Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 10-13-1987AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 13, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Meabers: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Special Meeting Held September 28, 1987, and the Regular Meeting Held September 28, 1987. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Ccuplaints. 4. Annexation Update with City Attorney. 5. Consideration of Adopting Assessment Roll for 86-1 Project - Sohn Meier Property. 6. Consideration of Authorizing Preparation of Specifications for New Fire Truck. 7. Consideration of Establishing Minimum Requirements on Food Service for Sunday Liquor Licenses. 8. Consideration of Executing the 1988 Law Enforcement Contract with Wright County Sheriff's Department. 9. Ad jour went. C MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 28, 1987 - 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None Staff Present: Rick Wolfsteller, .john Simola The purpose of the special meeting was to review the preliminary 1988 budget prior to the public hearing scheduled for the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. An opening statement by Mayor ,rimsmo noted that the proposed levy increase of $144,470 would amount to approximately an 8.6 percent increase over 1987 with a total tax levy proposed of $1,821,370. Based on the 1986 assessed valuation, this would result in a mill rate of approximately 17 mills; but it was noted that in reality, the City's assessed valuation is expected to rise once the County determines final valuation figures for the City and the resulting mill rate should be in the 16+ range. The Council reviewed the proposed capital outlay revolving fund expenditures proposed of $238,000, Which consisted of allocations for improvement of East County Road 39, including frontage road and intersection cost totaling $113,000, and noted that $125,000 had been allocated for cost of renovating and upgrading the existing Mississippi River bridge if the City is allowed to obtain ownership of the bridge for park purposes. In discussions regarding the shade tree disease control program, it was noted that the City, for the past eight or nine years, has charged $120 to each home owner who has had the City remove its diseased Elm tree; and it was recommended by the Administrator that the Council consider increasing this fee to $175, which is still estimated to be only one-third of the actual cost. It was the consensus of the council that for 1988, the new $175 fee be instituted. After further review of the proposed budget, it was the consensus that the proposed budget and tax levy be recommended for approval at the public hearing. The meeting was adjourned to the Council Chambers for the regularly scheduled meeting. C 1.�/ &C2, ek R Wlfate e[ City Administrator MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL y Monday, September 28, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 14, 1987. 4. Public Hearing on the 1988 Annual Budget AND 8. Consideration of Adopting the 1988 Budget and Certifying the Tax Levy. Mayor Grimsmo noted that the 1988 Budget had been prepared resulting in a tax levy of $1,821,370, which is an increase of $144,470 over 1987. The tax levy as proposed is the maximum allowable under guidelines set by the State Revenue Department. ThP public hearing was opened to comments from the public regarding the budget, and Mr. Robert Wortmann inquired as to how the State Revenue Department imposes the tax levy and what the dollar amount was. Administrator Wolfsteller explained how the Revenue Department determined the levy limit for each community which basically sets the levy limit at 3 percent increase over the previous year with additional increases allowed for population and household growths within each community. Hearing no other comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution approving the 1988 Budget and setting the tax levy. See Resolution 87-27. Public Hearing on the Proposed Assessment Roll for the 1986-1 Improvement Project and Che Highway 25 Improvement AND Consideration of Adopting an Assessment Roll for Certification with the County Auditor Covering the 1986-1 Improvement and the Highway 25 Improvement . As part of the 86-1 Interceptor Sewer Project, approximately one-half dozen areas were improved with sanitary sewer, watermain, curb and gutter, along with street improvements. Chestnut Street between west Broadway and west River Street received curb, gutter, and street improvements; along with watermain and storm sewer improvements. 5 1/2 Street between Highway 25 and Maple also received curb and 9 Council Minutes - 9/28/87 gutter, storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewer services to property that did not previously have services available; and Locust Street between 5 1/2 and Sixth Street was also improved with curb and gutter and street improvements. Additionally, watermain extensions were provided south of Sixth Street on Linn and sanitary sewer and water was also extended along Minnesota Street south of Seventh Street. As part of the MN/DOT improvement to Highway 25 from I-94 to River Street, curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements were constructed. An assessment roll was prepared for all benefiting property owners using the final cost tabulations available. The assessment roll prepared varied for each type of improvement from a low of 20 percent for most street curb and gutter improvements up to 100 percent for some parcels that received sewer and/or water benefits. The assessment hearing was opened to the public, and Mayor Grimsmo acknowledged receiving letters contesting their proposed assessments from Jim and Carol Oveson and Ruth Murnane and Robert Wortmann, property owners along Chestnut Street, and a letter from John Meier, property owner along 5 1/2 Street. The Chestnut Street property owners objected to the amount of the assessment primarily because of the proposed watermain portion of the assessment. The property owners questioned the need for the new watermain