Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-24-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, November 26, 1956 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsm0 Council Members: Fran Fait, Bill Fair, .lack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Monday, November 10, 1986. 3. Citizens Commenta/Petitions. Requests and Complaints. Old Business e. Consideration of Executing a+ Cost Sharing Agreement with Wright County for the Installation of Highway 25 Traffic Control Signals. 5. Consideration of Approving City Participation in the Reconstruction of the Intersection of County Road 75, County Road 118, and East County Road 39. 6. Consideration of Hiring a Technical Arbiter to Evaluate Financial Responsibility of Excess Coat Related to Interceptor Sever and Sixth Street Station. New Business 7. Consideration of Approving the 1987 Fire Contract with Silver Crack Township. 8. Consideration of Executing the 1987 Lav Enforcement Contract with the Wright County Sheriff's Department. 9. Consideration of Authorizing Inter -fund Transfers for the 1986 Budget. 10. PSG Monthly Report. 11. Quarterly Liquor Store Report. 12. Consideration of Bills for the Month of November. 13. Adjourn. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, November 10, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fait, 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 October 27, and the regular meeting held October 27, and the special meeting hold November 5, 1986. 4. Consideration of an Offer to Purchase Land in Oakwood Industrial Park. The partners of the Oakwood Industrial Park approached the City with a proposal to Ball to the City the entire remaining 79 acres of the industrial park for $400,000.00 plus assumption of delinquent and future special assessments of 5268,000.00 for a total price of 5668,000.00. The primary reasons for the partnership offering the property to the City at this time has to do with changes in the tax laws which make it preferable to sell the property this year; and also, after IS years of ownership, the partners would like to move on to other interests. The partnership presented an appraisal from St. Cloud Appraisal indicating its value today, assuming a 6 -year time period to sell of the remaining lots, would be 5675,000.00, which is how they arrived at their asking price. Councilmombers Bill Fair, Fran Fair, and Dan Blonigen all felt there wore too many negatives in the City owning the property at this time and felt the City should not be in direct competition with other developers of commercial and industrial property. In addition, methods of financing the acquisition at the present time did not Boom feasible. Mayor Grimsmo basically agreed that purchasing the entire remaining industrial park may not be favorable but questioned whether it would be to the City's advantage to own a few of the lots in the industrial park to entice developer■ that may make proposal■ to the City in the future. Mr. Gone Fair, one of the partners in the industrial park, noted that one of the main reasons the partnership decided to offer the property to the City is that previously the City seemed negative to the Industrial park being used for the middle school site when their property was being considered and, therefore, thought the City may be interested in obtaining control of the property to insure that only industrial and commercial uses develop in the park. Council Council Minutes - 11/10/86 members noted that when the school was considering property in the Industrial park for a school site, the chairman of the Industrial Development Committee did oppose the Idea of a school being located in an industrial park because of the conflict it may cause with future growth for industries, but the City did not feel It would be in its best interest to actually have ownership of the entire industrial park. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Council not to pursue the offer at this time. 5. Consideration of a Proposal by LISP to Convert Street Lightin%. Public Works Director, John Simola, noted that several years ago Northern States Power ceased to install mercury vapor street lights for new installations and currently has plana to replace the existing mercury vapor lights in Monticello to high pressure sodium because of their lover cost of operation and higher light output. The lights, which are owned by NSP, would have the same monthly billing per light and the change -over cost would be absorbed by NSP. Motion was made by Sill Fair, seconded by 8lonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize Northern States Power Company to convert the existing mercury vapor street lights to high pressure sodium. 6. Consideration of Settinq a Special Meeting for the Purpose of Establishinn 1987 Salary/Wage Policies. A special meeting was set for 6:00 p.m., November 24, 1986, before the next regular Council meeting for the purpose of reviewing the comparable worth study and setting the 1987 salary/wage policy for all non-union personnel. Rick woltet lar Assistant Administrator _7. Council Agenda - 11/24/66 4. Consideration of Executing a Cost Sharing Agreement with Wright County for the Installation of Highvay 25 Traffic Control Signals. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Since the Highway 25 project involves intersections of county roads, Wright County is responsible for a certain portion of the costs for highway improvements, as well as traffic signals. As far as the State is concerned, the City is responsible for the total local share. It is then the City's responsibility to determine the County's share and enter an agreement with them to recover the County's portion of the cost. Wayne Fingalson has agreed to pay for 1001 of the highway related Coate at County Road 117 and County Road 75. They have agreed to pay for 506 of the coat of the interim traffic signal at County Road 117, and 506 of the costs for traffic signals at County Road 117, Seventh Street, and County Road 75. With assistance from Gary Niemi of MN/DOT, I established an estimated cost based upon the bid tabulations for the project. The local share of the Highway 25 project, including our design costs for the interim traffic signal at County Road 117, amounts to $171,888.23. Of this amount, the County is expected to pay 547,983.70. It's interesting to note that our construction costs on the project were lose than what was originally estimated in October of 1983. At that time, information we had indicated the construction coat was going to be approximately $202,000.00, with the County picking up $33,000.00. In actuality, the total coat is approximately $30,000.00 leas, with the County picking up about $14,000.00 more than what was originally estimated. These MN/DOT construction costa, however, do not include special utility costs occurred, nor administrative costa or special design costa which the City incurred early in the project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to ratify the agreement with the County an included with the supplement. 2. The second alternative would be to not approve the agreement. This does not appear to be in the best interests of the City, as the County payment would just about cover our final payment to MN/DOT on the project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Council ratify the proposed agreement as outlinod in Alternative Y1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the agenda supplement from October 11, 1983; Copy of the proposed agreement. em Council Agenda - 10/11/P.3 �'-'pT'_--;..•�4: 'Consideration of Resolutions pertaininq to T.H. 25 and Dridqo - Minnesota Department of Transportation. A. REFERENCE AND BACRGROt1:ra n This agenda item concerns the consideration of two resolutions. One resolution is to approve the plans as presented by the Minnesota `y..• Department of Transportation. The other resolution is to enter into a cost sharing agreement for the upgrading of Highway 25. At the September 26 Council meeting, the Minnesota Department of Transportation gave a presentation outlining the proposed two projects and presenting cost data. of major importance during the discussion at that meeting was the raised median, especially that portion from Third Street to River Street and the closing of River Street to through traffic. As prescnted, projected costs with the raised median and closing Piver Street to through traffic were as follows: 'the total cost for the Highway 2S upgrading project was estimated at $800,000.0u. Tho County's share, $37,000.00, and the City's share, This is bated upon City participation in the followin3 costs: 20 2305 The City would pay for 75% of sidewalk costz, 101 of curbing costs, lot of the driving lane costs, and 10% of the right turn lane costs. In addition, the City would pay its contributing rroportional share of storm mews eusta. Also, costs resulting from the: project bum nut st estimated would be as follows: 1. Moving and rewiriny etreet 1.gl,tc(`'g4,rjd5� 2. Adjustment of rar.hcicn and Yate valves. 3. Manhole, sewer lin*, anJ war, r line repairs anj/Jr re, la,,,sw :t. Along with the Highway 25 costs and ,rbove costs during this time period, we will incur costs for a portion of our into -ceptor sewer, which may he constructed under the roadway prior to completion of the project. - 1 - i;• Council Agenda 10/11/83 The September 26 meeting ended with no formal action, but it was - the eancenaus of the Couns'_I that the plan as presented by !1N/DOT would not be approved with River Street closed. Mr. James et :: •�;.; -:, f• = ��� • - Weingartz was asked to attend the October 11 meeting and present ,. L;3 _• alternatives, which would include the opening of River Street. Cn Monday evening,October 3, there was a meeting between Mr. Jim "Weingartz of MN/DOT and the downtown business representatives. I yt'. 'discussed the outcome of that meeting with Mr. Weingartz. I was +' told that information was brought forth as to the moving of Highway 25 out of Monticello and bypassing the City. This alternative was looked at by MN/DOT some time ago and was not practical. The reasons were also brought forth in general discussion at the May 24, 1483, Council meeting. We axe, therefore, basing this agenda supplement and staff recommendations only upon the projects now proposed to upgrade the existing roadway and build a new bridge. Also brought up again at the business meeting was the alternative of widening the street and striping rather than a raised median. Mr. Weingerta informed me that he explained to the business people, as he had also stated at the Council meeting, that :.tripinq mould result in only a 10% reduction in accidents. The raasec median type of construction, however, would result in a 35% reduction in accidents. There is not enough return on tax payers dollars in accident reduction to permit MN/DOT to provide striping only. Mr. Woingartz was very firm about this. It is part of the purpose fcr the new construction to move traffic more freely, safer, and cost effectively. ..i Mr. Weingartz also stated that one other important item was brought out at the meeting. This item related to accident prevention at intersections. New lights themselves would not prevent accidents without channelization of left turns. This channelization takes several hundred feet ot street prior to the intersections. I would assume that the paper will also present moms additional views and insight into the business representatives meeting and its outcome. S. ALTMATIVE ACTIONSt no alternatives presented here are either to adopt the two resolutions or not adopt them. The basic language here would be that if the City Council can come to agreement with the State of Minnesota as the proposed plan, than we would adopt such a resolution. If we cannot come to ai6resaant with Mot/DOT on the design, the cost sharing resolution, of course, would not be considered. u Council Agenda - 10/11/83 -rj, wH' i:;'• C. ISTArr RECOKIMDATION: It is the staff recommendation that we approve only such a design y'..��!_4.`,r ••�. ••'which includes' through traffic through River Street. We have },�•t.; ;; 11::,r, -,informed M:/DC7f on several occasions that this is an extremely important part of this project and a necessary part of our approval. The burden is up to them to come with a safe, cast effective design •},Ff - in which to accomplish this. As far as t -Le raised median vs. the ' striped median, it is the staff's reconnundation to go along with ' MN/DCT with the raised median. We feel thst allowing turns at midbloek would be a detriment to traffic flow and would, indeed, result in a higher accident incident rate. we can provide no " information to counter the State's recommendations as to the median construction. In addition, they have said on several occasions that they would not consider the project without the raised median. At this time I have no information as to whether MN/DOT will came forth with a proposal to open River Street. It is important that we work with than hastily to this end. If we are unable to reach an agreement on the design and miss the proposed letting date for this project, it could mean as much as a four year delay in the upgrading of Highway 25. During the four year period we are liable " - 'to see more traffic problems and congestion along Highway 25. In ieddition, the delaying of this project could delay and would.dslay ,the bridge project. This could mean that MN/DOT in this period of _ r time'any start placing further weight restrictions upon the traffic over the bridge. ,The cost of rerouting this traffic could be S•, significant. °':t 'b. SUPPORTING DATA, ... •, fir A statement referring back to the minutes of the May 24, 1953, Council Matting: letter from MN/DOT: Council Minutes from Septeaber :6, 1403, meeting, wisich are included in this packet; please also refer to article published in Monticellu Times on October 6, 1453. Two resolutions pertaining to T.N. 21, and' the bridge. - 3 - rJ r`" November 5, 1986 Mr. JohnSimola Public Works Director City of Monticello 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear John: WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County Public Works Building Route No. 1 -Box 97.8 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Jct. T. H. 25 and C. R. 138 Telephone (612) 682.3900 WAYNE A. FINGALSON. P.E. COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER I am enclosing with this letter two (2) copies of the Traffic Signal Agreement (986-01) for the Trunk Highway 25 project. As I discussed with you by phone, the Wright County Board approved this at their meeting on October 28, 1986. Please have this ratified by the City of Monticello and return the Wright County copy to us. I Thank you for help on this. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any Questions. Sincerely, Wayne A pi ngalson County ghway Engineer Enclosures WAF:jas L 1 WRIGHT COUNYi DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS TRAFFIC SIGNAL AGREEMENT No. 86-01 BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF BRIGHT and THE CITY OF MONTICELLO TO Provide new traffic control signals at T.H. 25 b C.B. 117, T.H. 25 6 CSAR 58, T.H. 25 6 CSAR 75. X17 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the County of Wright, hereinafter referred to as the 'County', and City of Monticello hereinafter referred to as the 'City', WITNESSETH. WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, (Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)) has entered into an agreement with the city for the installation and maintenance of new traffic control signals at: A: T.H. 25 and C.R. 117 B: T.H. 25 and CSAR 58 C: T.H. 25 and CSAH 75 AND WHEREAS, on agreement is needed to establish funding and maintenance obligations between the County and the City. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLIAWS: 1. The contract cost of the work or, if the work is not contracted, the cost of all labor, materials, and equipment rental required to complete the work and the cost of providing the power supply to the service poles or pads, shall constitute the actual 'Construction Cost' and be so referred hereinafter. 2. The Wright County Traffic Signal Funding policy shall determine the funding obligations of the County and the City for the signal portion of the project. The percentages are based on the Local Share (The amount remaining after the Federal and State participation is deducted.). TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION - 501 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 501 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 501 9. The funding obligations for roadwork at the following intersection are as follows: CSAH 75 - 1001 COUNTY CSAR 58 - 1001 CITY CR 117 - 100i COUNTY 0 J J Traffic Signal Agreement No. 86-01 Page 3 6. The funding obligations for the installation and removal of the temporary traffic signal system at CB 117 is as follows: *M 117 TWEPOBABY SIGNAL - 502 COUNTY - 50% CITY * County's obligation is sot to exceed $10,000. 