City Council Agenda Packet 09-14-1987AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 14, 1987 - 7:00 p.m.
Riverroad Plaza
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held August 24, 1987.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
4. Consideration of Construction of Service Road at County Road 39 East and
County Road 75.
5. Discussion with Wright County Sheriff's Department on Possible Solutions
to Cruising Problem.
6. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle Property.
7. Consideration of an Amendment to the Sign Ordinance Requiring Address
Signs on each Building in all Zoning Districts.
8. Consideration of a Sketch Plan Proposal to be Known as Highland Heights
One. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation.
9. Consideration of Approval of Liquor Store Sign Design and Landscaping
Design.
10. Consideration of Setting a Public Hearing Date to Modify the Finance Plan
for Tax Increment Redevelopment District i6.
11. Consideration of City Attorney Appointment.
12. Discussion on Senior Citizen Center Position.
13. Adjournment.
NOTE: Please note the Council will be meeting at Riverroad Plaza on County
Road 75 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss 14 on the agenda. The Council will then
reconvene at City Hall after the discussion to continue the Council
meeting.
MINUTES
((( REGULAR MEETING - MONTICMLA CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 24, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith,
Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and
unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held August 10, and the special meting held August 17,
1987.
Wright County Recycling Program - Slide Presentation.
Ms. Val Donahue, Wright County Recycling Program Coordinator
attended the Council meeting and presented a 20 -minute slide
presentation which briefly outlined the possible ways the City
of Monticello and other communities in Wright County can
implement a recycling program in an effort to reduce the amount ;
of waste being disposed of in landfills. Ms. Donahue noted that
the County is in the process of developing a facility for
composting refuse in the future and such items as aluminum cans,
glass, papers, and plastic items are not suitable for composting
and should be recycled.
Ms. Donahue noted that she would be willing to work with any
task force established in an effort to meet with civic groups
and organizations to encourage recycling in the future. Public
Works Director, John Simla, also felt that the City should
begin efforts to encourage recycling and agreed to work with
Councilmember Bill.Fair and Ms. Donahue in meeting with civic
groups and organizations to start implementing a recycling
program.
Public Hearin to Consider the vacation of Property Line
Easements WitFin Laurxng Hillside Addition.
The United States Postai Service has obtained an option on Lots
3 and 4, Block 2, Lauring Hillside Terrace Addition, for the
purpose of developing a new Post Office facility. As part of
their development plans, they have requested the lot line
utility easements be vacated in the center of the property to
allow for the location of the new facility.
Hearing no comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed. It was noted by the City staff that the easements
Council Minutes - 8/24/87
Page 2
requested to he vacated would not cause a problem, as a 6 -foot
easement around the perimeter of both lots still existed for
drainage and utility purposes. As a result, motion was made by
Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to vacate the 6 -foot
utility and drainage easements adjoining the lot lines between
Lot 3 and 4. Block 2, Lauring Hillside Terrace, contingent upon
an approved site development plan being presented by the Postal
Service, Voting in favor was Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren
Smith, Dan Blonigen. Mayor Arve Grimsmo abstained due to a
possible conflict of interest.
6. Public Hearing to Consider Modification of Finance Plan for Tax
Increment District #2.
011ie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, informed the
Council that the HRA is in the process of acquiring the
Monticello Ford property on West Broadway which is located in
Tax Increment Redevelopment District #2. The HRA and Planning
Commission have recently approved a modification to this
District that would allow for the tax increments being generated
from the District to be used to acquire additional property over
the remaining life of the District. In order to accomplish the
purchase, the Tax Increment Finance Plan must be modified by the
additional cost of the acquisition.
The total project cost for the modification would total $90,000,
which would be recaptured from the additional tax increments
estimated at approximately $17,300 per year from within the
District.
Hearing no comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed and a motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Bill
Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution adopting
Modification 12 to, the existing Tax Increment Finance Plan for
Redevelopment District #2. See Resolution 87-23.
7. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow a Beauty Shop
as a Home occupation in an R-1 Zone. Applicant, Joann
Hoerchler.
Ms. Hoerchler had requested a conditional use permit to operate
an in-home beauty shop out of their recently purchased home in
Ritze Manor Addition. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the conditional use permit.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and
unanimously carried to approve the conditional use permit
allowing the beauty shop to exist as a home occupation provided
it is occupied by one operator only.
W
Council Minutes - 8/24/87
Page 3
Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Major Auto
Repair to a B-4 Zone. Applicant, Fred 6 Patricia Culp.
Mr. Fred Culp recently purchased the former Broadway Auto Repair
business and requested a conditional use permit to allow
continuation of a major auto repair facility in a B-4 Zone.
Mr. Culp has started to clean up the property and plans on
defining customer parking space and complete landscaping along
the boulevard with shrubs and a grass area. The Planning
Commission reviewed the conditional use request and recommended
approval contingent upon six conditions being met by the new
operator as follows:
a. Off-street customer parking space be striped on the existing
bituminous off-street parking surface as shown on the
enclosed site plan.
b. Employee parking area must be in the area immediately east
of the existing building.
c. The existing semi -trailer parked on the north side of the
building be removed in a period of time as recommended by
the City Council.
d. The solid screening fence be installed along the entire
north side of the property on a portion of the east side of
the property from the northeast corner up to the end of the
northwest corner of the Post Office building.
e. The front boulevard portion of this site be installed as
per site plan.
f. The conditional use permit be granted for a period of up to
one year. At that time, it would be reviewed by the Zoning
Administrator.
Mr. Culp had requested that the existing semi -trailer which is
parked at the rear of the building be allowed to remain until
October 31 at which time it would be removed. in addition, he
requested a ono year time period to allow for the construction
of a property line screening fence to be installed along the
south and east property line.
After reviewing the property improvements planned, motion was
made by Bill Fair, seconded by pan Blonigen, and unanimmsly
carried to grant a one year conditional use permit for a major
auto repair facility contingent upon the applicant meeting the
six requirements and allowing the semi -trailer to exist on the
property until October 31, 1987, and allowance of up to one year
to complete the fencing requirement.
Council Minutes - 8/24/87
Page 4
Consideration of Cable Franchise Ordinance Amendment.
on March 23, 1987, the City Council adopted a resolution
approving the transfer of ownership of the cable system from
Rite Cable Company to Jones Intercable, Inc. The final step in
the transfer of ownership process involves the adoption of a
formal ordinance amendment by each of the ten cities involved in
the Cable Commission amending the cable franchise ordinance.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and
unanimously carried to adopt Ordinance Amendment No. 157 which
makes reference to Jones Intercable, Inc., as being the new
owner of the franchise agreement.
10. Consideration of Change Orders 07-10 for 86-1 Project.
In preparation for finaling out the 1986-1 Interceptor Sewer
Project, the general contractor, L 6 G Rehbein, Inc., had
requested extra compensation for various items during the
project. Change Orders No. 7, 8, 9, and 10 were prepared after
meetings with the contractor by the City's Consulting Engineer.
The first change order involves extra compensation for
additional backfill material that was needed to bring the
property up to grade between Ramsey Street and Cedar Street in
the amount of $6,598.48. The second change order in the amount
of $948.75 was to compensate for the replacement of a well pump
the contractor had to install at a private residence whose well
had gone dry and damaged the pump. The third change order, 09,
involved $8,275.23 for excess depth excavation at the start of
the project near Washington Street and the railroad tracks. The
final change order, 010, involved compensating the contractor
one-half of the estimated savings totaling $3,730 when the
contractor supported existing sewer lines and was able to work
around them rather than replacing the storm sewer. The total of
Change Orders 7-10 amounted to $19,552.46.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and
unanimously carried to approve Change Orders 7-10 totaling
$19,552.46 on the Interceptor Sewer Project for L 6 G
Rehbein, Inc.
11. Consideration of Final Payment on 86-1 Project.
With the addition of Change Orders 7-10, the total contract
price for the Interceptor Sewer project, including cost overruns
for extra quantities and repairs to the 77-3 force main project,
totaled $1,085,399.12. The final payment still to be made to
the contractor is $27,058.96. Consulting Engineer, OSM,
Council Minutes - 8/24/87
Page 5
1
recommended that final payment in the above amount be made
contingent upon the contractor supplying lien waivers and
required documentation has been submitted to the City of
Monticello.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and
unanimously carried to authorize final payment in the amount of
$27,058.96 to L i G Rehbein on the 86-1 Interceptor Sewer
Project contingent upon all lien waivers and state tax forms
being submitted as required.
12. Consideration of Setting a Public Hearing for Adoption of
Assessment Rolls on 86-1 Project and Highway 25 Improvement-
Project.
mprovementProject.