installed and felt that a 100 percent assessment for this improvement was not appropriate in that all of the parcels were served prior to the improvement by individual service sines connecting to either River Street or West Broadway. Public Works Director, John Simola, noted that the watermain construction on Chestnut was necessary prior to the street improvement to eliminate potential problems with individual service lines connecting to aide streets. The Council further discussed the merits of a possible reduction in the assessment amoLmt in this case because of most of the properties having had water service available from other methods prior to the improvement; and as a result, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by warren Smith, to reduce the proposed special assessment for four property owners along Chestnut Street on the watermain improvement from the initial $2,808 per parcel to $1,404. voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith. voting in opposition: Dan Blonigen, as he felt it was too much of a reduction. Mr. John Meier spoke in opposition to the proposed assessment for his parcel consisting of the north 1/2 of Lot 1, Block 12, along 5 1/2 Street. Mr. Meier felt the $5,559 assessment exceeded the market value increase of his property. Mr. Meier noted that previously he had been given an estimated assessment cost in the range of 63,600 and felt the 65,559 cost was excessive. It was noted by the public works Director that information regarding the proposed assessment was given to the rww owner of the property, Jim Eisele, on June 2, 1987, which estimated the assessment could be $5,900. After further discussion on the proposed assessment, it was the Oouncil consensus to delete this assessment from the assessment roll at this time and allow Mr. Meier to present to City staff a certified reel estate appraisal of the property ca Council Minutes - 9/28/87 prior to and after the improvements were installed. The staff was instructed to review the certified appraisals and submit a recotmnendation to the Council at the next Council meeting, at which time the assessment would be adopted and certified for collection in 1988. Hearing no other comments in regards to the proposed assessments, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Sill Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution adopting the assessment roll as proposed and modified with the exception of the John Meier property, which will be considered at the next scheduled Council meeting. See Resolution 87-28. 6. Public Hearing on the Proposed Assessment Roll for Delinquent Charges AND 10. Consideration of Adopting an Assessment Roll for the Certification with County Auditor Covering Delinquent Charges. A public hearing was held regarding the proposed assessment roll for delinquent sewer and water charges and other miscellaneous service charges for properties within the city over 60 days past due. Hearing no comments, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution adopting the assessment roll for certification to the County Auditor. See Resolution 87-29. Public Hearing to Consider Modification of the Finance Plan for Tax Increment District p6. A public hearing was held to consider modifications to the finance plan for Tax Increment District 46 for the purpose of allowing the HRA to recapture the additional expenditures incurred because of needed soil correction that was completed as part of the Interceptor Sewer Project and the construction of Sixth Street within the Tax Increment District. The additional expenditures totaled $53,000, and the finance plan was amended to include this additional coat. Hearing no comment from the public, the public hearing was closed; and a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen , and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution approving the modification to Tax Increment District 06. See Resolution 87-30. 11. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle Property. At the previous Council meeting, consideration of changing the zoning classification on the Boyle property adjacent to the new middle school site was tabled to allow Mr. Boyle and his representatives additional time to review the proposed zoning changes. Ms. Boyle, in a written letter to the council, objected to the proposed zoning changes but did feel that a rezoning change to all light industrial would be acceptable. n Council Minutes - 9/28/87 The City's Consulting Planner, along with the Planning Commission, recommended that changes be made to the zoning because of the school location reclassifying heavy industrial zoning to a lower use such as commercial and light industrial. it was noted by the Council that the City would certainly consider future zoning changes on this property as development occurs and proposals are presented; but a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to amend the City Zoning ordinance Map for the Boyle property in question to light industrial, highway business, and limited business. See Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment No. 159. 12. Consideration of Service Road for East County Road 39. At the previous Council meeting, three alternatives for a rural type service or frontage road were presented that would provide access to the Riverroad Plaza and MacArlund Plaza development as part of the East County Road 39 and Highway 75 improvement project scheduled for next year. Because of the intersection relocation, a service road connecting County Road 39 with the MacArlund Plaza development would be necessary and the three alternatives ranged in cost from approximately $10,000 to more than $30,000 depending on the length of road constructed. Property owners Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund, along with lease holders, Maus Foods, of the Riverroad Plaza, previously indicated a need for the frontage road to have access to County Road 75 in both an east and west direction, which would require the frontage road to be extended to a point west of the proposed median to be constructed