5. The above funding percentages when applied to actual bid items give an estimated project cost as follows: ESTIMATED COUNTY COSTS - HIGHWAY 25 (as per bid tab) County Road 117 Highway related costa $15,677.90 Now signal, related caste (25%)(underground only) 5,432.50 $21,310.40 3.863423% prorate items 823.31 $22,133.7) x 8% Engineering 1,770.70 $23,904.41 CSAH 58 (West 7th Street) Now Signal (underground only) related costs (25%) $ 4,369.75 3.863423% prorate items 168.82 $ 4,538.57 8% Engineering 363.09 $ 4,901.66 County Road 75 Highway related costa $ 461.10 Now signal (underground only) related costa (25%) 4,917.00 $ 5,378.10 3.863423% prorate items 207.78 $ 5,585.88 6% Engineering 446.87 S 6,032.75 Interim Signal at County Road 117 Local Share S 8,842.00 Engineering 6 Design 5,967.38 $14,809.36 County Share 50% - S 7,404.69 New Signals (above ground work) at County Road 117, CSAR 58 6 Co. Rd. 75 Local Share 511,480.18 County Share 50% - S 5,740.19 ESTIMATED TOTAL COUNTY SHARE $47,983.70 01/ rJ Traffic Signal Agreement No. 86-01 Page S The above breakdown is in agreement with the present State and County Traffic Signal Funding Policies. 6. Upon execution of this agreement and a request in writing by the City, the County shall advance to the City an amount equal to the County's share of the construction, engineering and inspection costs. 7. Upon final payment to the contractor and computation of the County's share for the work provided for hereon, the City agrees to pay to the County that amount of the County's share which is in excess of the amount of funds previously advanced by the County. If the computation of the County's share for the work exceeds the estimated payment to the City, the County shall make payment of the remaining share within 30 days of an invoice from the City. S. The City shall be responsible for providing the necessary electrical energy for the operation of the traffic control signals, and any electrical energy for street lights which are necessary. 9. Upon completion of the project; it shall be the City's responsibility at its cost and expense to (1) relamp the traffic control signals; and (2) clean and paint the traffic control signals and cabinets; and (3) provide electrical energy for the traffic control signals. The City shall also provide, at its cost and expense, for the maintenance on luminares, and cleaning and painting the street light standards for the traffic signals. This is in agreement with the County's signal funding policy. APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney CITY OF MONTICELLO by Mayor Dated (City Seal) by Clark - Treasurer COUNTY OF WRIGHT APPR VED AS TO FORM 0,AX-1 - A �V/L ounty Attorney RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL County 8 hrap EngtoV by ChairmA, of the Based Dated le — a',f - (County Seal) by \ J County Au for ATTESTS iln/f�/-�`�?-- iGhard Y. Norman County Coordineto! 84, Council Agenda - 11/24/86 LATE ADDITION TO AGENDA - FRIDAY, 3:30 P.M. 4A. Consideration of Accepting Documents to Establish an Escrow Account and Contracting for the Construction of a Sewer and Chelsea Street Extension and Authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to Execute. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Late this afternoon I met with Jim Metcalf, Legal Counsel for the School District, to work out the final details to facilitate the construction of the school on the 80 acres lying south of the city limits known as the Boyle property. I assume that each of you have read the account in the Monticello Times and have a basic grasp of the situation. Basically, Mr. Boyle did get the financing necessary to clear a title to the 80 acres to be conveyed to the school. In exchange for those 60 acres, the School District will pay Mr. Boyle $450,000.00. This amount of money, however, will not be paid directly to Mr. Boyle. Rather, $100,000.00 will be paid to the Federal Land Bank for them to release their liens. The remaining $350,000.00 will be paid directly from the school to the City of Monticello in order to pay for the construction of the sewer and the extension of Chelsea Street. To accomplish this function, two documents will need to be executed by the City, namoly, a statement of the escrow account and its purpose, and 2) the construction contracts. The school made a special request to appear at this Council meeting so as to expedite their land closing, which is scheduled to occur prior to the City Council's December meeting. Representatives of the School District will attend the meeting to discuss this issue. What is being requested of the City Council is that a motion be adopted accepting the responsibility to establish the escrow account when the money is received and to make the payments to the construction company in accordance with the terms of the contract. The motion should include directions to the Mayor and Administrator to execute and sign the required agreements upon final approval being given by the City Attorney. A motion by the Council of this type will allow the School District and Boyle and the financial institutions to proceed with drafting all of the agreements and getting prepared for the closing without having to bring all of the detailed forme back to the City Council. Basically, your motion is saying let's do what it taken to got the job done, but don't do it if the attorney says we're unduly exposed. 1 apologize for the information on this item being rather sketchy, but I have agraod to put it on the agenda to indicate our willingness to cooperate with the School District to facilitate this project. This hes been a controversy for too long and needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. Council Agenda - 11/24/86 5. Consideration of Approving City ParticiQation in the Reconstruction of the Intersection of County Road 75, County Road 118, and East County Road 39. (J -S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Early in 1986 the Council requested that the staff discuss with the County the possibility of a future signal light at the intersection of East County Road 75 and East County Road 39. I went before the County Board during their discussion of the 5 -year program and requested they look into the possibility of a future signal at the intersection of County Road 75, 39 and 118. The County Board authorized the County Highway Department to do a study of the intersection to determine whether any improvements were needed. Such a study was performed on September 17 and 18 with Wright County personnel. This study uncovered some significant problems during peak times. The largest peak occurs between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. There are significant problems in turning onto County Road 39 from County Road 75 in the east bound lane. In addition, there appears to be significant problems with trucks and large vehicles entering County Road 75 from County Road 118. As you know, we have AME Ready Mix and Dahlheimer Distributing in that area. County Road 118 comes into 75 at such a severe angle that the truck drivers cannot see unless they park semi -cross ways in the intersection. After the preliminary traffic study, I mat with Wayne Fingalson, the Wright County Highway Engineer, Dave Montebello, Wright County Traffic Engineer, and Tom Eidem at City Hall concerning this intersection. At the current time, Dave Montebello indicated that although the intersection has some significant problems, signals are not currently warranted. There are some additional warrants which are easier to moot for traffic signals, but it is estimated that this intersection does not and will not meet those warrants for come time. Based upon the traffic study, however, there is an immediate need for some reconstruction and ro-alignment in this intersection. The re -alignment would occur by moving County Road 39 and County Road 118 to the cast a minimum of 45 feet, possibly more. This would correct a major portion of the problem with County Road 118. In addition, traffic flow at and through this intersection could be made much safer through the introduction of raised channelization and right and loft turn and through lanes. With the speed limit at 55 mph, or even reduced to 45, there is e significant amount of room required for breaking and stopping distances prior to making loft turns. The raised channelization could and up to be as long as 1,000 feet in this area. The County has agreed to consider the ro-alignment and upgrading of this intersection with the construction of CSAR 39 East to begin in 1987. The CSAR 39 East project is being completed totally at County cost with exception of that portion that the City requested to be built as an urban street from County Road 75 to Mississippi Drive. The intersection, however, would be done through the County -2- Council Agenda - 11124/86 municipal funding policy. The City would pay 30% of the grading base and surfacing, 50% of the concrete median, and 501 of the right-of-way required. Without signals, the project could be expected to cost approximately $87,000.00. The City's cost would be approximately $33,500.00, excluding engineering. The City would be expected to cover its normal cost of engineering. It in the County's opinion, and the City staff concurs, that an engineer should be hired to further study the traffic flow patterns in the area to assist in the design of the intersection and to determine whether or not it is possible to meet warrants for signals. Signals themselves could cost approximately $75,000.00, of which the City would share 50% of the cost. If signals aren't warranted in the immediate future but are indicated to be warranted within the next few years, it is possible that we may look into installing the underground portion of the signal system, much like we did on the Highway 25 project. This could cost a minimum of 570,000.00, which cost would be shared equally between the City and the County. Since it is known now that this intersection is a trouble spot and can only grow worse, it seems logical to take steps in the form of a cost sharing agreement with the County to move ahead and rectify those existing problems and plan for the future. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize the City's participation in this intersection project as per the County municipal funding policy. After the initial engineering study and a more detailed coat analysis, a formal agreement would be brought before the Council for a review. 2. The second alternative would be not to participate in this project. This would more than likely result in the project being postponed and would not be in the beat interest of the City of Monticello nor Wright County, an future development in the area will only add to the already existing problems at the intersection. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City of Monticello opt for Alternative Ni, that the Council authorize participation in this project, and request further engineering study and design be performed by the County. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the preliminary traffic study and coat estimates. -3- October 3, 1986 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County Public Works Building Route No. /- Box 97•B Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Tom Eidem City Administrator 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MM 55362 Jet. T. H. 25 and C. R. 138 Telephone (6 12) 682.3900 Re: CSAB39 - East of Monticello (Into to action with CSAB 75) WAYNE A FlNOALSON, V.E COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER Dear Tom: YL have completed a preliminary investigation of the above referenced intersection and we would lite to meet with you and John Simola to discuss our findings. This discussion will cover the following topics: 1. Results of Traffic Study T. Future Developments 3. Design Alternates 4. Cost Sharing 5. Design I have enclosed a draft copy of our traffic study for your information. Please contact us regarding a meeting time. If you have any Questions regarding this please contact myself or Dave Montebello of my staff. Sincerely, Boyne Fi"go lson I ✓ to Wright County dig Enginenc pc: Richard Marquette, Engineering Assistant vff'ohn Simola, Public Works Director with Enclosure Basil Schillewaert, County Commissioner Enclosure: Preliminary Traffic Study Report C67 PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC STUDY INTERSECTION CSAR 73 6 CSAR 99 b CR 118 Monticello. MN PREPARED BY: D. Montebello Project Engineer DATE: October 2. 1986 MONTICELLO TRAFFIC STUDY INTERSECTION of CSAH 75, CSAH 39 and CR 118 On September 17 and 16, 1986 the Wright County Highway Department did a traffic study at the intersection of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 75, CSAR 39, and County Road 118. This was prompted by requests from both the City and School District to include the intersection in the 5 -Year Improvement Plan. The purpose of this study was to determine what problems exist at this intersection and how they may be eliminated as part of future improvements. The results of the study are included within this report along with some recommendations for any improvements to the intersection. The study basically consist of two parts. The first being a turning movement count and observation of the intersection; the second being an analysis of traffic flows, signal warrants (1-8) as specified in the MCD, and possible solutions to any existing problems at the intersecticn. OBSERVATIONS: During our traffic study the following observations were made between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.: (1) At peak traffic periods the intersection becomes very congested. The main reason for this congestion is the large number of left turns off of CSAH 75 EB to CSAH 39. At peak times care can stack seven to eight vehicles deep and pose problems for the large number of through vehicles. (2) Large vehicles (i.e. concrete trucks, liquor distributing trucks, buses, ate.) have a hard time making left turns from CSAH 75 WB to CR 118. This is caused by the skewed intersection $ CR 118. 1986 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC COUNTS Projected 0-5:00 p.m. (11 Hr.) (24 Hr.) Peak COUNT DAILY Hour CSAH 75 EBL * Lefts 914 11900 145 Rights 286 500 44 Through 1,269 21000 157 CSAR 75 WBL Lefts 44 80 9 Rights 91 150 24 Through 1,542 2,500 275 0 J M -.y Intersection of CSAR 75, CSAR 39 and CR 118 Page 2 Projected 4-5:00 P.M. 01 Hr.) (24 Hr.) Peak COUNT DAILY Hour 7-8:00 p.m. CSAH 39 YBL Lefts 41 75 4 8 * Rights 833 1,500 95 137 Through 101 180 9 14 CR 118 NBL Lefts 292 400 39 Right 57 100 7 Through 97 150 10 ANALYSIVRECOMMENDATION: After analyzing the turning movement counts it to Quite evident that the major problems are: (I) High volume of left turns on CSAR 75 EB to CSAH 39. (2) High volume of right turns on CSAH 39 SB to CSAH 75. These movements are quite heavy and reinforce the field observations that were -tads. The above problems are in addition to the field observation regarding _eft turas by large trucks onto CR 118. The traffic counts were also analyzied for meeting the signal warrants (1-8). In order for an intersection to qualify for a traffic signal it must meet specific criteria called warrants. Although additional data should be taken from 5:00 a.m. - 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. the data we collected indicates that this intersection would have problems meeting warrants (1-8) at this time. Presently the intersection meets warrant f1 for only two consecutive hours and only three bourn out of the total period counted from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. This however, could change with additional development of property along CSAH 75, CR 118 and CSAH 39. Therefore, we believe that what ever Improvements are made to the intersection the plans should ultimately include a signal even if it is not installed for a few years. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations are primarily based on the following traffic flow theories: 1. The number of conflict points should be kept to a minimum. 2. Relative speed differentials should be reduced. 