With the completion of the 86-1 Interceptor Sewer Project, the
city expects final figures which can be used to set assessments
for the street improvements and water improvements on Chestnut
Street, the street improvement along with water and sewer
improvements to Fifth Street, street improvements and water
improvements to Locust Street, and water and storm sewer stubs
for the Lucius Johnson property at Sixth Street and Linn, a long
with Minnesota Street utility improvements. In addition, ra
' semi-final cost on the Highway 25 improvement project will be
available, and as such, it was recommended that a public hearing
for the adoption of the assessment rolls for the above projects
be scheduled September 28, 1987.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and
unanimously carried to adopt a resolution authorizing the
preparation of the assessment roll for the 86-1 Interceptor
Sewer Project and the Highway 25 Improvement Project, and to
hold an assessment hearing on September 28, 1987. See
Resolution 87-24, and 87-25.
13. Consideration of Purchase of Replacement Pickup for Public Works
Department.
As part of the 1987 Budget, 86,000 was budgeted for replacing
the Public Works Department pickup. Public Works Director, John
Simola, presented a list of four used pickups that had been
located in the Monticello area that were felt to be acceptable
replacement units. With the trade-in of the existing 1972
Chevrolet pickup, the net price of the vehicles were between
approximately 85,000 and $7,500 depending on which model was
selected and whether or not the 1972 pickup was sold outright or
traded in. Mr. Simola noted that any of the vehicles would be
acceptable replacements, but did note that the 1987 Ford pickup
with 8,000 miles on it available from Curt Hoglund would still
have a 5 -year, 50,000 mile warranty; but the coat was
approximately 81,500 higher than budgeted for.
C -D-)
Council Minutes - 8/24/87
(_ Page 6
i .
Mayor Grimsmo questioned whether the City shouldn't be
purchasing a new vehicle and trading after so many years rather
than searching for used equipment. Hr. Simola felt that in the
long run it was more economical to seek a used vehicle with
lower mileage that was determined to be in good shape but would
have no objection to purchasing a new vehicle if the Council so
desired. He did recommend that the 1987 Ford pickup with 8,000
miles would appear to save the City a couple thousand dollars
over a new one. and this vehicle would still be under warranty,
etc.
As a result, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan
Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize the purchase of
the 1987 Ford pickup from Curt Hoglund with the trade-in of the
1972 Chev at a net cost of $7,500.
14. Consideration of Planning Commission Appointment.
Recently, the Planning Commission had been seeking applicants
for the Planning Commission to replace Barb xoropchak, who had
resigned effective August 11, 1987. Four potential applicants
had attended the Planning Commission meeting for an interview.
Those in attendance were Candi Thilquist, Christopher Maas, and
Ellen Maxwell, City of Monticello residents, and Cindy Leman,
Monticello Township resident.
:l
The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council was
to appoint Cindy Leann as Planning Commission member to fill the
unexpired term of Barb Roropchak.
Mayor Grimsmo and Councilmember Warren Smith noted that they
felt a little uncomfortable with appointing a Township resident
to the City Planning Commission to make decisions that may
affect City taxpayers but were willing to go along with the
Planning Commission recommendation. As a result, motion was
made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, to ratify the Planning
Commission's recommendation and appoint Cindy Lemm to fill the
unexpired Planning Commission term. voting in favor was Arve
Grimnmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith. Voting in
opposition was Dan Blonigen, as he felt a City resident should
be appointed to the Commission rather than a Township resident
at this time.
15. Consideration of Bills for the Month of August.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and
unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of August
as presented.
Council Minutes - 8/24/87
Page 7
16. General Discussion.
Update on River Bridge. The Public Works Director informed the
Council that he had been in contact with the bridge contractor,
Johnson Brothers Construction, regarding the feasibility of the
existing bridge remaining rather than being demolished. The
contractor has been developing a revised plan design and felt
there was a possibility the new bridge could be constructed
without demolition of the existing bridge. The next step will
be to meet with MN/DOT representatives to see if it would be
agreeable to them to have the bridge remain and be taken over by
the City. After that there are still a number of steps to
clear, including the Corp of Engineer's approval; and then if it
is still feasible at this point, more research would have to be
completed regarding what types of funds would be available, if
any, for continual maintenance and renovation of the bridge to
incorporate its use into the park system.
Discussion on Cruising Problem on Broadway.
In light of recent complaints regarding the increasing problem
with traffic and the number of people on Broadway during the
weekends, the City Administrator had contacted the Wright county
Sheriff's Department, who indicated a willingness to meet with
City officials regarding a possible task force that could be set
up to review and tackle the problem for next year. It was the
Council's consensus that Sheriff Darrell Wolff and/or Lieutenant
Don Hozempa be in attendance at the next meeting to discuss this
problem.
East County Road 39 Improvement.
Public Works Director updated the Council on the status of the
realignment of East County Road 39 and improvements on County
Road 75 intersection. He noted that Wright County is nearing
completion of its design standards for this intersection, and
the City will have to decide in the near future what type of
frontage road should be constructed to serve MacArlund Plaza
development for access purposes. A number of alternatives exist
to provide adequate access. It was the Council consensus that
all membera would meet at the Curt Hoglund site at 6;45 p.m.
prior to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting to review
e alternatives available.
-a C Lc-�•
Rick wolYeCeller
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
4. Consideration of Construction of Service Road at County Road 39 East and
County Road 75. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
With the relocation of County Road 39 Past some 300 feet east of its
present location, there becomes a need to establish a service road from
new County Road 39 back to MacArlund Plaza, the new apartments, and the
rear entry for the Riverroad Plaza. The County has indicated that the
responsibility for this service road lies with the City. The County has
agreed to do all of the engineering for the service road and include it
with their County Road 39 project so that we receive economical bid
prices.
In addition, they have agreed to turn back to the City portions of the
old County Road 39 right-of-way. With a slight change in the location of
old County Road 39, there would be some additional property available for
sale for Lots 1-4 and 19, Block 3, Hoglund Addition. The City could
realize a small amount of money from the sale of property to those lot
owners. In our discussions with Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund and Jim and
Ken Maus, lessees of the Riverroad Plaza, it became apparent that they
wish to have an entrance onto County Road 75 which would allow them to
make a left hand turn out of the Riverroad Plaza onto County Road 75.
Since there will be a concrete median in front of the existing driveway
on County Road 75, it was suggested that a service road be continued from
the back entry of Riverroad Plaza around the corner and follow County
Road 75 west to a point where access could be given to County Road 75 for
both left and right turns. This would be just west of the concrete
median. This would significantly increase the City's construction cost
of a service road. Initially, our cost for a service road to the back
door of Riverroad Plaza was considered in the area of $7,000 to $10,000.
Continuing the service road around to this new location would get us in
the area of $17,000 to $20,000. In order for trucks to be able to make
this entrance, it would be necessary to have a large radius at the new
entrance; and it would be located on the westerly one of tho small lots
that Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund own. It would require approximately
30 feet of additional right-of-way and the possible placement of curbing
on the north side to limit the encroachment into the Curt and Anna Mae
Hoglund property.
In discussions recently with Curt and Anna Mae, they indicated that the
encroachment into the small lots would cause some problems in that the
lots were not sufficiently large enough as they currently exist and that
reducing them in size could have serious effects on the type of structure
that could be put there and parking requirements. we discussed with Curt
and Anna Mae an exchange for the 30 feet of right-of-way needed for the
service road, we would exchange the site distance right-of-way near the
intersection of Old County Road 39 and 75, which the County intends to
turn back to us. It was learned that the underground tanks for the
Riverroad Plaza currently exist on this County right-of-way and that we
would be willing to turn this back in exchange for the 30 feet of
right-of-way.
Mc
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
Curt and Anna Mae remain consistent in their thoughts that the service
road would best be extended further west some 300 feet to the west edge
of their property near the entry to the Maurice Hoglund property. They
indicated at this point they would not be concerned with giving up
additional right-of-way for the service road. In checking with Dave
Montebello from the County, there were indications that this construction
could cost another $8,000 to $10,000, which would put us in the area of
$30,000 for the service road. I indicated to Curt anc3 Anna Mae Hoglund
that there certainly was some justification for building a sevice road to
the back door of the Riverroad Plaza to handle that building, the
apartments, and MacArlund Plaza. I indicated that there may be some
justification for extending the service road around the corner if the
Hoglunds would give up the right-of-way and possibly pay for some
curbingif needed, but that further extension of the service road westerly
may be stretching the benefit to the overall city versus the benefit to
specific property owners. At this time, we decided it would be best to
bring this all before the City Council to get the opinions as to what the
City would pay for in regard to this service road and what would be
assessed. In the meantime, before our meeting, Curt and Anna Mae will be
discussing it with Jim and Ren Maus.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to do the minimum amount of work and
build a service road to the back door of the Riverroad Plaza. The
service road would be then maintained by the City .
2. The second alternative would be to continue the service road arouni
in front of the Riverroad Plaza to a point where left hand turns
could be made onto County Road 75. With this alternative, there
would be a land exchange between the City and Curt and Anna Mae
Hoglund. We would give up our right-of-way where the fuel tanks are,
and they would give up right-of-way for a larger radius turn at the
entry for trucks. If curb is needed, it would be assessed and
possibly a portion of the service road would be assessed.
