplm to Cu"..' A$.T.M. C•76 tn1., but ,nOultl be Of wlbcunl tnmglM1 tO w.Ih,fana 11.77 gAw.y I*Id,,O, Iobte IV, well"S". APPROVED CASINO PIPE; COARUpATTO METAL PIPE I Steel o, Cast Iron to, .n maiiii ll P.00 anon be ga.vwr.1.0, Dabeslp. bandies Ae.nto+cal C.ncryry M Cotr.gitad Me[.l for a...-..... man 100 P51, -0 etpnwl C .a. ALL MINIMUM DIMENSIONS MEASURED NORMAL TO t OF OUTSIDE TRACK Gage of ab,st I Olanle,a of A V� botom 6W—wep WW qQ a 1,5 0 • 12, 1 U.S. SdwP fllcMsl Or I 75' Will, ') to is and.ndf iiII j y( f f E ter, 30, and a MIN, 10 43 and 46 'tDy17r -l� i �J O fid...... A-,..... `9;/.:. H j •• Z T i�'," hen me amble of tM tering we below ground 7 4O ,a�r a.g„ g.g.. Dav anwl w wlfrllY gr6facfatl Wr,sf f1N «• IN A,FB�+'IF' M M�N, f Pgnta of faini mnouit, but stili nM be boli TRAIN. ea$*a. m•'�„IfC AStN6 PIPE fSee tale fa, m.nanum ..if R cenroel ^— nal. fn. end, Of In. Caflni ere al or do" pound wrface Ona whom high rusts, NMI t1W rmv be will do". awal aeO dreraepa it 6lfefa6d M tu[tf OW1Mr not NMaO gnu be COrtdUCtaa 4wly HOm rplaylr aaCti a eauft.laa. _ r CARR in.aa IER Pt►A TO MEET CUARF.N f A.RISIA, SPFGi1CA TIONf dUmaW of Caronw M Rating I at. a-Ctsa OunNN oftM m, of Corfu PID, jOMb at cotipi'mos bw 7" fat carnet ace Yw vR 6n is Mam+et.PMd e" fa Cwr..l Pipe 6" in olartMM ab Itivf, Hennepin Square—Suite 238. 2021 East Hennepin A" t(3=ccxWUXMIII:c- minfrescolis Minnesota — Subliciguy of Walter KidCff & COmPlInY, Inc (61Z 33143665 Tole.: 29 DESIGN CA�_ DATE PROJECT COMM.NO. CHECK DATE SHEET OF OF OF -Tic— 11�0,5 Or- PIPE— M, h.. owes A -41k Council Agenda - 9/8/86 6. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Petitions from Kent Kiellberg for Annexation and Requesting Action from the Minnesota Municipal Commission. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: While it is uncharacteristic, it is not altogether unheard of, for me to not provide you with advance information on an aqenda item. Considering the entire question of annexation, the plot continues to thicken. I have been informed by Gary Pringle that it is the recommendation of Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates and OSM to amend our original resolution to reduce our original annexation request. This doesn't have to be a problem. on Wednesday of this week. I received two separate petitions for the annexation of lands south of the City and lying along Highway 25 from Kent Kjellberg. At the last City Council meeting John Michaelis spoke on behalf of himself and other property owners indicating that they were not in agreement with Stuart Hoglund that annexation should be delayed for a considerable period of time. All of the various factors attached to evaluating the entire annexation question have generated a general state of chaos. Because of the late date of receiving all of this information, it is virtually impossible to provide in-depth evaluations and scenarios. Logistically. I simply cannot assemble ail of the required data and graphics, get them to Karen for reproduction, and get them distributed by Friday afternoon. Hance, I ask your indulgence. My goal is to provide you with some preliminary sketches at this time and continue to work on the entire issue in order to provide you some information in advance of the meeting Monday. As soon as we have information assembled into a reasonably coherent package. I will have Karon distribute them. I realise this creates an inconvenience for you in terms of preparing for the meeting, but I believe that the influx of material puts circumstances beyond my control. Soma of the questions that will need to be addressed, but for which I have no recommendation nor answers, are as follows: 1. Should we amend our original petition by deleting certain lands? 2. Should we accept the petitions presented by Kjollberg an is, or should we alter the description and add or reduce the amount of land In question? 3. Should we request the Municipal Board to consider the Kjellberg petitions as part of our original resolution and petition to the Municipal Board? 0. Should we re-invastigate the conclusions of the Orderly Annexation Study that indicated annexation was appropriate for the entire OAA? mr Council Agenda - 9/8/86 5. While we have expressed our willingness to cooperate with the school district, is it best for the City to concede to the notion of accepting 80 acres automatically, without receiving additional lands? The question here is ought the City accept 80 acres of tax exempt land which will carry with it enormous expense to the City, but generate absolutely no benefit to the tax payers of the City. Basically, the Township is more than willing to dump the financial responsibility of serving this area onto the City tax payers. The question then is ought we be so willing to accept the 80 acres if it should be ruled that only that 80 acres will be annexed? 