3. The design should prevent/minimise dangerous vehicle manuvers. t 0 'Traffic Study Intersection of CSAR 75, CSAR 39 and CE 118 Page 3 4. The design should segregate nonhomogeneous flows. By applying the above theories to this intersection we recommend that the following improvements be considered: 1. Install raised medians on CSAR 75 to provide for separate left turn lanes RESULT e. Separate nonhomogeneous flows b. Improve capacity c. Reduce conflicts d. Prevent dangerous vehicle movements 2. Re -slip CR 118 to provide for a right-angle intersection with CSAR 75 RESULT a. Improve turning movements b. Improve sight linea c. Improve capacity 3. Install right turn lane on CSAR 39 and merge lane on CSAE 75 to provide easy access for majority of users RESULT a. Improve capacity b. Reduce relative speeds c. Reduce conflicts 0 F] CSAR 39 EAST INTERSECTION W/CSAR 75 6 CR 118 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE 1. Widen CSAR 75 to accommodate turn lanes and a raised concrete median. Common Exc - 3,000 Granular Borrow - 16,000 Bituminous (3") - 16,000 Class 5 - 5,000 $40,000 Raeied conc. median - 22,000 TOTAL 562,000 2. Re -align CR 118 - $10,000 3. Signals - $75,000 4. R/W (1. acres) - 20,000 (exclude 55,000 Co. Rd. 39 curve) - 515,000 Total Cost With Signals Without Signals Grading - 50,000 50,000 Medians - 22,000 22,000 Signals - 75,000 ------ R/W - 15,000 15,000 TOTAL - 5162,000 587,000 Grading with signal underground • 10,000 I COST SHARING: (City Cost) (County Share) W/Signals W/O Signals W/Underground 70% Grading 35,000 W/Signals W/O Signals W/Underground 30% Grading 15,000 15,000 15,000 50% Medians 11,000 11,000 11,000 50% Signals 37,500 ------ 5,000 50% R/W 7,500 7,500 7,500 $71,000 $33,500 $38,500 (County Share) W/Signals W/O Signals W/Underground 70% Grading 35,000 35,000 35,000 50% Medians 11,000 11,000 11,000 50% Signals 37,500 ----- 5,000 50% R/W 7,500 7,500 7,500 $91,000 553,500 $58,500 Amounts to 50/50 split depending on R/W cost. State Aid Municipal Balance 157,290 after 1987 Rockford signal (excess) . 13,000 Monticello Signal (excess) . 7,000 5177,000 Lowest balance is in priority d - 56,000 J Council Agenda - 11/24/86 6. Consideration of Hiring a Technical Arbiter to Evaluate Financial Responsibility of Excess Cost Related to Interceptor Sewer and Sixth Street Station. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In 1985 during the planning for Project 86-1, the City's interceptor sower, the City was involved in a tax increment project with the Raindance Corporation for the construction of the Sixth Street Station between Highway 25 and Cedar. Street. There were an enormous amount of last minute efforts to get the tax increment project in place before the end of 1985. As the plans were being finalized for the interceptor sewer and the Sixth Street Station, it became apparent that there was a conflict existing with the construction of the sower and the building. The Raindance Corporation wished to locate their building as far north as possible, eventually with the loading portion of the building coming within 15 feet of our interceptor sewer, which was buried approximately 30 fast beneath the proposed floor elevation for the building. The City had intended to construct the entire interceptor sewer prior to allowing the Raindance Corporation to begin construction an the now building for Maus Foods. we received an enormous amount of pressure from the Raindance Corporation to allow them to do their soil correction, which was to be extensive, prior to the installation of our interceptor sewer. The Raindance Corporation had indicated that because of their financing arrangements, any delay in the opening date of their building could cost them several hundred dollars par day. Early in 1986, we looked at some possible methods by which we could allow the Raindance Corporation to begin work on their building area prior to the installation of the interceptor newer. It was anticipated that Veit Construction and/or Raindance would be doing the soil correction and doing all the necessary dowatering for such an operation and be complete by March 31, 1956. The City had some reservations in that 1) if we allowed the soil correction for the building to go before the interceptor sewer, we did not wish to have the construction of the interceptor sewer have any detrimental effects on the building or the Sixth Street Station project itself. Secondly, we did not wish the City to incur any additional costs by having to protect the project. I, therefore, after discussions with Tom Eidem, drafted a special conditions cheat for the project and passed it on to the Raindanco Corporation. The Raindanco Corporation agreed to all aspects of tho spacial conditions to letting them go first, except supplying the City with a hold harmloss agreement resulting from the interceptor sower construction. we had much discussion over this particular item. The Raindance Corporation did not wish to move their building. They wished to build it almost on top of our interceptor sower, and we felt that by allowing them to go first, we could open ourselves up to some litigation at a future date. In discussions with the City Attorney, it was pointed out that if the City allowed the building -4- Council Agenda - 11/24/86 soil correction to be done first, even if there was a hold harmless agreement and the City did something detrimental to affect that building, the City could be held liable. Therefore, it was deemed that a hold harmless agreement was not needed. We, therefore, agreed to allow the Raindance Corporation to begin the excavation and soil correction for the building. At the insistence of Raindance, we amended the already completed plans and specifications for the interceptor cower project. This amendment was done on February 25, 1986, just a few days before the March 4 bid opening. In that amendment we asked the contractor to begin work almost immediately on the Sixth Street Station site. As you may recall, the Council authorized the City to purchase the pipe to go across this cite to speed things up again in consideration for the Raindance Corporation. We gave the contractor only 30 days to complete the work across the Sixth Street Station sits. The general contractor was to place a 1 -foot blanket of clean, granular fill on the building foundation to protect it from excavation material, and he was to segregate all the unsuitable materials and to place any additional granular backfill required ir. the Sixth Street Station area. We made it clear to this contractor that the additional granular fill material would be provided by others, namely, the Raindance Corporation. L 6 G Rehbein Company was the lover bidder on the project, but they were unable to start immediately in the area of the Sixth Street Station, am Raindance Corporation had not completed the building pad preparation. The excavation and backfilling operations vent very slow for the Raindance Corporation. They had decided to save funds by not dowatering and were working on a virtual lake bottom. In addition, the peat and unsuitable anile were much more extensive than they had originally planned, especially to the eastern aide of their excavation. While Raindance was working on the building site preparation, we contacted George Klemke of Braun Engineering and asked him to thoroughly check our operations of the interceptor never construction when we crossed the Sixth Street Station property. Normally Braun Engineering does all the tooting for the City. We asked them at this time to be able to documont our work so that we would in no way affect the structural stability of the building or Sixth Street Station project. Rehboin started excavations across the Sixth Street Station property in May. On May 15, while I was on vacation, a meeting was held at the cite between Braun Engineering, OSM, Rohbein, and Vett to discuss the removal of organics from the area. Thera had been a significant amount of unsiutable materials that were being hauled off the sits for a perod of about five hours. It is our understanding that this group met and made a decision not to haul any additional material off the cite, but to stockpile it for possible future use at a later date. The specifications call for the material to be sagrogated by the general contractor. On May 16 Hank called me while I we on vocation at home and asked mo whether the railroad had granted -5- Council Agenda - 11/24/86 an easement yet for the construction of the interceptor sever across the Sixth Street Station project; and I told him that they had by approval of the plans. On May 29, I received a call from Hank wander who indicated that they were unable to obtain proper compaction on some of the material in the area of the Sixth Street Station and that Veit would not furnish granular material as he had originally indicated. Hank asked if he should have Rehbein furnish the material. I told Hank to go ahead and have Rehboin furnish the material. At that time I was given no estimates or quantities of material that may be required. Rehbein completed the work in this area on June 4 and moved their equipment out of the Sixth Street Station area. I talked to Chuck Lepak a couple times regarding calculations of fill materials used, as we were intending to haul some material from the ball park to supplement some shrinkage in some areas of the interceptor sever job. It was not until September 10 that I received a documented report as to what had actually taken place on the Sixth Street Station site. Rahboin had been compensated $23,926.50 for providing and placing 7,362 cubic yards of granular backfill in the area of the building and behind the building over the interceptor saver. In addition, Rehbein van compensated 59,809.00 for hauling away 3,028 cubic yards of unsuitable material and moving 2,502 yards for use by Raindance on their property. Needless to say, I vas astounded by the amount of material and coat attributable to that site. After receiving this information, I discussed it with Tom Eidem, and Tom suggested we got all the parties togothor and try to discuss as to who may be responsible for these extra costa and who would be liable for payment. we got all of the parties together at City Hall and discussed the matter. Present wore George Klemke and Al Zimmer from Braun Engineering; Vaughn Veit representing the Raindance Corporation; Larry Gustafson for the L 6 G Rahboin Company, the general contractor; Chuck Lepak, Project Engineer from OSM; myself; and Tom Eidom. For a while we had the General Superintendent, Al, from Rahboin present to discuss how this may have coma about. It is our understanding that after the initial hauling of unsuitable materials from the site for five hours that all of the parties mot on May 15 and decided as to how to proceed with the project. what occurred later appears to be what led to the high cost. Supposedly, the materials were not segregated as they were originally indicated to be by the specifications. The blacker materials were mixed with the sands at the site and attempts to compact this material ware unsuccessful. Veit supposedly delivered an undated Lotter "to whom it may concern" and gave such a latter to the goneral contractor indicating that he would accept the poor compaction behind his building. Veit has not or did not take a single compaction test on his entire project. His latter was passed around to 1. 6 G Rahboin, Braun Engineering, and the City's engineer, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, but never found its way to the City of Monticello or staff. Supposedly then between Braun Engineering and the Project Engineer, a decision was made to reject the existing material due -6- Council Agenda - 11/26/86 to its incapability to be properly compacted. There is come indication, at least from Vaughn Veit, that if the material had not been mixed and segregated that the moisture content of the material would have been kept lower and it could have been used. Braun Engineering and USM indicate that they followed correct procedures and felt it would not be in the beat interests of the project or the City to lower the required specification on compaction, thereby requesting that the material be replaced. So it was. We went around and around at that meeting for quite come time without really determining who is essentially liable for what. Since that time, I have discussed the project with Chuck Lepak from OSM several times, and we discussed the compensation to Rahbein for placing the material as well as providing the material when the specifications call for him to place it without additional compensation. In addition, I questioned as to why the contractor should be paid for leaving material at the site for Veit. I asked Chuck if there wan another way to proceed on this. He said he felt that certainly the contractor should not be paid twice for placing the material, and that we, by force account, he would only be responsible for the cost of the material plus 10%, which was ultimately provided by Veit. It is my understanding that when Chuck went back and discussed this with Rahboin. Rehbcin came up with a figure that exceeded the $33,000.00 total of these two items. Since it has become almost impossible to determine what effect which party had toward these coats or which party should contrihute toward the cost, both Tom and I feel it would be beet to hire some type of arbiter that would interview all of the parties involved and collect all of the data and make a decision as to who is responsible for what. This could ultimately be used in court as expert testimony at a later data if in all likelihood the City finds itself in court to recover costa. There currently is lase than 53,000.00 in the tax increment project due to the 318,000.00 overrun on the Sixth Street portion. There are not enough funds to cover the $33,000.00 excess costa on the north and. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to hire an arbiter to interview all of the parties, gather all of the data, look it over, and determine as to who is responsible for whet. 2. The second alternative is to pay the bills as presented. 3. The third alternative would be to turn all the information over to the City Attorney. a. The fourth alternative would he to make additional attempts to roach agreements with the parties involved to share the excess coats. -7. Council Agenda - 11/24/86 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and the Public Works Director that the City make additional attempts to arbitrate the matter themselves. If those attempts fail, authorize the City to hire an arbiter at S75.00/hour to look into the matter. This information, if not found acceptable to the other parties involved, still could be used in court at a later date should the City decide to pursue the matter. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Sixth Street Station special conditions originally negotiated with Raindance; Copy of Addendum 01 to the 86-1 Project; Copy of the June 20 report from Braun Engineering on the Sixth Street Station project; Copy of the September 10 letter from Chuck Lepak summarizing the excess costa. ADDITIONAL CONA4ENTS. (T.E.) It occurs to me that the decision of May 15 was a decision by committee, which by itself did not have a significant impact, but which formed the basis for the ensuing decisions and actions leading to the excess expense. The problem with this particular decision by committee is that the excess costs are now attributable to no one. It seems that out of consensus during an on-site conversation, the conclusion to replace was reached. However, no single party to that conversation is willing to accept responsibility. With respect to the technical arbiter, we have not approached the other parties and asked them to concede to being bound by the findings of the arbiter. The coat of the arbiter's services will be provided by John Simola at the meeting Monday. Currently, if we engage such an arbiter, it is at the sole expense of the City with the findings to be non-binding to any of the parties. Again, as John has pointed out above, the findings will serve as expert testimony if litigation results. 4 Al -e- 6TH STREET STATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS PROTECT 86-1 General Contractor 1. 1 -foot sand cover over building area during interceptor construction. 2. Confine excavation to permanent easement (exception: dewatering wells). 3. Contractor to have only 30 days from notice to proceed to complete. Road limits shall not be considered as a request for extension for completion. a. Liquidated damage to City 5500/day. S. The contractor shall replace all pont or unsuitable materials with select material available at the site. RaindanCe Corporation 1. Grant 60 -foot temporary easement to City. 2. Hold Harmless Agreement to City resulting from interceptor sever construction. 3. Agreement on completion date of building soil correction, March 20-307 a. Raindance to pay extra costa, if any, for special requirements for backfill in 30 -foot permanent easement. I NO AODENCt"i NO. I FOR MONTICELLO INTERCEPTOR SEWER, AND APPURTENANT WORK PROJECT NO. 86-1 FOR THE CITY OF 1-10NTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Specifications Dated: January 13. 1986 Commission No.: 3604.10 This Addendum Dated: February 25, 1986 This addendum shall be attached to the specifications and shall be included as part of said specifications. Items herein shall take precedence over any clauses which they modify in the specifications or portions of drawings which they modify or supplement. 