3. The third alternative would be to continue the service road all the
way westerly to the Maurice Hoglund entry and assess whatever portion
the City feels benefits the property owners rather than the general
public.
C. STAFF RECOMMEt:DA^'ION:
The City staff can support any of the three alternatives if agreement can
be made with Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund and there is appropriate cost
sharing by all parties involved. Since the reworking of this
intersection has been forced upon the Hoglunds and could have a
detrimental effect on their property, I feel we should make every effort
to work with them to come up with an equitable aoluticm that is short of
giving away the store.
-2-
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
The County is of the opinion that a solution should be worked out between
the City and the property owners. Since the County controls access to
County Road 75, they will become a part of any of our final design and
will have input. They do indicate, however, that they, as a County, do
not owe anyone a continued right and left turn access onto 75 forever in
the future, they merely guarantee an access. It is imperative that we
reach a decision soon so that this can be built into the County project.
We will have much higher costs as a separate City project.
D. SUPPORTI14G DATA:
Copies of preliminary maps.
-3-
AlI S S ISSIPPI
RD, 76
} 'EpViCE p�A� AT Coo[). 39 E.
5 4x
... � 2
HO WINO MISSISSIpp i A
•� t $ ! ,,.. DRIVE
MACARIU ..5
OuTyol MQ �xn• a +'xB,ce 1• ..+ I 4 3
NIGH�WAY
6-1
PLAZA o y
`
'
vBRJ13
rr,tTus J
\ "+`
a,
m
Y O p p,tL
L
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
Discussion with Wright County Sheriff's Department on Possible Solutions
to Cruising Problem. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
About a month ago, I discussed with Don Hozempa of the Sheriff's
Department the increasing concerns expressed by the Council regarding the
cruising and loitering problem along Broadway. Mr. Hozempa recommended
that due to the time of the year, the City Council should be focusing its
efforts on possible solutions to the problem for next year. Don
indicated that possibly the Council may want to establish a task force
consisting of Council members, staff members, and/or citizen
representatives to meet with Sheriff Department personnel to determine
what types of ordinances or regulations should be set up for the upcoming
year to help alleviate the problem.
Sheriff Darrell Wolff, along with Don Hozempa and Jim Powers, will be in
attendance at the Council meeting to initiate discussion on this problem
and possibly recommend types of ordinances and enforcement that could be
tried for next year. It appears that the City will have to enact
additional regulations to attack the problem and possibly require
additional foot patrols by the deputies and naturally better enforcement
may have to be instituted.
At this point, the staff does not have any recommendations regarding the
above matter: and the City Council can take whatever appropriate action
they desire based on discussions with the Sheriff's Department.
-4-
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
6. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle Property. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City staff would like to initiate a proposed ordinance amendment to
the Monticello Zoning Map in the area bounded by the East I-94 freeway,
on the east by County Road 118, on the south by our southerly most
border, and on the west by Fallon Avenue. This area is currently under
the ownership of Mr. Jim Boyle and all his creditors.
our main concern is under the current zoning with the newly constructed
Middle School just outside our borders, conceivably we could have a heavy
industrial building built right across from the new school. As you will
note on the enclosed site plan, you will see the existing zoning for it
and the new proposed zoning as we down zone into the area near the new
Middle School.
Public hearing notices were sent to property owners within a 350 -foot
radius of this proposed rezoning area. Mr. Jim Boyle was one of the
affected property owners that was sent a letter that basically said an
amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning map. It didn't
indicate any area that was to be rezoned in the initial public hearing
notices that were sent out.
Mr. Boyle requested of the City not to have the public hearing on
Tuesday, September B. but to hold off on the public hearing until the
next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting that is to be held
on Wednesday, October 14, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Boyle's reason for
tabling the public hearing at this time was to further research all
possibilities for the new zoning which we attached to this affected
property.
Mr. Rick wolfsteller, city Administrator, requested that the Zoning
Administrator, prior to the September 8, 1987, Planning commission
meeting , ask the Monticello Planning Commission to table the public
hearing for an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning map.
The Monticello Planning Commission, by unanimous consensus, recognized
Rick Wolfsteller's request for tabling the public hearing; but they saw
no need for tabling this public hearing in that Mr. Boyle was just using
it as a stall tactic not to have the area rezoned.
The Monticello Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, did recommend
approval of the proposed zoning changes to this area. Enclosed you will
find a copy of the existing zoning for thie affected area and a copy of
the proposed rezoning of this area.
The Consulting Planner has been consulted to give us his opinion on the
proposed rezoning changes. Due to some conflicts in their work schedule,
the Consulting Planner, John Uban, will have a report to us by Monday
evening .
-5-
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning Map.
2. Do not approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello
Zoning Map.
3. Approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning Map
subject to some additional input from the City Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMMATION:
City staff would recommend approval of an amendment to a certain area in
the Monticello Zoning Map. we feel the zoning which we have applied from
west to east coming across the property along the extension of Chelsea
Road does facilitate some down zoning into the area of the new Middle
School. Also, the proposed zoning does allow a developer flexibility of
the different types of industries, businesses, and multiple family which
could be built on these newly rezoned properties.
we also feel, as a matter of courtesy, we should allow Mr. Boyle some
additional time to study this rezoning map and what affect it would have
on the properties he has within this area. You may choose to approve the
amendment to the zoning map as presented or table it until your next
regularly scheduled meeting for September 28, or until your first meeting
in October, which would be October 13, 1987.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed zoning amendment area; Copy of the
site plan of the existing zoning; Copy of the proposed new zoning.
An amendment to a certain area in the Monticello
Zoning Mag. ---
• City of Monticello. 4
All
NO
G.l♦i .. ,0 I
!� I --
I
t�
LO`
e
irr' •' C +� • yr + y t C ,
IN
. U
Y
.l
t
\`
i
LO`
e
irr' •' C +� • yr + y t C ,
Planning Commmisslon Minutes - 9/8/87
H. Public Hearing - An amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning
Map. Applicant, City of ftnticeilo.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that the City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, would like to request the
Planning Commission members to table this rezoning request until the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission members acknowledged the City Administrator's
request for tabling it, but they felt time was of the essence in that
public hearing notices had been sent, the public hearing notification had
been met, and they felt now was the time to get on with it and apply some
new type of zoning to this affected area. Planning Commission member Jim
Ridgeway questioned applying B-2 zoning in the two middle sections of
this rezoning request. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated we put
B-2 zoning in to allow flexibility of some type of residential multiple
family to occur in and near the school district, the northwesterly most
portion of the school's property; and also by allowing 8-2 in the area,
there would be the possibility of having some type of multiple family
next to the freeway. Mr. Ridgeway indicated he thought the best use for
the area next to the freeway would be for some type of highway business.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public. Mr. Shelley Johnson, Superintendent of Monticello Schools,
was present to indicate the Monticello School District had no problems
with the proposed zoning as indicated on the site plan. as did indicate,
however, that we might at some point in time look at some type of 5-3
zoning in the northern ore -half of this middle section.
With no further input from the public or Commission members, motion was
made by Jim Ridgeway, seconded ty Joyce Dowling, to amend a certain area
of the Monticello toning Map with the only change going from 6-2 (limited
business) to E-3 (highway business) in the north ons -half of the center
section of this zoning map area. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
7. Consideration of an Amendment to the Sign Ordinance Requiring Address
Signs on each Builoing in all Zoning Districts. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City staff has been approached by the Wright County Sheriff's
Department and some members of the City Council to amend the Monticello
Sign ordinance to initiate that mandatory address numbers be posted on
all buildings in the City of Monticello. The main object of this
ordinance amendment is to better identify property addresses by their
numbers in case of an emergency response request and that these numbers
are easily visible from a public right-of-way or a public street. The
Monticello Planning Commission unanimously approved the ordinance
amendment to the Monticello Sign Ordinance.
S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve an amendment to the Monticello Sign Ordinance.
2. Do not approve the amendment to the Monticello Sign ordinance.
3. Approve the amendment to the Monticello Sign Ordinance subject to
some additional conditions by the City Council. f
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff's recommendation is supported by the Wright County Sheriff's
Department, the Monticello -Big Lake Ambulance Service, and certain
Monticello City Council members to initiate an ordinance amendment to
make it mandatory that all buildings in the City of Monticello have
address numbers on the buildings or dwellings that are easily spotted
from a public street. Emsrgency response time would be considerably
reduced with all public buildings and/or dwellings having clearly
noticeable numbers from a public street.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance.
•7.
5. Address Numbers Sign: A minimum of one (1) address number sign shall be
required on each building in all zoning districts.
(A) Location: The address numbers shall be so placed to be easily seen
from the public street.
(B) Size Regulations: The address numbers shall not be less than three
and one-half (3 1/2) inches in height.
(C) Material Regulation: The address numbers shall be metal, plastic,
or wood.
(D) Color Regulation: The address numbers shall be in a contrasting
color to the color of the building/dwelling.
(E) Enforcement Regulation: The Building Official or zoning
Administrator or their authorized representative shall:
(1) Assign all new building/dwelling address numbers.