6. Can the City continue to afford to look to its growth and planning on a piecemeal basis while continuing to subsidize Township living? Granted, Council discussion Monday night will not answer all of these questions in depth. The first few questions need to be addressed prior to the convening of the public hearing on Wednesday, September 10. If the Council chooses to amend its petition by deletion of certain lands or to amend its position by the addition of the Kjellbarg request, those amendmento can be introduced at the hearing on Wednesday morning. There are no alternative actions, nor staff recommendations at this time, but I will try to assemble some reasonable document by Monday afternoon. I am enclosing some maps which will indicate the lands that are currently under discussion. -6- •- :'t • ` :" �' \\` , , City Limits__ 17:}; >-t� :r•. =aM Orderly Annexation Ar} �•' Planning Sectors"' v• — �� ? zy, �~•1 `,Lr•.�`'�. F" �.. s—_—---•------ 1------- /"'' u«r � 1 V^y • � ' � "`'/ .•��".+ � . ,1.Lc�S'.i � t ti„� � "sY , ��c_� 9° ,... ,�:•:.: 1 ' ;.G' . _ -� �" _ _ -�" —' — �'�, - =-='-:... _ .,_'_.` r,. ,moi•+ �!"_ on StudyAonticello �I9 Minnesota _� ' —__. /,, _ rea 10­.: N ::- 1r e z. 1. j r� _�.l,li•.! !i !!!ii!•!^i tai i!!i�/f!! !.j/!!`-_!� i«f ttteUitt t, ,«C ' pv- / City Limit----- 3 =-• d, I _- �\ .. Orderly Annexation At 1 �u =�:�� '° _\ ' ' , PAJA (. Sectors"" �- LAI • r ,ter. � ••.1 �' �.-� c.�,,;.`.::' :• ��\` %•` •;_mac � ��.'!/• --�J._ i .^ .. M. on Study I--�' _ _ Aonticell Minnesota IT <��;'„ J • rea tri � T t/ C m L L. 1 1 , •y •'1 �i •n •nµw�n me Council Agenda - 9/8/86 7. Consideration of Grantinq Approval for an AQelication for 3.2 Beer/ Wine License - Applicant, Kenneth S. Chew. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Kenneth S. Chew has recently applied for a combination on -sale wine and 3.2 beer license for his new restaurant which will be located in the Monticello Mall addition. The name of the restaurant will be Ginchee and will be oriental in nature. Mr. Chew plans on opening the restaurant sometime around October i, but possibly later depending on the completion date of the expansion at the mall. A reference check has been completed by the Wright County Sheriff's Department with no adverse conditions that would prohibit the issuance of this license. The applicant has been made aware of the surety bond requirements and liability insurance requirements and will be supplying these to the City staff prior to issuance of a license, if approved by the Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff's recommandation that the on -sale wine and beer license be approved contingent upon proper submission of surety bond and liability insurance coverage. The annual fee of $400.00 would be pro -rated effective with the date the license is issued. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the license application. -7- CITY OF MONTICELLO LICENSE APPLICATION This application is being submitted for the following licanse(s): Set-up license Off -sale, non -intoxicating liquor On -sale, intoxicating liquor On -sale, vine On -sale, non -intoxicating liquor X On -sale, vine/3.2 beer AFplicant Name: Kenneth S. Cheer Age: 29 Date: 8/25/86 AFplic ant Address: 4 Eaole Circle Phone: 295-3534 Monticello, MN 55362 Name of Business: Ginchee Address of Business: Monticello Mall, 200 W. 7th St. Monticello, MN 55362 Business Phone: Describe nature of business operation: Restaurant if Corporation: Officers: Kenneth S. Chew - President Constance S. Chew - Vice President Directors: Do you or does your corporation, partnership, etc., currently hold any license allowing the sale of wine, intoxicating liquor, non -intoxicating liquor, or Bet -UPS? yen % no If yes: Name of Business: Address of Business, phone: Type of Licanaa: Years held, O References: Na:.e Address Telephone Nu:nber Michael Smalloage 1433 W. Idaho St., St Paul, M) 55108 644-2289 Mark Anderson 2318 Arthur St. NE, Minneaoolis. MN 55418 788-1923 Craia Schibonski Rt 3 Box 305A, Monticello, MN 55362 295-3518 Credit References (list at least one bank you do business with): Name Address Telechor.e Nu„ber First National Bank P.O. Box 239. Monticello, MN 55362 295-2290 Bank of America (VISA) Box 37110, San Francisco, CA 94137 (415) 622-8000 Davton's 700 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55402 375-3511 Amount of investment, excluding land: (only applicants for on -sale, intoxicating liquor must provide this information) Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or of violating the National Prohibition Act or any State lav or ordinance relating to manufacture or transportation of intoxicating liquors: No I declare that the above information is true and correct, to the beat of my knowledge. Applicant Signature For City Use Only Surety Bond Liquor Liability Certificate of Inaurance Application Fee License Foe 1 Sheriff, Wright" unty 9_ _ Date Mayor, City of Monticello City Administrator 0 Council Agenda - 9/8/86 8. Consideration and Review of the Proposed 1987 Budget of the SWCd. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Each year the Cable Commission adopts its own budget for the upcoming year. The primavy revenue source for the Commission is the contribution from each of the member cities based upon the weighted vote for each city. As in the past, the City will submit its annual contribution along with an invoice to the Commission requesting reimbursement of franchise cable fees. This process is primarily a pay-out/pay-in. The City is always fully refunded for its cable contribution. Similarly, as cable use within the City grows, our share of the franchise fee will increase. As noted in Barb Guffey's letter, the Council need not take formal action since their membership in the Joint Powers has delegated the budgetting authority to the Commission. I believe it would be good for record keeping to have a motion ratifying the City's participation and the Commission budget for 1987. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Ratify budget. 2. withdraw from the Commission. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the Council ratify the budget for the upcoming year. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Commission budget; Copy of the cover letter from Barb Guffey, Cable Administrator. -e- SHERBURNE/WRIGHT COUNTY CABLE CO-.-nNICATIONS COMIISSION 1987 BUDGET Administrator Salary $ 19,000.00 PERA 600.00 F.I.C.A. 1,350.00 Health, Dental, Life, AD&D, Dep. Life, Disab. 2,300.00 Office b General Supplies 300.00 Equipment 100.00 Legal Services 5,000.00 Telephone 11000.00 Postage 300.00 Travel, Conferences, 6 Schools 3,000.00 Printing, Publishing, 6 Advertising 200.00 Insurance 3,000.00 Rentals — Office 0 Dues 6 Memberships 350.00 Audit 500.00 System Performance Evaluation 2,000.00 Unallocated Contingency 2,500.00 5 61, 700.00 3 SWC4 DWELLING WITS 6 COMMISSION VOTES 1987 BUDGET BJG 8/5/86 $ 2,085.00 per vote Dwelling Votes City City Units 1/800 D.U. Cont-ibut'_cn Big Lake 1,100 2 541170.00 Buffalo 2,000 3 6,255.00 Cokato 802 2 4,170.00 Daeael 430 1 2,085.00 Delano 1,160 2 4,170.00 Elk River 2,332 3 6,255.00 Maple Lake 483 1 2,085.00 Monticello 1,294 2 4,170.00 Rockford 931 2 4,170.00 Watertown 812 2 4,170.00 $ 2,085.00 per vote SHERBURNEJWRIGHT COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Monticello City Hap. 250 East Broaaway, Monticello, Minnesota 55362 BARBARA GUFFEY Phone (612) 2952611 Cana Admm,senor Metro (612) 333.5739 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 25, 1986 TO: City Administrators, City Clerks, Sherburne/Wright Co. Cable Communications Comm. FROM: Barbara Guffey, SWC4 Cable AdministratorP I'�� ll, fJ RE: 1987 Commission Budget Enclosed please find a copy of the Sherburne:Wright County Cable Communications Commission 1987 budget. The Commission approved the budget at its regular meeting of August 20, 1986. This budget is sent to you in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement for the Commission in Article X1, Section 4, which provides for a passive review of the Commission budget by the Cities. The budget will be deemed approved by your City unless the City gives notice in writing to the Commission prior to October 15 that it is withdrawing from the Commission. Please have your City Council review the enclosed budget; however, no formal action need be taken to approve it. The Commission will adopt the final 1987 budget on or before November 1, 1986. Also enclosed please find a listing of each City's contribution to the Commission. The Joint Powers Agreement provides that total contributions from the Cities will be assessed to each member proportionally according to the number of votes on the Commission. Thus, please have your City review its contribution requirements and promptly remit a check to the Commission, as well as an invoice for the amount of your check, The Joint Powers Agreement provides that a director is ineligible to vote on behalf of the director's municipality during the time it is in default on any contribution or payment to the Commission. Please remit your City's contribution to the Commission to Barbara Guffey. SWC4 Cable Administrator, 250 East Broadway, Monticello City Hall, Monticello, PD1 55362. Upon receipt of the contributions from the Member Cities. as well as your invoice for that amount, the Commission will then reimburse the Cities. Thank you for your cooperation, and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Enclosures SVX4: Blp lake • Buttato • Cokato a oassoi • Delano a Elk River Maple lako a Monticello a Rockford a Watanown (P Council Agenda - 9/8/86 9. Consideration of Settinq a Special Meetinq to Consider the 1987 preliminary Budget. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Each year after the preliminary budget has been prepared, the City Council has met in special session for approximately 1%-2 hours to review the goals and policies and the expenditure plans for the upcoming year. Even though I am attempting to emphasize programming and performance budgetting, it is still essential that the Council meet to discuss the programs and the level of performance they hope to achieve. Staff anticipates having the preliminary budget completed by Friday. September 19. Consequently, I would ask that the City Council plan a special budget meeting anytime from September 22 on. In the past, we have met at 7:00 a.m. A simple motion is all that is required to set a special meeting for this matter. There are no alternative actions, staff recommendation, nor supporting data for this item. -9-