1. PROPOSAL FORM The bidder shall remove the original bound Proposal Form from the contract documents and shall use in its place the attached ADDENDED PROPOSAL FORM and affix it to the specifications as part of the bid. A separate oupttcate form shall also he submitted. 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 01014 - Work Sequence Delete the second and third paragraphs of this section and replace them with the following: ' Construction by others of the proposed building shown on Sheet No. 5 of the plans will start on March 1. 1986 with subsurface corrective work to be com- pleted by March 31, 1986. A 60 foot wide temporary easement, south of the permanent easement and on top of the subsurface corrective work, will be available for storage of supplies and materials only. This Contractor shall place a one foot thick layer of granular material on the building pad to be paid for as trench granular backfill material. This granular layer shall act as a cushion to protect the granular fill placed by others for a building foundation. when hackfiiling, the granular material layer shall be used as trench backfill material in lieu of any unsuitable materials encountered in this area. Unsuit- able materials shall be segregated. Any additional granular hackfill material required in this area will be furnished on-site by others and installed by this Contractor. Refer to the revised Sheet No. 54. Any granular fill for the building foundation placed by others and disturbed by this Contractor shall be corrected without compensation. The City has purchased 384 L.F. of 18" O.C.P. and shalt require the Contractor to install this pipe from Station 25 + 33 to Station 28 - 90 as the first phase of construction. All pipe and trench worn for this se�,ment shalt be completed within thirty (30) days of the Notice to Prcceed. 3604.10 Addendum No. 1 Page 1 of 10 CZ -_1 j. j As stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY GEI:ERAL CONDITIONS, GC .26, Failure to Complete Work on Time, this deadline along with the final completion date shall be subject to the liquidated damages clause. Load limits on streets and highways will not be considered a legitimate reason for not meeting deadlines. The sum of the liquidated damages is to be Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents (5500.00) per day. 01708 - Railroad -Highway Provisions Add this section to the General Requirements: Generally all provisions of Mn/DUT 1708 shall apply except that the Contractor shall maintain a 15 foot separation distance from the center of the track to all of his work, excavations, and equipment. Use of a steel construction box may he necessary. The open trench crossing is excluded. Any bonds or insurance poli- cies required by the Burlington Northern Railroad shall be the responsibility of the Contractor, and the cost shall be included in the bid amount of Lump Sum Bid Item 3-A. Any and all work, materials, protective services and protective devices required by the railroad for this contract shall be included in the amount of Lump Sum Bid Item 3-A. Typically, trains use the track once per week. This Contractor shall schedule the open trench crossing on Sheet No. 3 with the railroad and shall complete the crossing in seven (7) calendar days. Prior to proceeding with the crossing, the Contractor shall notify the Engineer and the railroad in writing 15 days prior to beginning work on the crossing. 01569 - Dewaterinq Operations Add the following to this section: All dewatering from Hennepin Street and westward shall discharge to existing storm drainage piping. Fast of Hennepin Street, the culverts and ditches may be used. Refer to the attached Storm Sewer Map. 3. DIVISION 2 - SiTEUORK 02112 - Suhgrade Preparation - Delete this section in its entirety. There will be no separate payment for subgrade preparation. 02621 - Sewers Mains and Services A4. Reinforced Concrete Pi pe - Change the required thickness of the coal tar epoxy coating of the barrel 7rom 50 mils to 20 mils. 4. DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL 151,16 - Lift Station D. Operating Conditions - Delete the first paragraph and replace it with the following: "The Contractor shall furnish and install two pimps, F1ygt Model C-3152, Hydromatic S4L, or approved equal with 230 volt, 3 phase. 2.0 HP, 1750 Rpm d 3604.10 Addendum No. I Page 2 of 10 tors. Each pump shall have 6" discharge with an impeller matching the dual /head/discharge conditions of 1000 GPM @ 45' TDH and 500 GPM @ 65' TDH minimum capacities and shall be non -overloading through the entire pump curve." 5. DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL 16004 - Power Supply and Meterinq Add the following to this section: Install an emergency power receptacle for 120/240, 3 phase power with outside angle adapter such as Crouse -Hinds #AREA 10426-522 or equal. Supply two mating plugs to the Owner. Furnish a 200 A weatherproof manual transfer switch, Square D or equal, mated with the receptacle and mounted to the control enclosure. Only the lead pump is to operate under emergency power conditions. 16005 - Control System and Control Panel Add the following to each respective paragraph: A. Control Panel (05, Yrovide a spare controller assembly or module. (15) Indicator lights on the backside of the control panel shall match the existing control panel and shall differentiate between high level, low level and power failure. B. Enclosure Provide a mounted light to luminate the dead front panel when the front weather door is open. 6. PLAN SHEETS Sheet No. 5: Replace Sheet No. 5 with Sheet No. 5R. Note the 60 foot wide temporary easement from station 26 • 30 to Station 29 + 40 and the 30 foot wide permanent easement along T.H. 25. Note corrections to manhole numbers. Sheet No. 6: Replace Sheet No. 5 with Sheet No. 6R. Note the 6" watermain, paving and concrete curb and gutter added on Locust Street. Sheet No. 10: The 16" diameter manhole frame and lid shall be Neenah R -6017-A with Type K inside lever lock or equal. The dimensions of the Power and Control Center as shown on the drawing is not mandatory. The Owner prefers a higher profile control panel. The manual transfer switch is not shown on the schematic drawing but shall he included. I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engii.eer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. �{ Charles A. lrpal. `. Date: (! Rpg. No. 15138 i 9604,10 Addendum No 1 I Page 3 of 0 � 'SOTA: Minneapolis. Hibbing. SI. Cloud. Rochester. St. Paul amuse W_ WORTH OAKOTA: Bismarck. Williston. MONTANA Billings June 20, 1986 City of Monticello Public Works Dept. P.O. Box 83A Monticello, MN 55362 Attn: Mr. John Simola Mr. Simola: U U N . Servn:oe Since 1857 ENGINEERING TESTING "`°"��� 7s BRAUN I oo uunoHavt ,H ANMRSON outs uiEN F Cc[AuSE VE uNEsi auc r, P o a n.uarrt v t Reply To: P.O. Box 189 St. Cloud, MN 56302 (612) 253-9940 RE: C85-287 EXCAVATION OBSERVATIONS 6 COMPACTION TESTING SERVICES Interceptor Sewer Project Monticello, MN We are sending you this report to summarize the observation and compaction testing services conducted during installation of the interceptor sewer in the area between Cedar and Pine Streets north of the proposed Monti -Maus Food Store. Prior to our recent services, observations and test pits were conducted along the north building line of the proposed store and detailed in our report C84 -205A dated April 9, 1986. This report details the bottom elevations and oversizing of the excavation as well as placement of structural fill along the north building line of the store by Veit Construction, Inc. A sketch detailing the building location with regards to the oversizing and interceptor sewer alignment is attached for your reference. The excavation for the interceptor sewer was periodically observed between May 14 and June 3, 1986. Prior to any excavation, a lr foot tiick layer of clean sand fill was placed in the easement7 area above the structural fill placed by Veit Construction, Inc. This material was placed to prevent any contamination of the in-place structural fill as the sewer trench material was stockpiled. Invert grades of the sanitary sewer CONSULTING ENGINEERS / SOILS AND MATERIALS Arohateo Company tw Chn—Cal A Ennrpm—nlal 7nung eno Conaunmg — Braun Ennronmentel Lanotworma, Inc ot.- C85-287 -2- City of Monticello June 20, 1986 ranged from elevation 906.1 at Pine Street to 905.6 at Cedar Street. The upper 8 to 10 feet of overburden was removed with a backhoe. The trench width at surface grade was approximately 30 to 35 feet with the bottom of the excavation ranging from elevation 920 to 921. Structural fill along the loading dock area of the store was encountered and its removal documented. Along the western half of the north building line, the southern edge of the sewer trench excavation was terminated at the interface between the structural fill and the native soils. A 20 by 20 foot square area of the structural fill pad was also removed near the northeast building corner of the proposed store during installation of the manhole. All of the structural fill removed along the loading dock area and the northeast fill pad area was replaced and recompacted to their original condition. Peat soils were encountered along the alignment during the excavation operations between approximate elevations 921 and 925. In addition, rubble fill was encountered between stations 0+00 to 0+25 west of Cedar Street. These materials were deemed unsuitable for reuse as trench backfill, and thus, were removed from the site. On-site poorly graded sands and poorly graded sands with silt were used as trench backfill to approximate elevation 922 near Cedar Street to elevation 928+ near Pine Street. The remaining on-site soils were predominantly silty sands with moisture contents above optimum. Due to the high moisture content of this material, attempts to place and satisfatorily compact it were unsuccessful. This material was then deemed unsuitable in its present condition and was removed and replaced with a suitable off-site borrow material. Approximately 1 to 6 feet of this off-site borrow material was used for trench backfill. The material was placed between elevations 928-929 near Pine Street and between elevation 922 to 928 near Cedar Street. The on-site silty sand material was then placed above elevation 928-929 up to elevation 930. This material was not compacted at the time of placement. With the exception of the loading dock area along the north building line, the oversizing provided by Veit Construction Inc. was not encroached upon. A sketch detailing a typical cross- section of the area overlapped by the excavations along the loading dock is attached for your reference. Thirty-four compaction tests were conducted at random locations and elevations throughout the replaced structural fill in the building fill pad areas and the interceptor sewer trench backfill. These tests indicate that the material has been compacted to meet or exceeded 95% of standard Proctor density (ASTM D698-78). C85-287 -3- City of Monticello June 20, 1986 Based on our recent excavation observations and compaction tests, it is our opinion that the structural fill removed during installation of the interceptor sewer has been replaced and compacted. However, it should be noted that we have not conducted any density tests in the fill material placed in the building area by Veit Construction Co. Thus, we have no indication as to the degree of compaction achieved by them during the original placement of this material. Therefore, we can not determine whether or not their fill meets the recommended minimum compaction requirement. If we can be of further assistance in evaluating this data, please contact us at your convenience. AKZ/GDK:Iaz very truly yours, BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. '. 4WW� Alan K. mmerman nginee ng Assistant George D. Kluempke, P.E. Area Engineer/Associate -tet � U l.tSll t -l_1 1:1.1Ll i t-� i tt].�1 111 ].r .�At-j.jI11,1 I I I.I I I; I I I I I II I I I I I 11'? 11 -d-i-t t -1-i y �1 :8'�ac.P tVER a e,' 2� azN�.�T SNJ�RT1 ct.V�9at••t, L } .v.9o5 .6 14' 43 zd Jl •.i s..d„hl.� t � � J1 ut —► 14. 11'Fsv OC z * • 9244 -• ut QPoSE r ¢Ttr GRo•9a�.� hJEA;tzEp AaEe, fycAVATr-D AND VdIED C',Y VEtT lis 787twt ret rpt •r ir.•. 01. tetBRAURI t M�nl urllu, YN \t , a•u Now. fs4 1*; 44' L601 DOL 92� za \ rIIR4ifJfV OVCRSiZiN4� \ �y VCtT r✓c� SAa. s� 9� SiDJDESLaPE vEtt �JtC, glo [OR/lUn'l 19300 c I t,. 1;. x 4 S-reeL. SHoRtNu' box !'AtJ. Stwe R rvlty a ' C95 -78J Jnhrce0tor Sewr Project Nont{u11o, YY ± (Emnmfr &RD) 9io FOR SAN• SEWER) R.M�II; wtru d L eor:ln�5� J ORR•SCHELEN-MAYERON Et ASSOCIATES, INC, Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors September 10, 1986 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Attn: Mr. John Simola Director of Public Works Re: Extra Work Done by L 8 G Rehbein at the Raindance Building Site Dear John: In response to your request, I have documented the extra manhole reconstruction and earthwork done on and near the Raindance Partners property to accommodate the structural and drainage needs of the building. Rehbein charged the City $935.00 to raise the two manholes on the west side of the property. The total amount of granular borrow used at the site equaled 7,362 cubic yards {loose volume}, This quantity was used in the following backfill zones: Loading Dock Pad 750 Cu. Yds. Northeast Corner Building Pad 500 Cu. Yds Deep Trench Zone 1,125 Cu. Yds. Lateral Sewer East of Building 125 Cu. Yds. Backfill From Elevation 922 to 928 4,862 Cu. Yds. As you can see, approximately 4,862 cubic yards or a majority of the 7,362 cubic yards was placed in the upper portion of the trench at the direction of Braun because of the high moisture content of the native soils. The Contractor was paid $3.25/cu. yd. for providing all of the above granular materials. Approximately 2.500 cubic yards was placed in the lower zones. Additionally, the Contractor was compensated $9,809.00 for hauling or moving un- suitable materials. This was ail paid for at 52.00/cu. yd. as common excavation but Can be broken down as shown below. it is clear that a logical argument can be made for charging Raindance for the 2,502 cu. yds. left on the site for use by Veit because otherwise they would have had the cost of hauling in material. Volume Hauled Off -Site 3,028 Cu. Yds. 9 52.00/C.Y. • S6,056.00 Volume left for Veit Z 502 Cu. Yds. 0 51.50/C.Y. - $3.753.00 2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 6121331.8660 G Page Two Mr. John Simola September 10, 1986 A second thought is related to the amount of the Rehbein for material left on site. I now feel that and that we should keep this in mind when they ask for extra earthwork on the east end of the project. Sincerely, ORR- CNELESI-MAYEM4 d A OCIATES, INC C.'I" 4� —tFarles A. a4kE. CAL:mIj cc: John P. 0adalich, OSM unit price I agreed to pay it may have been too generous for additional compensation J 1 Council Agenda - 11/24/86 7. Consideration of Approving the 1967 Fire Contract with Silver Creek Township. 4R.W.I A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In January, 1983, the City Council approved a 3 -year contract for fire protection services with Silver Creek Township that will expire December 31, 1986. The present contract called for an annual charge of $7,250.00 for each of the three years. An annual charge was preferred by the Silver Creek Board over an earlier method whereby Silver Creek was charged by the hour and by the number of fires. This method enabled the Township to budget each year for fire protection knowing exactly what the cost was going to be. In order to arrive at a new contract price, the fixed cost of operating the fire department for the year 1987 was determined from the budget. The fixed cost includes a depreciation of the equipment and the fire hall, along with all those costs that would be incurred regardless of whether the fire department had any fires at all. In reviewing the fire calla during the last five years from 1981 through 1985, it was determined that Silver Creek Township has had approximately 11.9% of all the fires, and by multiplying this percentage times the fixed cost established, the amount allocated to Silver Crack Township would be $5,964.00. In addition to this coat, Silver Creek averaged approximately eight fires per year over the past five years. The estimated hourly coat of attending a 1 -hour fire was $175.00 with each additional hour of a fire being charged at $100.00 per hour. By combining the average number of fires plus the fixed coat, the total estimated coat of providing fire protection for Silver Creek Township for 1987 was $7,464.00. If a similar 3 -year contract is preferred by Silver Creek Township, a fixed annual charge of $7,625.00 was established by using an inflation factor of 4% for the City's fixed cost for the years 1980 and 1989. This information has been sent to the Silver Creek Board for their review, and at this time they have not indicated whether they would like to enter into a 1 -year contract or a 3 -year contract. Enclosed you will find a copy of the calculations used to arrive at a figure for the now contract. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Assuming that Silver Crack Township is still interested in the Monticello Fire Department serving approximately 501 of the Township, a motion could be made to enter into a now contract for fire protection services using either the figure of $7,464.00 for e 1 -your contract or a figure of $7,625.00 par year for a 3-yoar contract. -9. Council Agenda - 11/26/66 The alternative of not approving the contract does not seem reasonable If Silver Creek wishes coverage, as our fire department has adequate equipment and facilities to provide the service. If the Silver Creek Board does not agree with our calculations or would like to enter into an alternative type of contract based on actual number of calls, the coat will have to be recalculated and could be brought back for approval at a later date. It would appear that Silver Creek will be interested in a fixed cost contract. As mentioned earlier, they like the idea of knowing exactly what to budget for for fire protection each year. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed contract; Copies of calculations used to arrive at the contract amount. J -10- FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT between the City and Township of Monticello, Monticello, Minnesota, hereafter referred to as the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT, and the Township of Silver Creek, harafter referred to whether in whole or in part as the TOWNSHIP, both agree as follows: ARTICLE I The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT agrees to furnish fire service and fire protection to all properties subject to the terms of this agreement, within the TOWNSHIP area, said area being set forth in EXHIBIT A, attached hereto. ARTICLE II The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will make a reasonable effort to attend all fires within the TOWNSHIP area upon notification of such fire or fires, and under the direction of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT fire chief, subject to the following terms and conditions: A. Road and weather conditions must be such that the fire run can be made with reasonable safety to the firemen and equipment of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT. The decision of the fire chief or other officer in charge of the fire department at the time that the fire run cannot be made with reasonable safety to firemen and equipment shall be final. S. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall not be liable to the TOWNSHIP for the loon or damage of any kind whatever resulting from any failure to furnish or any delay in furnishing firemen or fire equipment, or from any failure to prevent, control or extinguish any fire, whether such lose or damage is caused by the negligence of the officers, agents, or employees of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT or its fire department, or otherwise. ARTICLE III The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT further agrees: A. To keep and maintain in good order at its own expense the necessary equipment and fire apparatus for fire service and fire protection within the town aroa so serviced. B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall provide sufficient manpower in its fire department to operate fire equipment. v Fire Protection Agreement Page 2 ARTICLE IV The TOWNSHIP agrees: A. To pay an annual fee of for years 1987 through 1989. These fees should include all standby charges and fire call costs. B. Annual fee shall be paid as follows: prior to January 1st of each year - 25% prior to April tat of each year - 251 prior to July tet of each year - 251 prior to October 1st of each year - 25♦ C. All payments must be made in accordance with this schedule to render this agreement effective for calendar years 1987 through 1989. Additionally, any amount past due for 1986 mast be paid by March 31, 1987. D. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will submit a summary to the Township of all fires on a monthly basis. ARTICLE V In case an emergency arises within the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT while equipment and personnel of the fire department are engaged in fighting a fire within the TOWNSHIP area, calls shall be answered in the order of their receipt unless the fire chief or other officer in charge of the fire department at the time otherwise directs. In responding to fire calla within the TOWNSHIP area. the fire chief or other officer in charge shall dispatch only such personnel and equipment an in his opinion can be safely spared from the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT. ARTICLE VI In cases where the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT receives a notification of an emergency, other than a fire, and its assistance is requested in the area defined in Exhibit A of this contract, it shall respond to such emergency in the same manner as a fire as outlined in this contract. Charges for such service shall be as outlined in ARTICLE IV. ARTICLE VII The TOWNSHIP agrees to make a fire protection tax levy or otherwise to provide funds each year in an amount sufficient to pay the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT the compensation herein agreed upon. j Fire Protection Agreement Page 3 ARTICLE VIII This AGREEMENT shall be in force for a term of three years beginning on January 1, 1987, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1989. This contract may be terminated upon a six month notice by either party. CITY OF MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP OF SILVER CREEK By: By: Mayor Chairperson Attest: Attest: Clerk Clerk Signed this day of Signed this day of , 1986. , 1986. (_ TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO By: Chairperson Attest: Clark Signed this day of 1986. C 10 Fire Protection Agreement Page 4 EXHIBIT A This EXHIBIT is a part of the attached FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT, and its purpose is to designate the area covered under this AGREEMENT and referred to herein as the TOWNSHIP area. Therefore, the TOWNSHIP area in which protection for fires is agreed to involves the following sections of the TOWNSHIP herein: Sections 9, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, North half of Section 20, Section 21 except Southwest Quarter, and Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 122, Range 26; Section 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 except Southwest Quarter, all in Township 121, Range 26. CITY OF IONTICELLO TOWNSHIP OF SILVER CREEK By By Mayor Chairperson Attest: Attest: Clark Clark TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO BY Chairperson Attest: Clark PAI FIRE CONTRACT RENEWAL SILVER GREEK TOWNSHIP ALLOCATIMI OF FIRE COSTS 1987 BUDGET (Fixed Costs) Salaries - drills 52,400.00 Salaries - building 8 grounds maintenance 200.00 Benefits 200.00 Supplies 1,600.00 Small tools G minor equipment 200.00 Cleaning 600.00 Telephone 600.00 Schools - training 2,700.00 Insurance 7,550.00 Electricity 1,800.00 Heat 2,000.00 Maintenance of building 100.00 Dues. Memberships, & Subscriptions 250.00 Miscellaneous 150.00 520,350.00 AMORTIZATION OF CAPITAL ITEMS Trucks 6 equipment - $271,363 20 years $13,568.00 Building costs (without land) - $567,000 - 35 years $16,200.00 BUDGET 1987 - FIXED COSTS 550,118.00 i OF TOTAL MANHOURS - FIREMEN 1981-1985 Monticello Township 44.0% City of Monticello 36.8% Silvar Creek Township 11.9% Otsego Township 3.1% Outside Assistance 4.2% 100.0% ALLOCATION OF FIXED COSTS TO SILVER CREEK Fixed Costs (550,118) x 11.9% - S 5,964.00 ADDITIONAL HOURLY FEES PER FIRE 1st hour 0 $175.00 x Average (8) Fires Per Year - .5 1.400.00 2nd hour 0 5100.00 x Average (1) Fire - 100.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 1587 5 7,464.00 7 CALCULATION OF HOURLY COSTS PER FIRE Averaqe number of fire calla Per year (70) for past 5 years 1987 PROJECTED EXPENSES Cas and ail $800.00 — 70 e S 11.00 Equipment Repair 53,500.00 -i-• 70 - 5 50.00 Salaries (eve. 16 men per fire 0 $7.00 per hour 5112.00 Administration Costs S 10.00 lot HOUR COSTS $183...00 2nd HOUR COSTS (16 men 0 $5.00 per hour) S 90.00 NOTE: let hour average cost was lowered to 5175.00 and 2nd hour cost increased to 5100.00 because equipment repair Costs, etc., would probably increase some during a longer fire. RECOMMEND: lot hour 8 $175.00 2nd hour 6 $100.00 If a 3 -year Fixed Cost Contract is preferred, the cost each year would be $7,625.00 calculated as follows: 1987 fixed costs increased 0 4% per year ($20,350 r 61 for 1988 S 1989 = 3) $21,175.00 Depreciation - Trucks & equipment increased 0 61 per year (513,568 = 4% for 1988 & 1989 = 3) $16,117.00 Depreciation - building (no increase used) $16,200.00 3 YEAR AVERAGE FIXED COSTS $51,692.00 x 11.9% SILVER CREEK'S SHARE S 6,127.00 Hourly fees - Average (8) fires per year 5 1,500.00 TOTAL 3 YEAR AVERAGE 5 7,627.00 OR 5 7,625.00 0`7 Council Agenda - 11/24/86 8. Consideration of Executing the 1987 Lav Enforcement Contract with the Wright County Sheriff's Department. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the last three years when we have contracted With Wright County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement and coverage, we have contracted on an annual contract fee for a total of 6,905 hours of patrol coverage. The 6,905 hours are described according to their specific patrol breakdown in Appendix A of the sample contract included. The annual fee that the City has adopted has always reflected the hourly rate times the total annual hours. During the budget preparation process, we received notification from Sheriff Wolff that the projected hourly rate for 1987 services would be $18.50 per hour. Keeping the total number of hours coverage at the 6,905, the total expense to the City would be $127,742.50. The City Council approved and adopted a lav enforcement budget of $127,750.00. According to budget adoption then, the City has preliminarily approved lav enforcement coverage of 6,905 hours. For the purposes of entering this contract, we may increase or decrease the total hours of coverage and the total coat will increase or decrease accordingly at a rate of $18.50 per hour. The hourly rate is really not a question for consideration at this time, but rather the total hours of coverage. If you find coverage to be satisfactory, then we can simply insert the revised dollar amount into the contract and amend the appendix to reflect the current prices. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Ratify contract certifying the same number of hours coverage at a rate of $18.50 per hour. 2. Request increased patrol coverage, execute the contract revising the total dollar amount accordingly. 7. Request decreased coverage, execute the contract inserting the revised dollar figure. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the contract be ratified as presented. The total number of hours of contracted coverage seems to be sufficient. we, of course, always receive response on calls even though it might be outside of the scheduled coverage. The flexibility our contract affords the Sheriff's Department allows them to respond to heavy scheduling demands. I am aware that there are some concerns at the Courthouse with respect to the logging and documentation of coverage Limo by the offivers. I have not received complaints with respect to officer negligence or absence while scheduled to be on patrol. If concerns of this sort have boon mentioned to you, I believe it am Council Agenda - 11/24/86 would be beat to let me know and we will send correspondence to the J Sheriff expressing those concerns. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the contract proposed for ratification. j -12- city of Monticello) County of Wright ) State of Minnesota) WRICHT COUNTY - CITY OP MOMTICELLO LAW EN ORCrM " CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT. Sade and entered into this � day of , Ig_. by and between the County of Wright and the Wright County Sheriff, hereinafter referred to as 'County', and the city or Monticello, b.rainafter referred to a the •Municlp.lityl• WITNE35ZTH: WHEREAS. the Municipality is desirous of estering into a contract with the County for the perforeace of the herel:ufter described law enforcesent prot•ctlM within Ne corporate 1121te of said Manicip.lity through the County Sheriff, and WNffiWS. the County 1s ogr•.able to rendering Such s.tvloes, and protection an the tern and conditions hereinafter set forthl and WHEREAS, Such contracts are authorized and provided rot by the prevision of M1M. Stat. 1957, tea. 471.59 and laws 1959. Chap. 177, and MSM. Stat. AM. 1961 Sec. 410.057 WOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the tato of the aforesaid statute, it is agreed an follows: 1. That the County by way of the Sheriff agrees to provide police protection within the corporate fisits of the Municipality to the extent and in oamw as hereinafter set forth: •. Except as eth.rvI..Mrs I..fta specifically Sol forth, 'aRch services Stoll eAceepaa only dstlee and functiene of the type eosins within the lerlsdlctiM of the Wright County Sheriff pursant Ito Kinnust4 Lave and ■t4LRte9. b. EMteeK a othmla hereinerur prwldM Nr, q • stanA.N :level of arvloo s:rwldN .MSI M the nese Wssis laws% of aerwlos Mlsh i•prevldad Tot the unieosrpanNd "Sao of the County of Wright, Rate Of RiMeato. e. Tit• r.ndltiM of services. the standard of psrforance. Lha dLclplla of ted etflnn, And other utters lncldat to the pertoroaRc• of .00R @a -less end control et p•r•av` o so awleYN shall [Seal. In Aad Roder the control of the Sheriff. d. Surto •alit.. •MSM lnclrdo the onfar.., et alaneat• Sbu /t.t.t.. and Laws and the MRlci/a1 sedi Rasa. Whisk are of the GARS typo and R•tur• of HIMaat. State /tatutas $Ad Lam enforced by the sheriff within the un/aesrparated tactics" at aid County. f. That it to agreed that the Sheriff .toll have toll Superatien and aslatande trail the Municipality, its stClars, gent• and employe*•, 60 as to facilitate the pertorunce of this edr••ant. I<w Enforcomant Contract page 2 7. That ins County shall furnish and supply all necessary labor, supervision, equipment, communication facilities for dlspotthing, cost of -� jail detention, and all supplies necessary to maintain the level of service to be rendered herein. a. The Municipality shall not be liable for the direct payment of any oalet,les. rages, or other compensation to any perscrmel performing services herein inr caid County. S. The Municipality shall not be liable for compensation or Indemnity to any of the Sheriff'. employees for injurles or sickness arising out of its employment, and the County hereby agrees to hold harmless the Municipality against any such claims. 6. The County, Sheriff, his officer., and employees /hall not be doomed to •sums any liability for intentional or negligent acts of said Municipality, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof. 7. This agreement shall be effective from to 9. The Municipality hereby agrees to pay to the County the sum of for lav enforcement protection a opacified in Appendix A Which I. attached hereto and made • part hereof during said tem of this agreement. 9. If the annual salaries of the deputy /hmrlffe are Increased at any time during the taro herein stated, this contract shall not be Increased. 10. The Municipality shall have the option Of renewing this agreement for an additional sUCCOSSIVO twelve-month period. To exercise this option, the Munlclpallty shall notify the County Adalnletrator not later than •lxty days prior to the expiration date of this agreement. 11. It 1. understood and agrood that aha offenses for which arrests mer. made pursuant to state •t.t.tsm the CO..ty shall /tend .11 coat. Of In. courts and its prosecution. when arrnts are made under munlclp.l ordln..— Of the municipality, the municipal attorney shall prosecute Such Co.*. Any and all fine@ collected shall be paid to the Wright County Treasurer's Office. 12. whereas; legislation has been enacted efr.otive July 1, 1971, making It mandatory that the County Court remit to all sunlcipallti.. within Lav Enforcement Contract Page 1 the said County, one half of ell fines levied and collected free traffic violation arramts made !n said ILtnlcipsllty. And. Whereas; It Is understood that the contract lees are based upon the County recalving the entire amount of •11 fines. It is understood that the Municipality shall return to the Wright County Sheriff all fine monies received free the County. Said Municipality shall remit by check no later than thirty (10) days from when said fine monies are received by said Municipality. 