(2) Approve type of material and color of all building/dwelling
address numbers.
planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
9. Public Hearing - An amendment to the Monticello Sign Ordinance that a
Minimum of one (1) address sign shall be requlreo On each building in all
zoning districts. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
the intent of the amendment to the zoning ordinance attaching address
numbers to all buildings and/or dwellings in the City of Monticello. The
initial request stemmed from rec_uests from first responders, the
Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District Ambulance Group, and also from the
Wright County Sheriff's Department indicating it would be easier to
identify properties if all properties had address numbers that were
visible from a public street.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that they could add or delete any sections to the proposed sign ordinance
amendment.
With no further input from the public or Commission members, a motion was
made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the amendment
to the Monticello Sign Ordinance that a minimum of one address sign shall
be required on each building in all zoning districts. Motion carried
unanimously.
I
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
8. Consideration of a Sketch Plan Proposal to be Known as Highland Heights
One. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Mr. George Rivera will be present again with a proposal for a sketch plan
review of the planned unit development to be known as Highland Heights
One. Mr. Rivera's plans are consistent with B-3 (highway business) type
zoning of allowable uses in a B-3 (highway business) zone. The only
exception is in Block 2, Lot 1, and Block 3, Lot 1, in which Mr. Rivera
is proposing to build townhouses which are not allowable uses under the
current B-3 (highway business) zoning. Mr. Rivera is proposing some B-2
(limited business) zoning to allow him to build townhouses on Lot 1,
Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 3, of this proposed Highland Heights One
planned unit development. This type of use of this land is good planning
as you down zone out of a commercial district, as is the example here.
The Monticello Planning Commission looked favorably with a unanimous vote
to send on to the City Council their approval of the sketch plan of a
planned unit development to be known as Highland Heights One.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Approve the sketch plan of a planned unit development to be known as
Highland Heights One.
2. Do not approve the sketch plan of a planned unit development to be
known as Highland Heights One.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the sketch plan stage of a planned unit
development to be known as Highland Heights One. The approval of this is
only a verbal commitment at this time to the developer to proceed on with
the next stage of a planned unit development which is the concept stage.
Much more detailed work will be entailed should he meet the City Council
approval to go to the concept stage.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed planned unit development;
Copy of the sketch plan for a planned unit development to be known
as Highland Heights One.
-a-
I
On c "Andy
st " co-
d. R.
coPf nn
a
4
3
S 0 U T H ROA . ....
---------- .. . ..........
.......... AA
...................
Lar 1. BLOCK
MARO
tor
•LOT S. BLOCK
S_ ,Or o, o,,oc,,,.
Lor 0. BLOCKO.
Or
IIX
�Iawm
MUM
I�lm
POND
SOUTH
f
PARTNERS
` �-' - • leo - , i --'. ;� �. �•.
R AD
MARM
,,� ,, ill ,°l ll .0 /, •' •d �''' - PROPOSED OfVCLOPwE1YTli. � ,� .
` , �� �/ ' ••' LOT I. OLDER 7. 10wMNOUSEI f Dt uwtup
Planning Commission Minutas - 9/8/87
Sketch Plan Review of a Planned Unit Development to be known as Highland
Heights One. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation.
Mt. George Rivera was present to propose a sketch plan for a planned unit
development to be known as Highland Heights one.
Mr. Rivera explained the intent of the proposed business uses which he
was intending to put in and the intention of the multiple family housing
to be put in on Blocks 2 and 3.
Mr. Rivera explained the proposed corwercial development going from the
south end along Marvin Road to the north beginning with Block 1, Lot 1,
to have a drive-in fast food business; Block 1, Lot 2, to have a two
story office complex; and Block 1, Lot 3, to have a family type
restaurant; and Block 1, Lot 4, to have a one-story office complex.
Block 2 would have four 4 -unit townhouses built on the entire block.
Block 3 would have 12 4 -unit townhouses built on it. Mr. Rivera
indicated he had a substantial amount of local interest from local
builders and possibly local investors for this proposed type of
commercial/residential development.
Mr. Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from the Planning
Commission members. Mr. Jim Ridgeway questioned where his other
developments were that his firm has been or has worked on in the past.
Mr. Rivera answered that the other developments have taken place in
Brooklyn Park, St. Michael, and Maple Grove areas. Mr. Ridgeway again
questioned as to who the local builders would be. Mr. Rivera answered
that there are local builders, which he would not mention by name, that
were interested in the townhouse part of his project and there was also
interest from local investors on the proposed commercial developments.
Mr. Ridgeway also questioned the proposed project time table. Mr. Rivera
countered that, subject to everything being approved by Planning
Commission members and City Council, he hoped to be underway with some
part of his project on or about Thanksgiving time in November.
Chairperson Richard Carlson questioned as to what area is being set aside
for park dedication. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that the
park dedication part of this proposed planned unit development is being
worked out with the developer in a much larger scope but is in
relationship to this project.
with no further input from Planning Commission members, motion was made
by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the sketch plan
as submitted for a planned unit development to be known as Highland
Heights One. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
9. Consideration of Approval of Liquor Store Sign Design and Landscaping
Design. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Approximately a month ago, the City Council directed the staff to proceed
with the selection of new sign designs for the Liquor Store and to locate
the sign in the southeast corner of the new parking lot. It was by
Council consensus that the staff continue pursuing sign designs that
incorporated the concept of two pylon posts with a rectangular sign on
top versus a single pylon type sign similar to Perkins or Dairy Queen.
Using this information, a 20 -foot space was provided in the southeast
corner of the parking lot for the placement of a new sign; and since that
time, Joe Hartman has been in contact with a number of sign companies to
request ideas and designs for an appropriate sign. The staff instructed
the sign companies to try and incorporate features of the new sign that
would compliment the fascia of the existing building such as using cedar
siding for some portion of the sign, etc.
Previously included with an agenda package were three sign designs from
Cragg Signs of Golden valley, Minnesota. The Council at that time
indicated a preference for two of the designs using cedar siding on the
billboard face or within the structure. Joe contacted Scenic Sign
Company of St. Cloud to request design alternatives from them and the
only design they came up with was a pylon post with an oval type sign
which the staff did not feel was appropriate. I have enclosed a copy of
this design along with a revised design from Cragg Signs modifying one of
their earlier proposals. At this point, the staff would like approval to
proceed with the ordering of a new sign, as it takes approximately 4-8
weeks for construction of the sign and setup. From the designs
submitted, staff members have selected the double posted pylon sign with
the billboard consisting of cedar boards proposed by Cragg Signs. The
options on the lettering available are to rout out the cedar boards for
the letters or attach edge trim letters to the cedar boards after routing
out the letters. In either case, a colored acrylic background is placed
on the interior of the sign. The cost of the double faced, 5'x12'
internally illuminated sign would be $8,983. If the same sign design has
edge trim letters, the cost would be $9,983. Along with the freestanding
sign, new edge trim letters would be added to the fascia of the building
at a cost of $1,020.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the selection of a sign design including type of letters
desired.
2. Request additional alternatives.
3. Use existing sign.
-9-
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
C. STAFF REMMENDATION:
Joe has contacted a number of sign companies, some of which have not
responded or lack imagination in sign designs and want to sell the City
strictly a basic Dairy queen type sign. In the staff's review of the
signs presented, it is the staff's recommendation that the double square
poled rectangular sign proposed by Cragg Signs of Golden Valley appears
to be the most appropriate type of sign in its ability to match the front
of the building. It is recommended that the cedar boards be stained the
same color as the front of the Liquor Store and that possibly the
aluminum shrouding could be grey in color to match the precast concrete
color on the balance of the building. The internal plexiglass can be a
variety of colors, and no specific recommendation is made at this time.
it was the staff's basic opinion that the design submitted by Scenic Sign
lacked imagination and contained too much cedar within the face and
pole. I believe the staff would have no problem with any of the designs
submitted by Cragg Signs.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of proposed designs and cost estimates for each type.
.10.
I
r
, coolce
ry 8 3 ILI
q'if I
r-1
• DOUBLE FACED PYLON
• CEDAR WOOD FACIA W/EDGE TRIMMED,
OR JIGGED OUT LETTERS BACKED
WITH PLEXIGLASS
HI -WAY LIQUOR
OWN
To
CraggSigns
City of Monticello
515 Pine Street
Monticello, MN 55362
P1.ONE paTE
1-295-5222 9/2/87
JOB —E, "X.Tx w
Hi -Way Liquors
Jae Hartman JOB tato" n I.aoe ..,one
vre horeW auoma aoncwcauons ano asumaw tor: Fabricate and Install:
I
(1) double faced 5' X 12' internally illuninated sign
Faces routed out cedar, back up with 3/16" high impact acrylic plex
Aluminum shrouding on poles per our sketch
Colors per customer
Twin pole mounted
Cost installed $8983.00
0FTION:
ii
Same sign with edgetrim letters $9983.00 C
J '
18" edgetrim letters (HI -WAY LIQUORS
2" depth installed cost install $1020.00
• I
I
i
W Propose hereby to fumtan mat—W and a=f — compiets In accordwca ran Ina aw., ao0wicatwn0, for Ino sum at:
aat-44 1 '
.rr^.nr m o. m.w a -.-
1/3 dorm payment
Balance due upon completion and receipt of invoice
.o .u.r� y o..=.m.,. » a . w.rye .0 .at re .....rer.e ...artmawa+e
f•" ..
..a.ra a.rw.m a«.t« ....a..aw s e.esMn .a.r taw m.tst.
beiYYM [�,a�ee
IW Mu ..p. eMe wa M ...c.lta 9.N .ta. wM.n maM.. the �a 6Kaw M
µNdr••
IC?r►are'.�°"'
N/
=
aa. eun e.r.rw m. tw - r. t.r.r fre. m+.e. the mw necanrr aai.erru
' \ ou w...n u. war ee..r.o sr •vtmen f re.m...t.nsr .rr...n
fa.. M s.eva er r
.a.m... w ... r .w.eet.rrtw
asn.�j
(\(
IAcceptance
i
of Proposal _ natter. ax... atteax... Owiftst�r,a
ano conottlona in sattafa0tory ano ora heft" accaptw. you ars aWnortrw
10 do tho cora as 600010CPaymue rrt11 0a MOM as WHA" AM"-
11!!
0.M aacaptantte'
{
Voir *A Otto IftAL
nr,
HIS `'v
AS
0
too
�1 jjfj �' .� r
r 7,..,�� 1 i l
' �J/ � r
.,� yf;� ��T� ''.Tim /: ,.1:'
. '.7i/ ,. ...
•��
7/
DJfrlw ! Air, � Z.
00
�-
19'4
cc of 1 34
SIGN CORP.
- Box 331, Saint Cloud Minnesota 56302 (612) 252-9400
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: DESCRIPTION OF JOB:
iii-Wav Liaucr JOB Same
RJV 25 ADDRESS
tr!"'e l tp . 111 CITY STATE
DATE 9-25-87 PAGE NO.1 OF 1 PAGES
SCENIC SIGN hereinafter referred to as Company, proposes b famish for the above named customer, hereinafter referred b as PURCHA.SER,
the items described below, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein.
Fabricate and install one (1) 7'S" x 18' double face, illuminated sign as per drawings
enclosed. Fabrication to consist of steel f:tLdng, Sta-Tuff faces, fluorescent vibes
Powered by cold weather -rapid start ballasts, tongue and groove cedar siding, stained
a dark color to rmtch trim on building. Sign would be approx. 23' to top of structure.
Agreed Selling Price for drawing fll: S 10,899.00
Agreed Selling Price for drawing r2: S 9,299.00
Phis Proposal Does Not Include:
NOTL THIS PROPOSAL may u rMRAWN N' US
Terns: 1/3 down -net 15 days after install It NOT AC1Si?rD WnTl[N 6�i DAYS.
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Thu proposal is made for sprnany constructed equipment and when accepted is not subject to cancellation. Company shad not be responsible
for mors in plan, designs, specifications or drawings fumuhed by PURCHASER or for defects caused thereby.
2. A. The company agrees to secure all necessary governmental permits. The purchases agrees to secure an necessary permits from the
building owner endlor others whose permission n required lot the mstallation of this display and he assumes all liability with regard to same
and ad Lability, public and otherwise, for damages caused by the display or by reason of it being on or attached to the presses. Purchaser
arrees to secure all necessary permission for use of all registered trademmicb or copyrights used on the display.
2. Q An necessary c!ccvtcal wiring, oudets and connections to the display from the budding meter and.'or fuse panel will be properly
fused and installed, at the expense of the Purchaser.
2. C. INSTAl3 ATION PRICES QUOTED ARE. SURIFCT TO RLVISION WHERE LXC SS ROCK OR OTHER UNFORISELAOIE YOI,INDA•
TION CONDITIONS ARE LNCOUNTfRID.
3. Company warrants the display against defective workmanship in construction and assembly for 1 year from date of shipmeni or instaW
bon, if installation is made by Company. Additionally, Company will replace defective components manufactured by others for 1 year from
date of shipment or installation by Company, lot normal labor and travel chanes only. Any pan found by Company to be defective due
to faulty workmanship or materials, d returned prepaid, within the wasnnty period, will be repaired or replaced I.o.b. point of production.
Company shad not be Gable for any damages or losses other than the replacement of much defective work or material. SYhenever there is
any arcumsuince on which a claim might be based. Company mum be informed immediately or the provisions of this warranty are voided.
4. Any items not shipped or installed on or before 60 days from contract date win be invoiced in full at the designated unit pinta and
PURCHASER hereby agrees to pay amid invoice within thirty (30) days from invoice date. It is agreed that morrge chat" than accrue at
the rate of one percent (1 %) pat month of the price of the display commencing at the end of said 60 day period. Company, m its option,
-ray invoice tach item caned for in the proposal separately upon completion, m, it for reasons beyond its control completion is delayed,
nay invoice for that portion of the work completed during any teen month. Under no condition, wig any dein be held beyond 60 days
after completion. In the event that aim and umighl of any item prohibits srenge by Company on its own property, Purchaser mum matte
arrangements for shipments immediately upon completion.
5. Payment for items purchased under the team of this contract vin be made an receipt of urvmcea submntad. In the event payment is
not made at agreed. PURCHASER ogre" to pay a service charge an par duo amounts from the limes they am dub thirty (30) days_ Ino,,_ `
invoice data, at the rate of one and one,hall percent (I %%) par month. In the avert this contract la placed for collection a if cnAoct� J
by suit or through any Court, reasonable attorneys' few shall be added. ��-,,.//
n
W,4�JMWA"1 AFA
SIGN C01 7P V,
Box 881, Saint Cloud Minnesota 56302 (612) 252-9400
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: DESCRIPTION OF JOB:
Hi—WaV LicuorS JOB Same
Hwv 25 ADDRESS
Monticello, M CITY STATE
DATE 8_25-87 PAGE NOn OF s PAGES
SCLNIC SIGN hereinafter referred to as Company, proposes to furnish for the above named customer. hereinafter referred to u PURCHASER,
the items described below• subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein.
Fabricate and install one (1) set of 24" nen—Lll=inated letters. Letters to be
fabricated of plexiglas faces, 5/8" plywood, 2" trim cap. Color of plexiglas by
aam
cusrter. Letters centered on front of liquor store as per drawing.
Agreed Selling Price: 5 1,335.00
This Proposal Does Not Includes
NAIL THIS PROPOSAL MAY BE WITHDRAWN BY IS
Tanis: 113 down -net 15 days after install u NOT ACCEPTED WITHIN 60 DAYS.
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. This proposal is nude for specially constructed egwpment and when accepted is not subject to cancellation. Company shelf not be responsible
for errors in plans, designs, specifications or drawings furnished by PURCHASER or for defects caused thereby.
2. A. The company agrees to secure all necessary ywernmenW permits. The purchaser agree to secure all necessary permau from the
br:ildmS owner and.or others whose permission is required for the installation of this display and he assumes all liability with regard to same
and ail liability, public and otherwise, for damages caused by the display or by reason of it being on or attached to the premises. Purr.has"
aSrrn to secure all necessary permission for use of all reguered trademarks or copyrights used on the display.
2. G. All necessary, electrical wiring, outlets and connections to the display from the building metet and,ot fuse panel will be properly
F.ssed and installed, at the expense of the Purchaser.
2, C. INSTALLATION PRICM QCOTED ARE SU3jrCT M REVLSION WHERE MESS ROCK OR OTHER R LRfiORESE ABL.L FOU DA -
TION CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED.
3. Company warrants the display, against defective workmanship in construction and assembly for I year from date of shipment or instaW-
uon, if installation is made by Company. Additionally, Company wt0 replace defective components manufactured by others for 1 year front
date of slupment or installation by Company, for normal labor and travel charges only. Any part found by Company to be defective due
to faulty workmanship or mateuid6. if returned prepaid, within the warranty pend, will be repaired or replaced f.o.b. point of production.
Company shall not be Liable to any damages or Huss other than the replacement of such defective work or materul. Whenever there is
any urcumatanre on which a clsisrn might be based. Company must be informed immediately of the provisions of thus warranty are voided.
4. Any items not shipped or insWed on or before 60 days from contract dais will be invoiced in hull at the designated unit price. and
PURCHASER hereby agree to pelf said invoice within thirty (30) days from invoice data It a wood that storage cherso shall accrue at
the rate of one percent (1%) tree month of the price of the display txmmencin' al the and of acrd 60 day psm d. Company. at its option,
MAY invoice each item all" lee in the pmpvad separately upon completion, or, d kir reasons beyond its control completion at delayed.
it may invoice fur that portion d the work completed during any given month. Under no condition. will any item be held beyond 60 days
aft" completion. In the ward am use and weight of airy item prohubita storage by Company an its own property. Purthaasr ensue marks
arrangements for shipments arteedutely upon completion.