11. For the purpuss of maintaining cooperation, local control and general information on existing complaints and problems in said municipality. one member of the Municipal Council, the mayor, or other person or persons, shall be appointed by said Council to act as police commissioner/a for said Municipality, and shall make periodic Contacts with and attend meetings with the Sheriff or his office in relation to the contract herein. IN WITNESS WNEREOr the Municipality, by resolution duly adopted by its governing body, caused this agreement to be signed by its mayor and attested by Its Administrator, and the County of Wright. by the County Board of Commissioners, has caused these presents to be subscribed by the Wright County Sheriff and the Chairman of said Board and the semi of said Board to be affixed thereto and attested by the Clerk of said Board, all on the day and year first above written. Atteotl City Administrator Attest: Clerk, Board of County Coamlestonere C17Y OF MONTICELLO BY Mayor BOARD OF WRICIIT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY Chairperson Wright County sheriff J APPOMII A 1986 Hourly iota - Annual Contract yah - Sarvicee Provided W Wright County Sheriff: 24 -hoar, cell and general aer,ice 6,905 hours annual patrol coverage .*signed a* follows: a) 16 haus Per day, four days Per wok (3,326 total hour.). h) 19 hours per day, three days per week, two of which shall he friday and Saturday (2,964 total hours). C) 613 hours assigned at discretion of scheduling authority. j Council Agenda - 11/24/86 9. Consideration of Authorizing Inter -fund Transfers for the 1986 Budget. (R.1i.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Now that we are nearing the end of our fiscal year, I have prepared a list of transfers between funds that should be approved by the Council. If there are no problems with the proposed transfers, a simple motion to approve the transfers between funds as listed would be sufficient. The first four transfers listed are for the purpose of amending the 1986 Budget for personal services (salaries and benefits) to more accurately reflect the actual cost. As you may recall, the 1986 Budget for personal services did not show an increase over 1985 figures, but the contingency fund was established from which transfers could be made as needed to amend the budget. The balance of the proposed transfers are explained below but primarily cover closing out construction funds or debt service funds that no longer are required. 1986 Item -Purpose Amount Transfer From Transfer To Amend Budget -Personal Services S 2,425.00 Contingency General Amend Budget -Personal Services $25,000.00 Contingency LCMR Amend Budgat-Personal Services S 4,000.00 Contingency water Amend Budget -Personal Services S 2,500.00 Contingency Sewer Contingency Fund Balance- $27,700.00• Contingency General Close out fund To cover deficit created in $71,350.00 General OAA 1985 -Nov Twp. Aid Agreement To close out surplus balance $26,896.66 1975 G.O. 1980 C.O. in Debt Service Fund Maint. Bldg. Library Bond ,To close out construction S 1,610.08 Hart, Bdwy, 1984 G.O. fund balance to Debt Service Cedar Const. Impr. Bond Fund Transfer approvod by Council $27,925.00 Capital Outlay LCMR Fund 7/28/86 for sprinkler, 8 6 w Revolving hookup, electrical service for NSP softball complex -Figure In approximate - depends on final tax collection in December, 1986. -13- Council Agenda - 11/24/86 10. PSG Monthly Report. O.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Enclosed you will find the written monthly report from Professional Services Group for the operation of the wastewater Treatment Plant. One thing of concern is the failure of the rear axle in the 2,000 gallon sludge applicator unit. It appears that the axle was inappropriate for the unit, and we are pursuing this matter with the City Attorney. It is possible that we may and up in litigation with the Paul A. Laurence Company at a future time to remedy the problem. Steve Sunt will be available at the meeting if you have any questions regarding the rest of the monthly report. ft -14- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. November 11, 1986 Mr. John Simola PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MONTICELLO CITY HALL 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Simola: Enclosed is the October monthly report for the Monticello Wastewater Facility. We have also attached a slightly revised "Request for Capital Expenditure" form for your review. Please let Steve Sunt or myself know if you have any questions in regards to the monthly report or form. Very truly yours, Michael D. Nelson Vice President Operations MDN/olr cc: S. Sunt M. Stump M. Robbins Rydal Executin Plaza • Sults 390 • P.O. Boy PSG • Rydal, PA 19M • (215) 572.8200 /D PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP REQUEST FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE Description of Item or Activity Need and Priority Repair Versus Replacement Option Estimated Cost - Material & Supplies Equipment Subcontract Labor and Materials TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ........................ Prepared by Approved Rejected Approved For City of Monti:ollo By Client Comments: Attachments Provided Estimates, Etc. 00) Nft-- MONTICELLO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MONTHLY REPORT - October 1986 Executive Summary Operations continued to be normal for the second month of PSG operation. Effluent limits were met. Process adjustments were made to improve sludge handling and good progress was made at reducing the digested sludge inventory. Energy conservation programs have been implemented and results are already evident. Good Progress has also been made in housekeeping and maintenance programs. J E& Plant Performance All NPDES requirements were met for the month. Summary data appears below and detailed information is included in the appendix. Flow Effluent Effluent MGD C BOD mg/l Suspended Solids mg/l Actual/Permit Actual/Permit .330 25/25 18/30 For October the same liquid processes were used as in September. The solids inventory was increased to accomodate higher plant loadings and lower wastewater temperatures. Effluent BOD levels increased in proportion to plant organic loadings. In the solids handling portion of the plant the flow scheme was modified. Sludge flows from the primary digester is now introduced at a different point in the secondary digester. These changes allow for better thickening and a clearer digester supernatant. During October, new sludge inventories have been calculated. Approximately 50,000 pounds must be removed between September 1 and program shut -down for the winter. To date, 31,000 lbs. have been removed leaving a goal for November of 20,000 lbs. Maintenance Activities Preventive maintenance tasks as well as special projects were conducted during October. Some examples follow: 1) waukeshau engine - tuned, changed oil and drive belts 2) lube levels on all equipment chocked 3) installed thermostat for maintenance garage 6) sludge handling equipment lubod and rear end of sludge injector repaired 5) inspected and cleaned nozzles on all odor control scrubbers G) south clarifier returned to service, skimmor reinstalled v) Housekeeping activites for the month were: 1) painted primary clarifier piping 2) washed all weirs and inside walls of trickling filters 3) cleaned administration building (including windows) and blower building The computerized maintenance project is proceeding on schedule. A computer is on site and equipment data has been organized and ready for loading. After a mid-November training session at Sioux City loading and start up of PAMP will commence. Safety Laboratory safety was the topic for this months employee safety meeting. PSG uniforms arrived October 15 and all employees have steel toed work shoes. Safety equipment (fire extinguishers and first aide kits) were checked. Portable breathing apparatus will be checked in November. The topic for Novembers employee meeting will be "Chlorine Safety and Emergency Response". Training On the job training was conducted in, sludge disposal, overhauling valves and troubleshooting unit processes. Mike Nelson presented a mini seminar on "Cost Control". A lecture on "Instrumentation" is scheduled for November. Pretreatment Ton samples were collected and analyzed for Wrightco. NSP industry. Results are enclosed in the appendix. Sludqe Manaqement During the month 28,000 lbs. of digested sludge were land applied. The total goal is now 50,000 lbs. To date, 31,000 lbs. have been removed. Our goal for November is 20,000 lbs. Attainment of this goal will allow sufficient digester storage space over the winter. Steve Sunt, Project Manager, attended the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Land Application of Sludge course and is now certified as a Sludge Program Manager. Future activities planned include obtaining more permitted land and winterizing sludge disposal equipment. 0 In order to increase the efficiency of next years sludge disposal operation, two nurse tanks have been purchased. The two tanks 3000 and 2500 gallons were purchased for under $20.00. The nurse tanks will be prepared for spring operation. Public Relations The September report was presented to City Council on October 14. Plans call for three cub scout troops from Elk River to tour the facility in early November. Financial Information The September financials are included in the appendix. The first two pages show the budget for September through December and expenses for the month of September. A second set of statements details the same budget with repair and maintenance subtracted. The last page details repair and maintenance budget and costs. Enerqy Conservation Gas and electrical consumption is monitored daily. Equipment run hours are also logged. Amp readings will be taken of selective equipment in the near future. The combination of this data will help determined consumption patterns and help develop energy saving strategies. A plan has been implemented to reduce gas consumption in the maintenance garage. A new thermostat has already been installed. Other techniques are now being developed to reduce natural gas consumption for other heating loads. Planning PSG has inspected the facility and has not uncovered any capital concerns except for: a) digester #3 roofing b) maintenance garage partition for energy conservation c) retrofitting new rear and in sludge injector d) possible need for scrubbers for trickling filters Items a), b) were presented in the September report. Items c) and d) are now. During the month PSG provided the City with an Aid Response ( Program. The program (attached) was reviewed and approved by the City. %6 J APPENDIX NPDES PERMIT DATA PRETREATMENT FINANCIALS AID RESPONSE PROGRAM 03PROFESSIONALSERVICES GROUP, INC. October Industrial Contributor Laboratory Analysis C • not reported •+ composite sample taken by WWTP Personnel •+• anal•rsis not done Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1401 Hart Blvd, + Monticello, MN 5538« • (812) 2952225 VIN i Wri9htco Date Flow (M.G.D.) BOD m9/l S.S. m9/1 PH 1 .055 3745 718 9.5 2 .054 3117 508 9.6 9 .061 2416 760 9.2 14 .059 3867 730 9.6 17 .053 2818 482 9.3 15 • 2913 664 9.2 17 .053 28i8 482 9.3 18 .016 463 138 8.3 26 .015 1027 188 8.2 27 .077 4961 1370 8.8 ••29 + 4829 1194 ••+ C • not reported •+ composite sample taken by WWTP Personnel •+• anal•rsis not done Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1401 Hart Blvd, + Monticello, MN 5538« • (812) 2952225 VIN i (ED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. October Industrial Contributor Laboratory Analysis Northern States Power Date Readings 80D m9/l S.S. mg/l PH Pump #1 Pump #2 1 304.5 1426.1 480 142 + 6 304.5 1432.5 + a + 13 305.0 1441.5 + • • 20 305.0 1450.7 • + • 27 305.0 1459.0 + • • 11/3 305.0 1467.7 466 187 6.9 • analysis not done j Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1401 Hart Blvd. • Monticello, MN 55382 • (612) 295.2225 /J EEGIS 4CR302PSG Professional Services Group, Inc. DATE WO 7/86 'PACE I CONTRACT STATUS AE PORT TIME 3:06 FY. THROUGH PERIOD 09/86 (SS) S. Sunt Contract: 06322 CITY OF MONTICELLO Start Date: 11/07/86 End Date: 12/31/99 TOTAL CURRENT PERIOD -- _-= PROJECT TO DATE � x BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE OVER - LABOR 5501 LABOR - SALARIED 9,333 2,333 2,333 0 2,333 2,333 0 5502 LABOR - HOURLY 15,379 3,932 3,845 (87) 3,932 3,845 (87) 5503 LABOR - OVERTIME 0 225 0 (225) 225 0 (225) 5504 LABOR - SICK 0 35 D (35) 35 0 (35) t 55Do LABOR -HOLIDAY 0 177 0 (177) 177 0 (177) 4 5507 TE90RARY HU 1,000 0 253 250 0 250 250 TOTAL LABOR 25,712 6,703 6,428 (275) 6,703 6,428 (275) - rMOYEc EaE ITS 5515 MANAGE'QM A"DS 513 0 129 129 0 129 129 5517 THRIFT PLAN EXPENSE 0 14 0 (14) 14 0 (14) i 5537 HEALTH INSMANCE - GROUP HEAL 2,573 625 643 17 625 643 17 !'.tS HEALTH INSURANCE - DENTAL 141 70 35 (35) 70 35 (35) 102 55:9 HEALTH INSURANCE - LTD 89 a 22 13 8 22 13 5540 HEALTH INSURANCE - LIFE 101 24 26 1 24 26 1 5543 LIA91LM INSURANCE - NORRMA,N 2.568 378 642 263 378 642 263 5564 TAD( EXPINSE - PAYROLL 860 891 215 (676) 891 2!5 (676) 314 5574 PRCVISIOJ FOR PENSION 1,211 288 303 14 288 303 14 TOTAL EMPLOYEE BEMETITS 8,059 2,301 2,0115 (286) 2,301 2,015 (226) 14 �- CHEMICALS 5577 CHIN ICALS - CHLORINE 304 0 76 76 0 76 76 5584 CHEMIOALS - GENERAL SD 0 13 13 0 13 13 TOTAL CHEMICALS 354 0 69 89 0 89 89 -- UTILITIES 5591 UTILITIES - ELECTRIC 12,635 1,644 3,159 1,514 3,644 3,159 1,514 5592 UTILITIES - G4S 5,332 759 1,333 573 759 1,333 573 TOTAL UTILITIES 17,967 2,403 4,492 2,088 2,403 4,492 2,088 --- EOUTPMENT / VEHICLES ^32 FIELD EOUIPMElIT - -WAL :33 0 33 33 0 33 33 5536 CASOL114E 1,796 0 449 449 0 449 449 ^56 REPAIR 6 -AINT. - GENERAL 6,075 93 1,519 1,423 95 1,5:9 1,423 5558 F.EPA;R 6 I•A(IT. - SERVICE EOU 100 0 25 25 0 25 T 556a REPAIR 6 )TAINT. - VEI41CLES 600 0 150 150 0 150 ISD TOTAL EDUIFMEVT / VEHICLE 6,704 95 2,176 2,080 95 2,176 2,000 --- OUTSIDE SEWICES 5503 SUEC"AACTORS 565 0 .41 !41 0 !4: :411 55:0 OUTSIDE LAERA.CRY SERVICES 20D 0 50 50 D 50 TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES 765 0 191 1"1 0 19; 191 --- OFFICE COPENSE 5523 CCMPVTER C(PONSE 667 2,051 167 (1,884) 2,051 167 (1,094) 129 �v AEGIS 4CR102?SG Professional Services Group, Inc. DATE 11/07/86 PAGE 2 CONTRACT STATUS REPORT TME 3:06 PM THROUGH PERIOD 09/86 (SS ) S. Soot Contract: 06122 CITY OF MONTICELLO Start Date: 11/07/86 End Date: 12/31/89 5533 OFFICE EQUIPMENT - RENTAL 5546 POSTAGE 5547 FREIGHT 6 DELIVERY 5548 PRIMING 6 OFFICE APPLY 5559 REPAIR 6 MAINT. - OFFICE EOUI 5566 TELEPHONE vim TOTAL OFFICE EXPETSE — GMR EXPENSE 5511 LASRATORY SUPPLIES 5527 BOOKS, HAGS. 6 SUBSgUP`rI 4S 5528 DUES 6 REGISTRATION - INDIVID 5534 FOOD, TRAVEL 6 LODGING W5 RELOCATION 5541 LIABILITY INSURANCE - GENERAL 5550 PROF. DEVELOFKNT 6 OFFICE ME TOTAL OTHER EXPM TOTAL CONTRACT a J TOTAL CLOW PERIOD PROJECT TO DATE — X vim ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE AMAL BUDGET© VARIANCE OVER 166 Z77 42 (235) 277 42 (235) 561 3000 75 75 0 15 15 100 11 25 14 11 25 14 332 714 83 (631) 714 83 (631) 760 50 0 13 13 0 13 13 800 0 200 200 0 200 200 2,415 3,054 605 (2,449) 3,054 605 (2,449) 404 1,200 0 300 300 0 300 300 25 0 6 6 0 6 6 25 0 6 6 0 6 6 700 1,342 175 (1,167) 1,342 175 (1,167) 667 1,300 0 325 325 0 325 325 1,006 232 252 19 232 252 !9 100 179 25 (154) 179 25 (:54) 618 4,356 1,754 !,OB9 (665) 1,754 1,089 (665) 6! 68,332 16,313 17,085 771 16,313 17,085 771 l J a J .AEGIS #CR102PSG Professional Seruic2s Group, Inc. DATE 1✓07/86 'PAGE 1 PROJECT STATUS REPORT TIME 2:59 P1: THROUGH PERIOD 09/86 (SS ) S. Sunt Project: C6122.A CITY OF WICELLO Start Date: 11/07/86 End Date: 12/31/89 TOTAL = MUM PERIOD == = PROJECT TO DATE == S BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE ACTUAL BUOGETED VARIANCE DM - LABOR 5501 LABOR - SALARIED 9,333 2,333 2,333 0 2,333 2,333 0 5502 LABOR - HOURLY 15,379 3,932 3,845 (07) 3,932 3,845 (87) 5503 LABOR - OVERTIME 0 225 0 (225) 225 0 (225) * 5504 LABOR - SICK 0 33 0 (35) 35 0 (35) • 526 LABOR - HOLIDAY 0 177 0 (177) 177 0 (177) r 5507 TL'IPORARY HELP 241 0 60 60 0 60 60 TOTAL ULO.R 24,953 6,703 6,238 (465) 6,7D3 6,238 (465) 7 - MILOYEE EDFITS 5515 MAkUG_MENT AWDS 515 0 129 129 0 129 129 55:7 THRIFT PLAN E!(PMS-e 0 14 0 (14) 14 0 (14) ! 5537 HEALTH INSURANCE - GROUP HEAL 2,573 625 643 17 625 643 i7 5539 HEALTH INSURANCE - DENTAL 141 70 35 (35) 70 35 (35) 102 5539 HEALTH INSURANCE - LTD 89 8 22 13 8 22 13 554 HEALTH INSURANCE - LIFE 102 24 26 1 24 26 1 5543 LIABILITY INSURANCE - WORKM 1,568 373 642 263 378 642 263 5564 TAX EXPENSE - PAYROLL 86C 691 215 (676) B91 215 (676) S14 5574 PRLV!S:ON FOR PENSION 1,211 288 303 14 280 303 14 TOTAL EMPLOYEE BEAEFITS 0,059 2,301 2,015 (286) 2,301 2,015 (286) 14 �'- �LOT;1fi115 5577 CKMICALS - CHLORINE 304 0 76 76 0 76 76 5504 CHEMICALS - GENERAL 50 0 13 13 0 13 13 TOTAL CHEMICALS 334 0 89 89 0 89 89 --- UTILITIES 5591 UTILITIES - ELECTRIC 11,633 1,644 3,159 1,514 1,644 3,159 1,514 5532 UTILITIES - GAS 5,332 759 1,333 573 759 1,333 573 TOTAL UTILITIES 17,967 2,403 4,492 2,088 2,403 4,492 2,088 1 - EOU!F'`W / VE4ICLES 5536 GASOLINE 1,796 0 449 449 0 44! 