5. Payment for items purclsasd under the karma of ft conin ! will be made an receipt of invoices submitted. In the event paymaster r
not made as sped. PURCHA.SiR asrso to pay a service charge an past due amounts from the time they am dire. WAY (30) drys from
invoice date, at the rate of one and acne -hag percem 0 %%) per month. In the event this contract rejoiced for collection or it eadedw
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
Consideration of Approval of Liquor Store Sign Design and Landscaping
Design. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the Council's direction, the City of Monticello solicited three
"design bid" proposals from three different landscaping firms for the
Monticello Hi -way Liquors. We gave each landscaper a map of the area,
indicated to them that the City was installing a sprinkler system, and
requested that they give us a proposal in the range of $10,000 to
$15,000, which would include some flowers near the Highway 25 area.
We received three different proposals. The first proposal came from
Steve's Elk River Nursery, which was in the past DuChene's. The second
proposal came from Ak-Sar-Ben Landscape Designers and Contractors in Elk
River. The third proposal came from Fair's Garden Center of Monticello.
A meeting was held at Monticello City Hall to review the landscaping
plans. In attendance was myself, the Public Works Director; Roger Mack,
Park Superintendent; Joe Hartman, Liquor Store Manager; and Rick
Wolfsteller, City Administrator.
Roger withheld the actual cost of each proposal until we were able to
review each proposal on its own merits and not consider dollars. Each of
the plans provided something unique, which is often the case with a
design bid type of situation. The group unanimously selected the
proposal from Steve's Nursery. It was decided that two minor
modifications should be made to his plan, however: 1) That one tree be
omitted from the area of the air compressors to allow for more
ventilation, and 2) That the rock garden areas be slightly elevated and
have a wider border of flowers.
After our group reached a decision, Roger Mack informed us of the cost of
each one of the proposals. The cost for Steve's Elk River Nursery, which
we selected, was $10,060.35. The cost for the Ak-Sar-Ben Landscape
Designers and Contractors' design was $13,904.42. The last proposal was
from Fair's Garden Center for $14,440. It was decided at the meeting
that Roger Mack would poll the Council for their review of the
committee's recommendation. we felt that in order to get started this
fall on the landscaping, it would be necessary to get a head start on the
approval rather than wait for the Council meeting on the 14th.
During the polling process, after approval by some members, it became
apparent that there was concern by at least one member and Roger Mack
that the proposal from Steve's Nursery may not be acceptable in that it
used a large number of Canadian Red Cherry's and some Techney Arboruitae
in the area of the compressors. There was also a suggestion that the
design bid type of proposal may not be the best way to go and that the
City should possibly look at drafting their own landscaping plans and
specifications and actually go through a bidding process. We, therefore,
felt it best to bring this item up before the entire Council at the
September 14 meeting for their review and direction. If the Council
chooses to design its own landscape plan and rebid, we may wish to wait
until spring, as this is a very busy time for staff with budget
preparation and getting ready for winter.
min
1..�I Block Eatt of Stoplights
201 East Broadway adway — Monticello. Minnesota 55362
Phone: (612) 295.2244
QUOTATION
CUSTOM LANDSCAPING 6 DESIGN
COMMERCIAL — RESIDENTIAL TO - WAY
Li QLIv
RA/N:*B/RD M0 N -T I c r=1 --v , AA Al
Underground Irrigation Systems
QUANTITY S12E VARIETY PRICE " AMOUNT
5 zyz'I?OIz As 14. All AM -NAIL �S1>5cc
PIVEI?/vo.vo 0C
r] z ZRer L/NOEnI CA15pII?6-
�'iS.00 i 22S.oC
_ z z�iirlzt &AA?LE 4/f)R'WAy 175.00 3svcz
Z Z RdLf, AA147PL,5 ..4 (. .I FA 2 I '7S. 00 4(2!!5,- Cc
2"GOR, 04L> I.4 r.17 ROLU F,21 0C, C 2A K LZo, ckj %Z czpp
6 6 a,� s�P,it-r , „Lc�2ANn RUJC ic)O.vo /,-n,-,7, az,
?, 5/+AL. 1f IllIntr,i �4A1Do21?A 70c)166
S-,-4 4 G. L f L I AI I PF /Z t--2,A2l-/,4 Tz R,,n r? 20, 480•
/S '-::� K, At Il/tiirA�n Nr.iG�IEC 30-00 4SD.CG
�G>Ic ,auNlp1fIZ FA C- r? co
klIAEp INELC)L4 mac%•C)0-ro•c.7C
C) :20c;,C ,
A-, Z kbo-f C LFCC- AI L &A F R,� 1zRErz2 � ZS' vU /s -J• Z�c
6 �v�" All N CI?v4Tt rf
e,,-),( Il Al ZS.Lx1 �S J . Cc
Zzt�3'��Te,v-rrL_�.4 Duch �ra�A �U.vc) 68v.oc
s Zya/C),oU (7Sc!�cx
LI / 5�fEr !�-r7L_4- PI?INr---S IZ'
9au'
I Block East of Stoplights
201 East Broadway — Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Phone: (612) 295.2244
QUOTATION
CUSTOM LANDSCAPING & DESIGN
COMMERCIAL — RESIDENTIAL TO H' — W'AY L1Qvo z
RA/N�kB/RD 11i(�)N-TI C cLL-C), n,4n/
Underground Irrigation Systems
IUANTITY SIZE VARIETY PRICE AMOUNT
Reh Rock 1' 4W. G1A1,.zrr 3675.CO
L/SU/ �'�FT, L/Sv. aL
ALANTf=K, zv' /SCO•CrD
AIVAIL/AL F012 PLANTER 30-D oc�
7o- bWAtF 7Pe1, ':�.ALv(A
"7r•) - 7*�)US71/ M I LLp1z
ifs - ZeD 6E:PAKI IUTA4
'SLUE! —,Az -VIA
-tnP- Cl10 <R 7 rO �e ,
//�IFcI � J�744- / 1 1yJ,zlgo.cc
yhP 41/JY,/ L/*'��lZ oi,i lil1T/v//f '7G Tl (lh.,)L/4—, ,r,i,71 I
Til •gNTI AIG NMATr-0)4 L /NCLLI6/ Ni
AX(N Sfa2uKS 6L'Arz.47%gin
ye-Ar2 4vly/il1G 446-
'L -Am -T I
4L-AmTI NICD
I -)r- 4./ EklSTlnlr�
CAN R,� Ih onl r-
9
�II •
rgw� �fi S's�t. ...i•. ♦Yi 4A' i MAM.P — I
a c'- :I.awt ....... `a\ ' �,,/:r��mste, •.,� _ y,� �s.n:•.0 ._ .�
. � :.. �.� � ':iup A�, =e'�� •Y.i+"Nail �T' ' } ` � l _
• ti tri r.'�C mss' ■ Ww• ' ., Q�?!D � � r'.i „ .o� -
Mn M1-itl/•1 +,a' r f1..I cif ii,�•.�..1. 1• Z
' T bap MI�`� t.; a' wig 'd�' b.•S�r„ 'iii *J 1 \ � � . ,•
ja
rRJJ^A4.,V 'l., _ JE• �,•a✓- �1Y "'��SS+■M.I�"/■ - I I' M _ a 4"' • � :�,'t--i.i
n•F •r,mdluustt
r � v�j� ,I.+t �,�y'�r�'a .�i�o sc'�. -��• .�- moi•".- .
�• '� .rG f{+w�"iieawnRj C�.E�•t� vD" - ." _
■ Ali .� .t�p+/ror�,�� �h• � �.%1.'
,.w►�...'':ii ti t•is•j+. tutu ti', .� h ^nrv�
:/• 'L IY■tl '�r■ IFS• A.4I
XAI
e+cr rN■� 1!' .l, r_f tj •.�Y•NNt /i ti ■
TjI,E_r �l�1�bb..�/�.�� •
i • �• a p.J IL .P W aMgC . � %y ��y,��.1 S�LyfIL+� y
•W ic..s.. •Y'•^�'1'■ Y•t►} M M-♦ I . I:,.. •L�
rw•� nu a•, sY _ r,:• tr►. tW uw,■ rr d-.•..
14
C" TC4
Lk�A CL4 Clk
vo,4k c�
=AK• SAR • BEN �, �►-�-
[ -..
lANDTORFE ORIGATI NCONYR RACTDRB / / NO
TOAOrIRA1OAT10N CCNTRACTOA3
09989
0640 HIGHWAY 10. ELK RIVE
A, MN UlOO-(01214"i13O
ISOLO TO: 'MIN TO:
-'HONE:
'
ADDwiit 4-G.L'1=b- J�.l�! ADw+(u:
p GNt11
,� IUL•5
CITr*(1^14.111 CaD4 CIIf,i+Alr, Ft. tats
nce r nrrL v
iuR Hae n+IN w,r
Z4 x'X." 8-ellE
8-Z"i-8-1 IaF
ON. siiS rLANT MAT( AiA,
M•T4AIA1
i ACN
MAIL 4K Ipr•iLLO
rDTA tKN
ipTAaltD
TOTAL
22�tm31.�p
z-A
1 4c51.-K> :� 14 rf:5
19F51,-X�
A`r) -n—t:5
7t'
6M,-70 ler'5
W)--Xi
"-X'? -V-1uG7H`-=,
2Z
ZC7Z4Ft�
—)-I-5
41-1 f115
?•'o5•
11) c145
41'!5
Z-1-7 v
Y rrt 12' t0t"
q5r-)
11915
1-n.ho
5-1 ?/ri.ccr7l=wwu 11^� uI`ALC.1
-Mrl.`'1'5
1249.1Fj
`3'J
IC�1 1�
G 95
�9 • hCG
f 1 X1.9
Wei ."7G
fi,; ?
{=1-n•..�rj'�/..�o.e. �,l�ra1F?1=
22GoS
ZGYa!`f�
'}'7.9�
�K11�
tZl+'7".i1`t�.hJ�L.''`F t'-i°^ft'�f'fY
6`c1�C1,
'af'r.f'd
(Co�15
La'i.fi:
�N
-O r5•Cr_ Anil F- ?�y'4,�—
� • r J
"'�a1 Clt�
� .i�J
� [�I ,`7��
of £f�I
til i*✓
1
1-II-=
Z4'9 `�j
-V-9 �'�
IZIT: t
z �I-�9- _5
loq�
! eo
clz.-y-,
�'7- C[�..a4S'C•ti- w +
-----
�.la/zR.
AA '�
' iinL'�.�:
��i"1ti_T:
I,A'i'� 7TL 1� �- 1.+-fr4-:-,r:11S-.
.'�e5
.42D.Gb •;�rj
loC�.4"
i4tT, pit rA•0 DOOW (
rMATf In11AMT
rU M�T�I �LOAL �V +1• ^'^
LAwDKA/S FILM .t
1, 5 ( ML, P.rG.i� ta:1Y
1
G fsa+wa
:/
4+>�
Iii�.{r'-/ (A([,L-I-ti
ra{lL1:N
IT,
ZIsCoLo.Ct
'a"T i1�7�clEl�i}-•xY.U. V'L�3ATtcr.cx
,G :Mrs Ni,Ylfrith'/r' ��
�r /lJ 1.CT. a'i`(f xi'��� 1I^1�L•I�."9TM'A i^
+•i
tP./.l�V !,� /�p4'
IG�7�
011. {lit WK. LAMOA
aw•tNNa
IOL A, NAAD
CD004
wDODOW
INS
,^3�1 �Y'1 �(.
'
• � a�w
{f}•1• s ^,I- rF?C,Vat
11t1� w1,Y71r A4
_
y,�.�
l,]
rt•L14 Ar,o Lbl{pt1tMNL rON Tr4tW
or N 1
TMAWAN
TOTL•4D11W'
•LNl YIOLLPb'
ro u♦ "
I itOOd
To1A{rC•yn
IMtt``AitiO
•FirANCS C-1 Or I4%Nw MIst. I IN. •YUAL..Co.T•04
LI.141 -110 Cw•04200 Ow aWAID ACCOur/t Or4A b LMr4,
TAN
OOOp41M i•„fO
L,awA.a..
i es::°
C T•4
4
lu
rt eorr wp Lqr pir MlwTio Aro o iu►acT to ewpenar
� piab(
�.�,,/�
�7'T, A;
.�46Tii TWiiK01i0EALWLfq MITMOrALW WLt Ir 4qT •CCOL'TtOtllrWr��OAr{.
_
S.Ta
. — 14.INrOIt4 r CAN•wr •D4NON4• • hw •OMTQY•
�� �„f,I
^+r:M-;1'w?.•uwawc•r.. .`� .. ,.-•d ny'�-i_: �1*Ran-.,s•v;c•.Rt,•.•.�^Ks.+�•���..._.....r.�8..._ ._ .,.h. .}dna as
a maw � �-
i. �y:•..t.^^� ,a' �' e+u+.:f ,: ^_ H.'� �i:''1�� 'J.:J`e' :y'.t :i•'�:--�
1i•1 1••.:` '���• •.' y'•: .'C�. •iVrt�� .�n i. �'i�l.��ltt� •t 4 � •.��y •� .>,'. ;� ::•,
t•l L_ 'a- YL�...-1yy ,a .:{•� _ . • �• �a'..L ,` r _ .. ��
' •�`�`t�l.+ ~ j i.--�r-•rwgl a�•i{r '„ `�• s7: '��•r ., _ - Jr', ,. .
oi.
(ADA JM
I 1, •.��• .` r �- `,YL� • �y/ �yJ ` ; . }, - •.,. , ; ,
At
1' •x ill• " 5 - t y 4�.
•�• �_ ��` •.r ,tea' � `��' �.�•
mrd Elk River Nursery
Landscape Designers - Contractors
Rt. 3. Hwy. 10, Elk River, MN 55330
Phone (612) do11-3090
Specializing in landscape r
concepts
res:dentlai 8 commercial
QUOTATION & ORDER FORM
Date9'Yj� �7+ Job Address —�•4 �yQf S G
Name ;'C', (' n. + :iLs + * "� C;tyrStateiZi^ !`
Address Pilo
,,t n
CitylState/Zio 1 ` tn*11e'_e r i. -U t' ". Representative RC4
Plant Material Landscape Construction
Ory SIZE DESCRIPTION UNIT TOTAL Ory DESCRIPTION UNIT
C /.. _...w .� 11 _ p� I EOUIPMENT
.ZYl��„Vvu +tyiT �y�-MMFF._A
(ly6i U;=- L4 , _-zr-
t Y r �e I
!fir•
TOTAL
II
TeZ el►tt yHo2L):�rl+= t i 3z "EarJ
9f /C'7 'X�N,L �•
t\G ar 'S T ,7
JA. Ial
I —ti is" ,k1ka5 I.eArr 31ke&k-� � I/�� �/ TOTAL CONST. C01. jI
= TOTAL CONST. MAT. I I
/ 1 _7W' 14 1Jglrt:, h �t I MAT. & CONST. LABOR
h
I " t P TAX '
1 I tt� 3 I-r`A I /Y " iy `/L� TOTAL 1 3 979
i I I tb' /y SUBTOTAL PL. MATERIAL I /�,
TOTAL JOB I ipo6 o
t -a PAY Vow Reauasl
o.
TOTAL PLANT MATERIAL y Dn Pr~t s
INSTALLATION Manmly P•vorents a
im mmtns
TAX TERMS: t.g4 per month finance charge
TOTAL ' 6 0�+1 ��, j on accounts past 30 days,
tpw'p w aslpr trwrry w r Mpwar a +wtcr err . pw .. w : ars.0 w tope tA�p•p. r +Mp tw •ptrr w a..wwr+ aMr•r ttr p.rwpl � tr ++.
4cv.p •rnM ? wr A iM smcY prs AM Mpry • ArrY sw tM•r, b a'd ••+IP M srrprMl rrr t•a+ltn lu tr mr r i p•r• w w w sl+
.our Ns psM. [ISP 0 w Mpm4cs sps Y •Ilsl.•prr 101 nIP ..IMI sr r�Mp .� w ssrsr pMIY �, p� pp s/Pwlp r ty.t! tM •Fo}4 M [Oris R
• wr plsatw N tM Olrrs • (r tir nMry pi•r
ft pA fpr er A. M rl•4I• rw Y M s1poM Ar tY wrrr /Iro pr r uprr I i f! .ser w
• rlVld rn0 � tlrt. 4 prw.ArM •Ipr taa,l ,e 1 ro Ari q1It M.1 (A w w�v r 1 rr MW. r sarrlpa .rppr •Mr trl` errr.w
iM i I id vpp s ••Isp Pppwp tM. 4p eMlr! r Lts pro sW W� a.srss•papr•, PW Air• F ats.• U rwr
� aOpa� r(rt Maty s•r.Ms �
M f.s 4 � s Wr s. M rUr rp.Mr Y pu•r. Mrs rr polar
I iceapt this ardor wbiset to Talent rrW warranty Oareribee terrain.
+irr tAppar
PURCHASER
By
"T
n -n -
ED
1�7
orc
44;
46
. wo'..
Council Agenda - 4/14/87
10. Consideration of Setting a Public Bearing Date to Modify the Finance Pian
for Tax Increment Redevelopment District 06. (O.K .)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority, having approved Modification /1
of the finance plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District i6, hereby
requests the City Council to set a public hearing date for the purpose of
said modification. This in pursuant of the Minnesota Statute,
Section 273.74, Subdivision 4, the tax increment finance plan must be
modified by the Authority if 1) increase in total estimated tax increment
expenditures by the Authority shall be approved upon the notice and after
the discussion, public hearing, and findings required by for approval of
the original plan.