449 TOTAL EOUIFMENT / VEHICLE 1,796 0 449 449 0 449 449 -- OUTSIDE SERVICES 5510 OUTSIDE L46RATORY SERVICES 200 0 50 50 0 50 50 TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES 200 0 50 50 0 50 50 OFFICE EXPMU J5523 COMPL:E3 DnNSE 667 2,051 167 (1,884) 2,0Sl !67 (:,S84) L28 557' OFFICE EOUIPMENT - RENTAL 166 277 42 (233) 277 42 (2.5) 561 5( POSTAGE 3PO 0 75 75 0 75 75 5547 FREIGHT 6 DEL EVERY 0 11 O (11) 11 0 5548 PRINTING 6 OFFICE SUPPLY 332 714 83 (631) 7:4 85 (631) 760 5559 REPAIR i MAINT. - OFFICE EOUI 50 0 13 13 0 13 13 0 .AEGIS OCRI02PM Professional Services Group, Inc. DATE !1/07/SE 'FAG: 2 PROJECT STATUS REPORT TIME 2:59 P', THROUGH PERIOD 09/86 (SS ) S. Sunt /0 Project: C6122.A CITY OF WICELLO Start Date: 11/07/86 End Date: IV31/89 y } TOTAL CURRENT PERIOD m---- - PROJECT TO DATE - Y BUDGET ACTTJRL BUDGETED VARIANCE ACTURE ROUTED VARIANCE OVER 5566 TELEPHONE 800 0 200 200 0 200 200 TOTAL OFFICE OTENSSE 21315 3,054 580 (2,474) 3,054 580 (2,474) 426 OTHER EXPENSE 5511 LAVATORY SUPPLIES 1,200 0 300 300 0 300 300 5527 BOORS, MRCS. 6 SUBSCRIPTIONS 25 0 6 6 0 6 6 5523 DUES 6 REGISTRATION - INDIVID 25 0 6 6 0 6 6 5534 FOOD, TRAVEL 6 LODGING 700 1,342 175 (1,167) 1,342 175 (1,167) 667 5535 RELOCATIEN 1,300 0 325 325 0 325 325 5541 LIABILITY INSURANCE - GENERAL 1,006 232 252 19 232 252 19 5550 PROF. DEVELOPMENT & OFFICE IT 100 179 25 (154) 179 25 (154) 616 TOTAL UM COTAE 4,356 1,754 1,069 (665) 1,754 1,089 (665) 61 T 0 T A L P R O J E C T 60,000 16,218 15,002 (1,216) 16,219 15,002 (1,M) 8 /0 .AEGIS OCRI02PSG Professional Services Group, Inc. DATE 11101/86 'FAG -c I PROJECT STATUS REPORT TIHE 3:04 PM THROUGH PERIOD 09/66 (SS 1 S. Sunt Project: C6122.1t CITY OF KWICELLO - REPAIRS 6 MAIMT Start Date: 11/07/86 End Date: 8/31/87 TOTAL — CURRENT PERIOD — PROJECT TO DATE — X BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIAItCE ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE OVER -- LAW 5507 TQ4PORABY HELP 759 0 190 190 0 190 190 TOTAL LABOR 759 0 190 190 0 190 190 -- EQUIFMM / VEHICLES 55:2 FIELD EQUIPMENT - RNTAL 133 0 33 33 C 33 33 5556 RU'A1R 6 MAIM. GENERAL 6,075 95 S,SI9 1,423 95 1,519 1,423 5553 REFAIR 6 MAIM. - SERVICE IOU 100 0 25 25 0 25 25 265 REPAIR 6 MAINT. - VDUCLES 600 0 150 150 0 150 150 TOTAL EQUIPMENT / VEHICLE 6,908 95 1,727 1,631 95 1,727 '.,631 — OUTSIDE SERVICES 5508 SJBCtTCTRACTORS 565 0 141 141 0 141 14I TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES 565 0 141 141 0 14'. '-4'. --- OFFICE EXPEN°NSE - FREIGHT 6 DELIVERY 100 0 25 25 ¢ 25 25 TOTAL OFFICE EXPENSE IDD 0 25 25 0 25 25 ( l 10 T AL P R O J E C T 8,332 95 1,083 1,987 95 2,083 1,987 N V (3PROFESSIONALSERVICES GROUP, INC. J Monticello W.W.T.P. Aid Response Program If it is determined by city management staff that W.W.T.P. Personnel or equipment are needed to help in an emergency,or in typically unusual situations which may arise from time to time,treatment Plant Personnel may be reached at the following numbers: Plant -295-2225 PSG Project Manager - Steve Sunt Home Phone -263-7425 PSG Personnel Albert Meyer -878-2159 Tony Strande-743-2023 Pager Numbers -295-7226 - 295-7192 During such times when the ProJect Manager may not be reached at the Plant or at home+the PSG Personnel at the Plant or, 'on call' have the authority to Perform actions or release equipment to the city under city management staff supervision. It should be understood that PSG Personnel have the authority to decline to Provide requested aid during treatment Plant emergencies or unusual situations exist- ing at the treatment Plant at the time of request for J aid.• Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1401 Han Blvd. • Monticello, MN 55362 • (612) 295.2225 ►D C Council Agenda - 11/24/86 11. Quarterly Liquor Store Report. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Enclosed with the agenda you will find a copy of the Liquor Store financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 1986. The statements compare 1986 with the same period in 1985. Manager, Joe Hartman, will be at the Council meeting to answer any questions Council members may have regarding the financial statements. Total sales for the first nine months are up approximately $29,750.00 over the same period last year, with the resulting groes profit also up over $19,000.00. For the three month period from July 1 through September 30, sales are approximately $4,000.00 less than the same period last year, which is probably due to the Highway 25 construction. Operating expenses for the firot nine months were over $4,000.00 less than last year primarily duo to lover cost of liability insurance. The resulting operating income is up approximately $24,000.00 over the same period last year. In reviewing the gross profit percentages, the overall gross profit percentage of 21.36% appears to be close to what we were expecting. The gross profit percentage for boar sales at 18.47% is reasonably clone to what we have had in the past, but we may have had an error in our inventory calculations in that the current three month period gross profit for bear was only 93.45%, which we know is incorrect. We know there would be an adjustment during the third quarter in this percentage because the first sixth months shoved a gross profit for beer sales at 24.64%, which we also know was too high. Overall, the percentages do appear to be reasonable, and the operating income is still batter than last year. It is hoped that if there are errors in the inventory calculations, this will be corrected once the computerization occurs, which will make it much easier for the inventory to be taken at any time. It should be noted that if sales equal for the fourth quarter what they were in 1985, the City will have its first year with total salon over 31 million. No action is required other than acceptance of report as presented. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of financial report. -15- t � J MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LI000R BALANCE S14EEI MUNICIPAL LIQUOR S10RE J-� SEMPTE MDER 30. 1906 t 1905 .................................................................................................................................... ASSETS CURRENTASSETS C14ANGE FUND CA SII 1N BANK - CHECKINO CASH IN HANK - RESTRICTED IN" CSTME0IS INVCSTMCNIS - RESTRICTED NSF CHECK - RECEIVABLE INVENTORIES PREPAID INSURANCE TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT I_wNI1 • BUILDINGSAND IMPROVEMENTS PARKING L 0 1 'URN IIURE AND FI)(IURES ACCUM. UC F. - DUI I. DINGS ACC UM. DEPR. - PARKING LOT 1 ACCUM DEPR-FIIRNIIUKC t FIYIURE IOIAL PROPEk1Y AND COUIPMENI IOIAL ASSETS 1.000.00 34.41.4$ .00 411.971 03 .00 464.71 104.370.04 5.359.70 • 557.407.73 • 1.000.00 41.035.41 119.00 7813, 758.91 0.758.98 47.540.20 167.97 76. 16.43 10.517.00 • 466.063.79 6.839.95 • 6.839.95 151.671.04 151.671.04 0.515.50 8.513.50 50.480.31 SD.400.31 40.449.251 1 36.313.25) 6.594.00) ( 6.176.00) 43.329.761 ( 37.604.76) ---------- ------------- • 135.133.79 1 145.412.79 ----^------- ------------- • 692.541.52 • 611.478.50 ............. ............. LONG-TERM LIABILITIES BONDS PAYABLC TOTAL LONG-TCRM LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES EDUIIY RCIAINED EARNINGS REVENUES OVER E%PEN1.IlURCS TOTAL COUl1Y TOTAL LIABILITIES AND COUIIY • .00 ------------- .00 • 49.154 08 • 560.157.11 03.2:9.53 ------------- • 643.306.64 ------------- • 692.541.52 625.672. 13 1.529.10 113.12 303.42 173.00 449.00 495.00 1.306.93 6.202.70 1 364.911 • 45.079.65 • 45.000.00 ------------- • 45.000.00 • 90.079.65 • 459.076.11 60.722.02 ------------- • 520,598,93 ------------- • 611.478.,x.0 r MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET MUNICIPAL LIOUOR STORE .............e...._.......................................................... SEMPTEMBER 30. 1906 1 19C5 LIAD1L1T1ES AND EOUITY CURRENT LIAB1LIlIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE f 40.493.14 SALARIES PAYABLE 1.644.10 PAYROLL W/M - PERA 139.17 PAYROLL W/11 - PICA 00.90 PAYROLL W/H - STATE .00 PAYROLL WIN - PEI.ERAL .00 BOND INTEREST PAYAPLE .00 ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 1 VACATIONS 603.52 SALES TAX PAYADLC 6.186.05 PAYROLL W/14 - INSURANCE .00 TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES ------------- • 49.154.08 LONG-TERM LIABILITIES BONDS PAYABLC TOTAL LONG-TCRM LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES EDUIIY RCIAINED EARNINGS REVENUES OVER E%PEN1.IlURCS TOTAL COUl1Y TOTAL LIABILITIES AND COUIIY • .00 ------------- .00 • 49.154 08 • 560.157.11 03.2:9.53 ------------- • 643.306.64 ------------- • 692.541.52 625.672. 13 1.529.10 113.12 303.42 173.00 449.00 495.00 1.306.93 6.202.70 1 364.911 • 45.079.65 • 45.000.00 ------------- • 45.000.00 • 90.079.65 • 459.076.11 60.722.02 ------------- • 520,598,93 ------------- • 611.478.,x.0 r MONTICELLO MUNI141. LIOUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES MUNICIPAL L-10UOR STORE FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED S£PIE.MDER 30. 1906 ANE. 1985 ............a.....................................................................r.=............................................... CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PD YCAR-IODATE Y -T -D SAME -PD -LST -YR PO-LYR Y -T -D -LST -YR YTD -LY AMOUNT RAT 10 AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT PIAT 10 AMOUNT GAT 10 SALES 1-1 OUOR DEER WINE OT IRR MDSE MISC. NDN-IAX.ADLC SALES UEPOSIIS AND REFUNDS 11011LE DEPOSIT - MISC DISCOUNIS TOTAL SALES rOST OF GOODS SOLD GROSS PROFIT GENERAL AND ADIM. EXPENSES PERSONAL SCRVICCb ^ALARIES. REGULAR PCRA INSURANCE. MCDICAL AND LIFE SOCIAL SCCURIIY TOTAL PERSONAL SCRVICCS SUPPLIES (IFF I CC OIIPPI.I ES GENERAL OPERAIINO SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE OF DLDG. SUPPLIES TOTAL SUPPLICS 1 71,756.00 25.40 ♦ 200.090.0 26.89 ♦ 76.357.65 76.74 0 198,312.80 27.76 158.775.16 56.30 415,004.44 5.80 156.233.12 54.71 395.120.36 55.32 39,670.70 14.09 49.514.80 13.37 40.709.60 14.28 89,984.89 12.60 8.105.66 2.08 20.240.08 2.72 7.690.37 2.69 (9.569.01 2.74 t 12,108-.75 1.63 8,47.23 t 1.4 12.19 < 1.7i0 5.121.07 1.82 1. ) 1.234.31 t 4 0 . 7 29) t 184 1000 04 252.6 .03 3.45 .00 147.7 a- 685.48) 24) 1.300.06) 191 139.221 .05) ( 203.62) .03l i) ------------- ------ ---------- .-_ ... ---------------- ------------- __.--- 4 20).610.01 100.01 744,04426 99.98 205.502.30 100.00 6 714,209.02 100.00 s( 230.053.23) ; 01.98)6( 504.946.41) ( 70.62) •( 233.843.99) ( 61.08)0( 574.521.29) ( 80.43) ------------- ------ ------------- ------ ------------- ------ ------ ------ • 50.757.80 10.03 6 159,097,05 21.36 • 51.730.31 18.12 6 139.767.73 19.57 0 15.951.92 5.66 6 44.593.50 5.99 • 10.200.70 6.40 ♦ 40,703.31 6.02 475.15 •17 1.393.04 .19 516.90 .18 1.550.63 .22 942.76 .33 2,714.14 .36 1.075.26 .30 2,099.01 .41 453.66 .34 2,497.84 .34 953.96 .33 2,668.59 .37 s 18.323.49 6.80 4 53,190.52 6.60 0 20.026.90 7.29 6 55.022.34 7.82 0 369.95 .13 4 746.10 .10 4 140.37 .05 6 232.41 .03 1.103.11 .39 4.104.74 .55 030.13 .29 2.274.09 .32 13.99 .00 13.99 .00 4. - 97 .00 4.97 .00 ------------- ------ ------ ----_------------ ------ ------------- ------ • 1,487.05 .52 6 4,064.91 .65 6 975.49 .34 0 2.511.47 .35 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE ...................................................................................................................................... FOR THE N1NC MONTHS ENOCO SCPTCMOER 30. 1906 AND 1985 CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PP YEAR -TO -OAT£ Y -T -O SAME -PB -LST -YR PO-LYR Y -7 -O -LST -YR YIU-LY AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (AU017) 6 330.00 .12 6 2.403.00 .32 6 344.75 .12 6 2.354.75 .31 COMMUNICATION 355.43 .13 720.06 .10 223.22 .08 529.09 .07 TRAVCL-CONFERENCE-SCHOOLS 40.00 .01 210.00 .03 275.00 .10 428.00 .06 ADVER71SINO 417.95 .15 1.209.35 .16 451.40 .16 944.40 .13 INSURANCE. OCNCRAL 3.616.48 1.28 12.121.99 1.63 6.137.73 2.15 17,713.69 2.40 UTILITIES. ELECTRICAL 2.457.49 .87 5*659.02 .76 2.085.46 .73 5.284.91 .74 UTILITIES. HEATING 20.05 .01 1.550.67 .21 73.23 .03 1.161.49 .16 UTILITIES. S 6 Y 230.43 .OB 342.59 .05 40.24 .01 334.05 .05 MAINICNANCE OF COUIPMEN7 3+966.45 1.41 6.029.99 .01 28.00 .01 1.983.57 .28 COUIPMCNT .00 .00 1.160.00 .16 341.80 .12 341.00 .05 HUES. MCMB£RSNIP. SUBSCRIP11ON 135.00 .05 170.00 .02 .00 .00 .00 .00 TAYCS AND LICCNSCS .00 .00 79.25 .01 .00 .00 91.25 .01 GARBAGE 63.55 .02 023.50 .11 274.50 .10 707.50 .11 HCPR. - ACOUIRED ASSETS ...520.39 .90 7.505.16 1.02 ------ ------------- 2.693.04 .94 ------ 0.081.50 ------------ 1.13 ------ ------------- TOTAL OTHER GFRVICES 6 CHARGES6 14.177.22 ------------------- 5.03 6 40.073.38 5.39 6 12.969.17 4.S5 6 40.036.00 5.60 OCDt SERVICE IN7ERESI.00 .00 6 247.50 .03 6 776.77 .27 6 ..577.03 .36 PAYING AGCNI FEES .00 .00 14.05 .00 30.00 .00 ------ 20.00 ------------- .00 -_--__ ------------- TOTAL Kill SCRVICCS 6 .00 ------ .00 6 ------------- 262.35 ------ .03 ------------- 6 ------------- 786.77 .27 6 ------ 2.597.03 --------- --- .36 ------ ------------- IOIAL GCNCRAL 6 AVIM. EXPENSES* 33.907.76 ------ 12.05 6 ------------- 96.399.16 ------ 12.95 6 ------------- 35.558.33 12.45 6 ------ 100.967.64 ------------- 14.13 ------ ------------- IGTAL OPEPA71NO INCOME 4 16.769.02 ------ 5.90 6 ------------- 62.690.69 ------ 0.41 6 16.179.90 5.67 6 30.000.09 5.44 DIMER INCOME (CYPCNSEO) INICRCST INCOME 6 7.660.60 2.72 6 20.160.91 2.71 6 7.661.00 2.66 6 21.741.63 3.04 0114ER INCOME 365.45 .13 511.96 .07 224.00 .08 380.00 .05 CAGN LONG/SHORT 1 134.451 ( .05) 1 150.03) ( .02) ------ l ------------- 9.63) ( .00) ------ 1 200.901 ------------- ( .03) ------ ------------- TOTAL OTHER INCOMC (CYPCNOCS) 6 7.091.60 ------ 2.00 6 ------------- 20.530.04 2.76 6 ------------- 7.076.25 2.76 6 ------ 21.922.73 ------------- 3.06 ------ ------------- Ni:i INCOME 6 ............. 24.661.42 ------ 8.70 6 ...... ------------- 03.229.53 ............. ------ 11.17 ...... 6 ............. 24.056.23 0.43 6 ...... 60.722.02 ............. 0.50 ...... 1 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIGUOR Poae 1 GROSS PROF17 BY PRODUCT SOLO For the Period 07/01/86 to 00/30/06 ..............................................................................................e...................................... Cont - Period Year - to - Dato Same -Period -Last -Yr Year-Lo^Data-Lac t^Yr A.0ar,t $ Aroovnt 'L Amo•�nt X Awount X I.IOUOR SALES DISCOUNTS COST OF SALES - LIDUOR GROSS PROFIT BOER SALES DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS COST OF SALC9 - DEER GROSS PROFIT WINE SALES COST OF SALCS - WINE GROSS PROF17 01NER GALES "Oil" UFr'OSIT - MIOC CGS7 OF GALES OTHER GROSS PROF IT MISC. NON-1AXADLE BALES C00 - MISC. NOW JA XADLE GR04S PROFIT 6 71.756,08 100.96 6 200.098.82 100.70 6 76.357.65 100.18 6 198.312.88 100.10 f 485.481 < .961 t 1:380.061 t .701 t 339.221 t .183 t 203.623 t .101 5:48b. 41 70.78 155.284.24 70.15 63.238.71 82.94 160x073.90 80.00 -__-. ------ __--J_-___ -- 6 15.004.19 1, __..__-------------- 21._2 ♦ 43.426.52 ------------------- 21.05 6 12.999.72 ------ ------------- 17.06 ♦ 38:035.36 19.20 ...... ............. 358.775.16 ...... ............. 100.76 435.804.46 ...... ............. 1!30.63 156.233.12 •..... ............. 500.53 395.520.36 (00.23 t 1.234.281 / .781 f 2.587.271 1 .63> 1 0.5.901 1 .531 f 011.041 ( 211 144.222.73 91.55 136.905.40 81.53 126.419 ,75 01.35 314.150.52 80.94 ------- _----- 13,310.05 __..___ ----- 0.45 6 ___----- 76.311.19 __------------- 30.47 6 20.987.47 ------------------ 10.65 ♦ _ 75.158.00 ------ 19.06 ............. 39.670.70 ...... ............. 100.00 99.514.88 ...... ............. 100.00 40.789.60 ...... ..........a.. 100.00 89.984,09 ...... 100.00 20.125.39 50.73 63.398.74 63.7! 32.2 30,07 79.02 ______------------- 67•IOp.69 7x.57 ------ -_-«__ 19,545.31 ______ ---- 49.27 6 _____ --- _ 36.116.14 _.--_-..------------- 36.29 6 8.559.53 20.90 0 .2.884.20 «5.43 ............. 8.105.66 ...... ............. 98.70 20.240.00 ...... ............. 90.77 7.690.37 ...... ............. 99.96 19,569 014 ...... 99.25 100.(N 1.22 2.62 1.23 3.45 .04 147.74 .75 5.700.97 69.40 16.170.86 78.45 7.001.16 92.04 15.362.90 77.92 ___•-._�__'�_ t 2.50x.69 __..-__------------- 30.52 0 4.313.04 ------------------- 21.03 4 622.66 ------ ------------- 7.96 11 ............. 4.353.85 ------ .2.08 ...... ............. 5.223.07 ...... ............. 100.00 12.100.75 ...... ............. 100.00 5.473.23 ...... 100.00 12.169.60 100,00 3.466.03 67.66 9.133.19 75.59 3+334.23 60.92 8.969.05 73.71 .-^.-___-..-... t 1.657.04 32.36 ♦ -------- 2.955.56 ---- `----' •------------ 24.41 6 2.138.98 ---------._•-------- 39.00 6 3.199.78 26.29 a 8 TOTAL SALES ............. .^,82.196,29 ...... ............. 500.34 745.179.70 .•.... ............. 154.06 285.718.07 ...... ............. 220.20 714,344.90 .....�. 869.91 1 01 At COST OF SALES 230,053. 23 506.15 ------------------- 584.946.41 030.77 ------------------- 233.843.99 272.50 ------ ------------- 574,521.29 720.95 ------ TOTAL GROSS PROFIT -------'"--- 4 51,343.06 002.19 6 160.233.29 323.29 4 51.874.08 947.78 t 139.823.61 140.96 ............. ...... .............. ...... ............. ...... ............. ...... I \J 1986 -- GENERAL FUND -- NOVEMBER AMOUNT CHECK NO. Sherburne County - Election ballots 23.49 23307 Hayden -Murphy - Washer and couplings 34.85 23308 Midway Industrial Supply - Pump rod assembly 6 repair kit 161.90 23309 U. S. Postmaster - Postage 500.00 23310 VOID -0- 23311 Water Products - Meters and pig tails 2,297.22 23312 Carroll, Franck 6 Assoc. - Computer consulting fees 1,530.00 23313 Dept. of Employee Relations - Medicare W/H 19.66 23314 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 90.04 23315 I.C.M.A. Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded. 74.67 23316 Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment 6,297.70 23317 Corrow Sanitation - Annual leaf pick-up charge 315.00 23318 Dept. of Natural Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 76.00 23319 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 206.25 23320 Dave Stromberg - Animal control expense 287.50 23321 Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense 275.00 23322 Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 23323 Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary • 125.00 23324 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 23325 Mr. William Fair - Council salary 125.00 23326 Mr. Jack Maxwell - Council salary 125.00 23327 YMCA of Mple. - Monthly contract payment 529.17 23328 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall and fire hall 412.50 23329 Wright County State Bank - FWT 2,297.00 23330 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,406.20 23331 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT 2,447.00 23332 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 2,683.70 23333 L 6 G Rehbein, Inc. - Payment @7 - Interceptor sever project 16,054.25 23334 Thomas Eidem - Misc. expense 23.10 23335 Worth Drapery - Drapes for fire hall 401.89 23336 Professional Services Group - Contract for WWTP - November 22,083.35 23337 Mrs. Vince Mayer - Election judge 47.50 23338 Mrs. Kenny Link - Election judge 66.74 23339 Mrs. Roger Host - Election judge 58.13 23340 Mr. Don Nagel - Election judge 47.50 23341 Mrs. Peter Becker - Election judge 49.76 23342 Mrs. Fern Anderson - Election judge 40.00 23343 Mrs. Al Toenjes - Election judge 47.50 23344 Mrs. Gene Fair - Election judge 35.00 23345 Mrs. Yvonne Smith - Election judge 50.00 23346 Mrs. Lee Trunnell - Election judge 58.11 23347 Mrs. Les Harstad - Election judge 48.50 23348 Mrs. Cliff Soltau - Election judge 37.50 23349 Mrs. Babe Clausen - Election judge 35.00 23350 Mrs. Lloyd Grossnickle - Election judge 35.00 23351 Mrs. Bud Kline - Election judge 55.00 23352 North Central Public Service - Utilities 262.56 23353 Northern States Power Co. - Utilities 5,175.89 23354 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 884.22 23355 Dept. of Nat. Ree. -Dep. Reg. fees 13.00 23356 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 54.00 23357 Dept. of Not. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees 54.00 23358 Marvin Woolhouse - Repair roof and window at city hall 125.00 23359 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded. 204.00 23360 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 90.04 23361 ICMA Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded. 74.67 23362 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT Dept. of Employee Relations - Medicare W/H 35.98 Thomas Eidem - Car allowance 300.00 Public Employee Reitrement Assoc. - Payroll ded. 27.00 Banker's Life Ins. - Group ins. 4,008.72 Unitog Rental Service - Uniform rental 154.00 United States Salt - Salt purchase 1,317.98 OSM - WWTP engineering services, annexation, sever project 20,376.05 Vance's Service Center - Fire Dept. gas 56.10 A T 6 T Information System - Fire phone charges 3.96 Simonson Lumber - Closet pole, stain, brush, etc. 79.87 Pitney Bowes - Postage machine rental 72.00 State Chemical Mfg. - Dry penetrate - St. Dept. 153.01 E L Marketing - Printing of election ballots 203.50 Elk River Printing - Printing of election ballots 20.00 Lindberg Decorating - Paint and varnish 21.07 Fair's Garden Center - Shrub for Library 2.28 Marcie's Farm Service - Dog food and litter 23.33 Servic Star Hdwe. - Misc. mdse. 101.06 Service Plus Foods - Toilet tissue 18.96 North Star Water Works - 4th St. park improvements 659.93 MacQueen Equip. - Pin assembly 26.68 Maus Foods - Misc. supplies 134.23 Moon Motors - Parts for equipment 72.40 National Bushing - 2 strobe liter - 363.25 417.96 Transport Clearings - Freight for snow plow blades 70.76 Ziegler - Snow plow blades 605.60 Wright County Treasurer - Police contract for November 10,357.50 Earl F. Andersen - Signe - No Parking 6 Yield 415.50 ICMA - Annual sub. renewal 245.00 Monticello Office Products - Supplies - Fire Dept. 6 City 108.24 Cruys. Johnson - Computer services for Sept. 290.00 Phillips Petro. - Gas for Fire Dept. 88.12 Bowman Barnes Diet. - Nuts and bolts 432.99 Harry's Auto Supply - Misc. supplies 195.69 J M 011 Co. - Gas 486.66 Ben Franklin - Misc. supplies 35.12 AME Ready Mix - Grout - Street Dept. 110.00 Flexible Pipe Tool - Rode for sewer rodder 316.23 Hayden -Murphy - Bolts. nuts, couplings 74.61 General Rental - Rental of concrete blades 138.75 Monticello Printing - Tour brochures - Fire Dept. - ballots 114.20 Monticello TW Hdwe. - Snippet. etc. 38.64 Feedrito Controls - Phosphate 922.60 Monticello Times - Printing and pub. 657.87 Amoco Oil - Gas for Fire Dept. 15.35 Foster Franzen Agency - Inf. premium for Fire Dept. 396.90 American Public Works Assoc. - Membership fee 55.00 Marco Business - Paper and office supplies 111.40 Marquette Bank MPI.S. - Parking Facility bonds of '74 1,347.50 Unocal - Gas for Fire Dept. 21.87 National Life Ins. - ins. premium - T. Eidem 100.00 Braun Eng. - Compaction tests on sewer project 307.50 Ramier 6 Criee - Title reg. for Raindance Corp. - legal exp. 62.50 Smith, Pringle 6 Reyes - Legal for October 1,099.00 Local ®49 - Union dues 105.00 -2- GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. t Diane Jacobson - Mileage to seminar 17.50 23418 Monticello Law 6 Garden - Moving lots for city 85.00 23419 Jim Hatch Sales - Batteries, barricades, tow chains -2- - St. 476.14 23420 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 206.25 23421 Dave Stromberg - Animal control contract 287.50 23422 Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees 3.00 23423 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg, fee s 76.00 23424 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 18.00 23425 Wright County State Bank - FWT 2,147.00 23426 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 2,577.38 23427 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,344.81 23428 Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages 831.38 23429 Ziegler, Inc. - Final payment on cat loader 12.477.72 23430 Coast to Coast - Chain saw - 139.99 6 misc. 384.10 23431 Sentry Systeme - Telephone lease for Fire Dept. 54.00 23432 Mobil Oil - Gas for Fire Dept. 62.31 23433 Int. Conference of Building Officials - Membership dues 15.00 23434 Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control services 45.00 23435 Davis Electronic Service - Pager repairs for Fire Dept. 170.91 23436 Gary Anderson - Mileage 78.19 23437 L 6 G Rehbein, Inc. - Payment /8 — Interceptor sever project 145,684.38 23438 Fox Valley Systems - Orange paint for streets 59.46 23439 Audio Communications - Fire Dept. repairs 61.60 23440 General Industrial Supply - Hwy. 25 new sign 125.20 23441 Schillewsert Landscaping - Grind out one stump 35.00 23442 Frank Madden 6 Assoc. - Legal fees for personnel policy 500.00 23443 Dahlgren, Shardlow, etc. - Annexa tion study exp. for October 245.50 23444 VOID -0- 23445 -. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 178.00 23446 Olson Electric - Softball trenching, lites at city hall, etc. 2,241.69 23447 Central Eyewear - Glasses 37.00 446.34 23448 23449 Water Products - Meters and parte 485.00 23450 EL Marketing - Printing election ballots Tom Eidem - Comp. Worth, Cable, LMC Policy Conf. expense 23.24 23451 Payroll for October 32.158.73 TOTAL GENERAL DISBURSE.MENTS FOR NOVEMBER - 1986 $320.101.56 C LIQUOR FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR NOVEMBER - 1986 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 1,003.82 12715 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 776.94 12716 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 2,199.83 12717 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 170.00 12718 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H - Oct. 230.00 12719 Wright County State Bank - FWT 255.00 12720 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 306.42 12721 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor 321.26 12722 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor 5,070.59 12723 State Treasurer - PERA WIN 176.77 12724 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 575.35 12725 Day Dist. Co. - Beer 6 mise. mdse. 998.10 12726 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 1,541.75 12727 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 33.52 12728 Eagle Diet. Co. - Liquor 69.75 12729 North Central Public Service - Utilities 38.26 12730 Quality Wine - Wine purchase 774.42 12731 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 78.74 12732 Northern States Power - Utilities 575.52 12733 Quality Wine - Wine purchase 622.18 12734 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 2,080.17 12735 Grosslein Beverages, Inc. - Beer purchases 10,272.95 12736 Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer 12,629.55 12737 Day Dist. Co. - Beer 770.45 12738 Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer 4,901.82 12739 Maus Foods - Misc. store expense 29.13 12740 Kolles Sanitation - Garbage contract 91.50 12741 Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse. 533.35 12742 Monticello Times - Adv. 57.20 12743 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 8.41 12744 Viking Coca Cala - Misc. mdse. 303.65 12745 Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdae. 156.25 12746 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 748.91 12747 Liefert Trucking - Freight 460.40 12748 Wright County State Bank - FWr 263.00 12749 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 307.80 12750 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 170.00 12751 Eagle Wine Co. - Wine purchase 2,462.29 12752 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor purchase 8,851.44 12753 Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. 173.80 12754 Stromquist Dist. Misc. mdse. 35.65 12755 Cloudy Town Dist. - Misc. mdae. 96.65 12756 Persian's Office Products - Calculator repair 70.00 12757 Banker's Life - Group ins. 321.94 12758 Dick Beverage - Beer 2,172.60 12759 PERA W/H 177.58 12760 Coast to Coast - Store expense 10.78 12761 Ed Phillips - Liquor 3,833.65 12762 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 61.05 12763 Twin City Wine - Wine purchase 1,254.66 12764 Cnmmissionar of Revenue - Sales tax for October 6,341.46 12765 Payroll for October 4,590.51 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR NOVEMBER - 1986 $80,056.82 C1Tr OP HYMC'LLW ' tt7+it}slytluilding Dcpert.mmt Reiwrt I PF3UUT3 mid USES Amth orottotzr 19" ;L- --�wx. -"' gwno tb„tI, Leot Yeor This To- r.T7UUT3 ISSUED U-1th Saotemba t>mthoccober Leat Tear TO pots To Date ItLi 1 Df2rf ] AL i dumber . 12 20 6 69 123 Valuation 31,126,790.00 8;551,930.00 3 152,330.00 55,378.070.00 S 7,939,060.00 Fees 6,036.47 7,691.57 875.20 27,114.76 39,433.50 Surchorga. 563.65 775.95 76.15 2,689.50 3,967.65 .. 0019021CIAL dumber 3 4 1 3 20 19 Veluetton 655,630.00 1,093,500.00 2,251,006.00 3,992,660.00 3,838,430.00 Feea 3,482.59 5,452.97 10,034.95, 10,067.43 IB,684. 27 3-Cli-gee 327.90 546.75 ',1,125.50 1,996.30 1,919.20 117w377U AL Ilumb.r 2 3 Valu o tion 475,000.00 ( 575,506.00 Fee. 2,336.20 5 -ch -C.8 237.50 ],054.77 • 287.75 PIMMOC dumber 9 17 " 5 68 78 Fee. 584.00 586.00 348.00 2,436.00 2,986.00 S.rch-go. 4.50 Clio 2.50 70.00 39.00 OT11FT13 . ,lumbar i 3 Valuetlon 456,900.00 10,000.00 , Faoa 2,285.02 100.50 Surcharge. 228.25 6.00 TOTAI. 110. IT31111T5 261 41T__ _ 14 17B I 226 TOTAL. VAIIIATION 2.217.620.00 I 2,645,430.00 2,403,330.00 9,026.430.001 12,3S9,990.00 T9TAL. PFF.i 12,439.761 13.730.541 11.258.15 49.903.21 I 64.159.04 101Ai. LWrI'uAaG1,5 1.133,251 1.331.201 1.204.t5 4,951.051 6.219.60 t3IRTIMIT Fi 91T}I ri"a' .. .- dumber Ln DpL,, PODUT IIAIVR& lhvnbor 1.10117,L:il�{T Voluetiun IMP roar ,Jdat yM, 5Fngla ramlly 11 1 3,276.05 1 305.20 % 610,400.0t 47 32 ' Vapl e■ 2 772.00 94.60 149,200.DC 12 4 ItuI ti -I emi.ly 1 •3,393.32 373.50 741,000,nC 0 B Coetnerclal 2 971.57 76.75 153,500.0C 6 10 Indust rl el 2 0 Oee: C. -F.0 2 71.00 2.50 S,ODD.00 11 15 Sig11. 00 Nell. eallsinae 0 1 ; ALTFFIATIWI C11 Itll•AIR Urellinga 3 174.80 9.45 18, 900. dc 41 28 Co .rclel 2 41401.40 470.00 940,000.0C 13 12 hidu t,.l a1 1 q 1'1i118111la All type. 17 566. OD 8.50 70 68 ACCI'380DT STRUMUREA ' ariem,l nq voids i• 1 0 nac54 1 14.30 .7D 1,4l D.00 4 0 T1:1U'OM9Y i•I:nNIT 0 0 UUIDL1TICel i•, 1 " 7 0'1 TOT AIS 41 13,730.54 1,31 ,20 2,615,430.00 226 170 1 PIDIVIDUAL PEF,11T ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH OF OCTODER 1 193 6 'ER IT I DESCRIPTION D NAME/LOCATION VALUATION :UM.E ER r 06-968 63 hole famlly dwelling SP John M113ar/221 Jerry Water, Drive B 63.4D0. 00 06-969 Sl nolo Peml ly Dvelling Sr Marvin Gorge Builder./2 Center C1'rc11 52,100.00 06-970 24 -unit apartment building MP Lionel Pull 6 Stephan Upgran/ +39 alvervlow Orl ve 747,000.00 86-971 School Aeel cion AC Monticello Jr: xlpn 8c nool/ 900- 00 Eeet Broad,, 560,000.00 66-972 School Addition AC PI-modEeet Elementary School/ ' 10]3 rem, D,.advay 380,000.00 06-973 Hous. Remodel AD Duane Hollenbeak/313 ..atRiver St. 10,000.00 06-974 Deck AD Jaffrey Schwl.t.ring/324 Pro- St. +,430.00 66-975 T fadwelling D Deyla Vach.e Con.tr/230 G 232 Mervin Elwood Road 84,600.00 86-976 Cole 811110. Duileing C Denlm Blpe/1305 Plat 0akrood Drly. 8,500.00 86-977 9l ngla tamlly dwalling SP Gann, FOr.,.rg/1]22 vast RSv.r et. 66,800.00 B6-970 Single Family Dwelling SP Vic Hol lman Con. lobM1 e11ae1ppi Dr. 65,300.00 86-97p 9l ngla family dwelling GP Cyr Conetruc[lon Ltd/2800 Oakvi.w Ln. x6,000.00 86-900 Single family damning SP Nordvlk Conmtr./220 Hl m.lemlppl Dr. 50,100.00 86-901 Attednad Garage RD Dal P=.1/824 Mast Brcadrey 2,500.00 06-982 xouee rein[ngle AD Dhlr ley Andorwn/306 Mast Oro.dvay 2,900.00 B6-903 9l nolo termly dwelling SP Dick 6 JCyCO Eahler/1221 Sandy I<ne 69,400.00 86-904 Single daily dw.11ing BP Ma rvin G.orgo 0ul ld.re/+0 Center Cir. 51,700.00 66-903 31 np1• tool ly dralling SP Mervin George Bulldara/4 Fairway Dr. 46,000.00 ' 06-916 Single Fee11y dwelling 5P Mervin George Oulld.r•/6 Palrway Dr. 46,600.00 86-987 9ingi. [.ally dwelling 5 Deyl. vechae Conmtr/215 Marvin Elwood Drive 52,400.00 66-908 Two family dwelling D Doyle Vachaa Conmtr/242 6 244 M.Me Elwood 011 va 8.,600.00 06-bB9 Nouse G Garage Raaiding AD Be rbarm IrOeY/1040 ram[ River gt. 6,000.00 86-990 Do ached gareBo RG Sorry G Harlan. N.=n/610 E. 3rd at 2,500.00 86-966 Day car. cantor C Ken Catton/109 Sandberg Roae 145,000.00 TOTALS 32.645.430.00 Irrr, IaERMIT ISURCHARGEIDLUMEING ISUeCHARr- 5 323.20 5 21.70 5 27.00 B .50 209.30 26.05 23.00 .50 2,050.50 373.50 127.00 .50 1,583.00 280.00 52.00 .SD 1,133.00 190.00 29.00 .50 60.50 5.00 14.30 .70 386.00 42.30 42.00 .50 71.50 4.25 3]3.40 33.40 2400 .50 320.90 32.65 24. . 00 .50 265.00 23.00 i].GD .50 203.30 25.05 19.00 .50 35.50 1.25 37.90• 1.45 341.20 34.70 24.00 .50 207.50 25.75 23.00 .50 260.60 23.40 23.00 .50 265.45 23.30 23.00 .50 290.20 26.20 23.00 .50 386.00 42.30 42.00 .50 56.50 3.00 35.50 1.25 545.58 72.50 38.00 .50 19, 61)T 51.722 -2-F-70 6586.00 SB.50 F INDIVIDUAL PUNT ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH OF OCTOBER i 1986 PAGE 2 ERMIT DESCRIPTION P NAME/LOCATION VALUATION ser, +UMBER PERMIT SURCHARGE PLUMBING SURCMAR6c 86-470 24 -unit Apartment building N7 Lional EUll i Stephen Opgren/ 119Rlvervlev Drive D 1.332.02 ' 86-971 School Addition AC Wonticello Jr. Nigh 8ehmei/ 800 Eaat Sroadvay 1.020.95 85-972 School Addition AC Pinewood Ea et Elementary School/ , 1033 Want Broad -y 736.45 86-966 Day care center C "anCatton/109 Sandberg Road 354.57 TOTAL ALAS REVIEW IIII 1,�57T79 TOTAL REVENUE 915.061.74