Tax Increment Redevelopment District $6 is the property described as
Lots 1-10, Block 15, Original Plat within the City of Monticello,
including 20 feet of highway right-of-way easement. The developer was
Raindance Properties. Upon completion of the 40 -foot urban designed
street (Sixth Street) by the City, the project budget cost was
underestimated by approximately $25,000 because of the needed soil
correction in this area and no monies were budgeted for the interceptor
sewer soil corrections surrounding the City easement. This completed
cost was $28,000. These two figures increased the budget cost by
$53,000. The soil correction payment amount was a misunderstanding
between the developer and the City. In a conversation with Mr. Bob
Deike, Holmes 6 Graven, the HRA or City can recapture the additional
expenditures because of the difference between the estimated retirement
date of the original bond indebtedness (Year 2006) and the duration of
this redevelopment district (Year 2013). This allows for an additional
seven years if necessary to collect tax increment. Based on the original
estimated annual tax increment of $41,000 times seven years, a total of
$287,000 will be generated, which is more than sufficient to cover the
additional $53,000.
To conform with the Minnesota Statute, the HRA requests the City Council
to set September 28, 1487, as the public hearing date and thereafter to
consider adopting Modification 11 of the Finance Plan for Tax Increment
District 66.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Set September 28, 1487, as the public hearing date for the purpose of
Modification I1 of the finance plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment
District 36.
2. Deny the setting of a public hearing for the purpose of
Modification #1 for the Tax Increment Redevelopment District f6.
.12-
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends the City Council set September 28, 1987, as the
public hearing date, thereby carrying out the Statutory process to modify
a finance plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of the resolution setting a public hearing date.
-13-
RESOLUTION 87-26
RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HARING FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING
TAX INCREMEDU FINANCE PLAN FOR
REDEYELOPMFNT DISTRICT 16 PURSUANT TO
MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 273.71 TO
273.78 INCLUSIVE, THE TAX INCREMLV. FINANCING ACT
WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority has adopted a
Resolution modifying the finance plan for the established Tax Increment
Redevelopment District 16 dated September 3, 1987, pursuant to the provisions
of MS Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive, and
WHEREAS, said resolution requests the City Council to set a public hearing on
said Tax Increment Financing Plan 16.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA THAT:
1. A public hearing shall be held at 7:30 p.m., on Monday, September 28,
1987, in the City Council Chambers.
The City Administrator shall cause proper notice to be given in the
official newspaper.
_ Adopted this 14th day of September, 1987.
Arve A. Grunsmo, Mayor
Rick Wolfateller
City Administrator
0
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
tt. Consideration of City Attorney Appointment. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello has had the services of Gary Pringle as City
Attorney since 1969, and the entire City staff was shocked to hear of the
tragic death of Gary. The City currently has a number of issues that
were being handled by Gary ranging from annexation to pending lawsuits.
In order for the City to continue on with its day to day business, legal
advice will be necessary on a number of issues, and a new official city
attorney should be appointed by the City Council.
Over the years, both Tom Hayes and Greg Smith, partners of Gary Pringle,
have been involved somewhat with the City's legal affairs. We have used
services of both Tom and Greg when Gary was not available; and I recently
discussed with Mr. Hayes whether the law firm of Smith, Pringle, and
Hayes wanted to continue acting as city attorney. Tom Hayes indicated
they were certainly still interested and willing to provide this service
to the City; and due to the number of issues that Gary had been working
on and the partnership may be familiar with, at least at this point, the
law firm of Smith, Pringle, and Hayes, along with one of the attorneys,
should be appointed at least in the interim. If the City Council is
agreeable, the Council may wish to schedule an interview with one or both
of the partners of the law firm to review the expectations of the City
with the individuals. I, myself, have not had a great deal of
involvement with either Greg Smith or Tom Hayes and am not advocating
either party as the permanent city attorney; but continuation with the
same law firm may be in our best interest for now.
It is the opinion of staff members that a local city attorney would be
beneficial for staff members on a day to day basis, and I did also
discuss with Jim Metcalf and Brad Larson whether they had any interest at
all in the position of city attorney. I inquired of their law firm only
for the purpose of letting the Council members know whether other
attorneys were interested in the position; and Mr. Metcalf indicated that
at the present time, their law firm would not be interested in the city
attorney position due to conflicts with present clients. Mr. Metcalf
did, as a personal note, recommend that the City continue its
relationship with Greg Smith and Tom Hayes, as he felt both individuals
would be able to serve the City in its legal matters. Naturally, there
may be many city attorneys who specialize in municipal law outside of the
City of Monticello, but at the present time I do not feel this is the
best alternative for the City due to distance factors, etc.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Reaffirm the appointment of Smith, Pringle, and Hayes as the City's
law firm and designate either Tom Hayes or Greg Smith as the official
city attorney for that firm. If the Council desires, both
individuals could be requested to attend an interview session.
-14-
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
2. Request Administrator to pursue other attorneys for the position.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As I indicated previously, at this time the City staff is not in favor of
seeking a city attorney from outside of the community and recommend, at
least on an interim basis, the appointment of Smith, Pringle, and Hayes
law firm as the official city attorney representative. Mr. Tom Hayes is
currently working on some of the City's legal matters since Gary's death,
and the City staff does not have a formal recommendation as to which
partner should be designated the city attorney.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-Is-
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
12. Discussion on Senior Citizen Center Position. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On August 28, I sent each Council member a copy of the Commissioner of
Minnesota Department of Human Rights' decision that reaffirmed their
department's findings that a possible cause existed for the sex
discrimination charge filed by Karen Hanson. After receiving this
response from Mr. Stephen W. Cooper, the Commissioner, I contacted Mr.
Frank Madden, an attorney who specialized in labor situations similar to
this, for his opinion on what course of action the City should pursue in
the future. The City of Monticello has used Mr. Madden's services in the
past on other personnel matters related to the City, and I felt it may be
to the City's advantage to receive some legal advice on the options
available.
From the correspondence received from the Human Rights Department, at this
point I believe the City still has the option available of conciliation,
which is primarily hearing the offer the Human Rights Department feels
would be an appropriate settlement in this matter. As you will note from
Mr. Cooper's letter, he did indicate a willingness to come to a Council
meeting to explain the department's position in this matter if the Council
desired. At this point, I'm not sure that it would do any good to have
Mr. Cooper appear before the Council, as I assume he will just reaffirm
his points made in his letter.
Mr. Frank Madden and his associate, Pam Galanter, have been reviewing the
information I supplied them on September 3, 1987. They have only had a
few days to review the information, but I received a call Friday morning
from Pam indicating that they had serious concerns over the Commissioner's
decision that sex discrimination had been committed by the City based on
the comparable worth study recently completed. Their main concerns were
that the State Statutes governing comparable worth plans clearly state
that no claim can be brought in regards to comparable worth before
August 1, 1987, and this is the reason they felt the Commissioner was
wrong in determining probable cause existed since a claim was not supposed
to even have been filed before August 1. The attorneys did indicate that
it may be hard for the City to deny that an employer/employee relationship
did not exist since the City has had Karen on its payroll for a number of
years and submitted W -2's and other records which indicate she was a City
employee. The attorneys also indicated they will be researching over the
next few days what options the City has available in defending its
position on this matter, including the possibility of elimination of the
position totally. one recommendation made by Pam was that the City might
want to consider bringing in an outside evaluator to totally review the
Senior ritizen Center position to determine the task and value that should
be assigned to such a position. I am totally in agreement with her
recommendation that Karen's position has to be re-evaluated and a new
ranking established according to the actual duties and expectations of the
job. An outside consultant used for the preparation of a time spent
profile would be better than City staff members again reviewing with Karen
her job duties and tasks.
-16-
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
At this time, Pam indicated she would try to get back to me on Monday
afternoon with any additional information and recommendations that I can
pass on to the Council concerning this issue. She indicated their firm
will be reviewing the State Statutes cited by the Human Rights
Commissioner as being violated by the City and maybe be able to provide
some possible courses of action that the City may wish to take.
Naturally, the option is always available even after I receive additional
legal opinions on reaching some sort of compromise with Karen, but I
believe the intportant factor at this time to consider is whether the job
should be re-evaluated correctly or whether the Council wishes to leave
her evaluation in its present form. If it's the Council's desire to try
and reach a compromise with Karen on this issue, a decision will also have
to be made on whether the City wishes to create another department or arm
of the City and thus establish much more control and direction on the
Senior Citizen Center activities. At this time, I don't feel there is an
immediate decision that has to be made and would recormwnd that the
opinions of the legal counsel be available so that the Oouncil is aware of
its options and potential liabilities.
It is also recommended by legal counsel that a survey be instituted of
surrounding communities and counties in regards to a senior citizen center
director or coordinator in regards to salaries being paid. The City may
be able to take job descriptions and duties of similar type positions
along with salaries from other communities to demonstrate that our time
spent profile for her position was in error. I will be attempting to
review the files and obtain this information from communities that have
such positions, which are very few other than counties which may operate
under the Human Services Departments.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-17-