on County Road 75. Dave Montebello, Project Engineer, and Wayne Fingalson, County Highway Engineer, recommended that the entrance to the service road be across from the existing entrance into the property south of County Road 75 where the existing private road crossing currently exists. This alternative would cost approximately $20,000 of which the City and/or property owners would be responsible for; and it was noted by Public Works Director, John Simola, that to construct this frontage road, the City would have to acquire right-of-way from Curt Hoglund. It was the City's and County's desire to exchange property with Mr. Hoglund by transferring existing right-of-way near County Road 39 and 75 intersection in lieu of the frontage road easement, and it was proposed that the City pick up the cost of the improvement with the exception of any needed curb and gutter, which would be assessed to the benefiting property owner. After further discussion on the alternates available, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the frontage road alignment that would be built in front of the Riverroad Plaza to the approximate area of the present access point for Curtis Hoglund property that would allow both an east and west access to County Road 75 just past the concrete median proposed. The approval for construction is contingent upon the property owner exchanging the land needed for the frontage road in lieu of right-of-way near the present intersection and that any curbing required for the frontage Ep Council Minutes — 9/28187 road would be assessed to the property owner. The property owner, at 7 this point, would have 30 days to agree to the proposed frontage road ' alignment or other alternatives will be considered by the Council. 13. Consideration of Award of Contract for Construction of Gazebo in Ellison Park. The City of Monticello received two bids for the construction of the gazebo in Ellison Park, one from Blonigen Builders of Monticello for a lump sum of $9,987, and the second from Pancon, Inc., of St. Louis Park, in the lump sum of $8,498. It was recommended by the Public Works Director that because of the experience Blonigen Builders has had with building similar type structures in the past that the award be given to Blonigen Builders. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, to award the contract for construction of the gazebo in Ellison Park to Blonigen Builders at the price of $8,987. voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith. Dan Blonigen abstained. 14. Consideration of Purchasing Snowblower Parts from the City of Fairmont. Public Works Director, John Simola, informed the Council that the City of Fairmont had recently purchased a new snowblower to replace a .: snowblower that is identical to the one owned by the City of Monticello. Because of the difficulty in finding spare parts for the snowblower that is no longer in production, it was recommended by the public Works Director that the City consider purchasing the operable snowblower from the City of Fairmont for $2,000. It was noted that the asking price was extremely reasonable in light of the fact that an operable unit could be worth two or three times as much as their asking price. As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried k,o authorize the purchase of this snowblower from the City of Fairmont for $2,000. 15. Consideration of Revision of Developmental Agreement for Development of Fourth Addition in Meadow Oak. As part of the original requirements between the City and the developer, Dickman Knutson, regarding the replatting of Outlot B of Meadow Oak into the Fourth Addition, Mr. Knutson was required to return to his original grading plan for the POD and draft a letter to the County asking for discharge of surface water from Area A-3 to a nearby marohy area which eventually would lead into Ditch 33. in addition, Mr. Knutson was to follow all of the original specifications and plans . for the PUD and thus, the City would allow for construction to be staged so that approximately 14 lots could be built along Meadow Lane. The sewer and water contractor for Mr. Knutson had significant problems with the watermain construction, and many leaks were found where the Council Minutes - 9/28/87 service lines connected to the main line. This'required re -excavation of almost every service in the entire street section, and these excavations have resulted in settling spots along the roadway service. Because of the problems encountered to date on the watermain construction, the City is reluctant to accept the warranty bond for only one year on the improvements at this time and recommended that the warranty bond be extended for an additional time period of approximately two years. Because of the settling problems occurring along the street surface, it was determined to be in the best interest of both the developer and the City to wait one year before completing the final paving on the street project until the spring of 1988. As a result, the City would require some sort of guarantee that the project would be completed next year such as a letter of credit from the developer or performance bond. It was also recommended by the Public Works Department that additional grading and soil erosion plans be constructed yet this year to eliminate water from standing behind the curbs which could cause further street deterioration and also a question remained regarding the elevation of the westerly portion of the street to the plat boundary. Finally, the developer had not yet requested from the Wright County Board permission to continue drainage into Ditch 33 as the development continues, and the City staff recommended direction from the Council on haw to proceed with the development until these items are completed. Motion was made by Blenigen, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to require the developer to acquire discharge rights for the Meadow Oak Development into Ditch 33 before further development will be allowed and to approve acceptance of the utility construction provided a two-year warranty bond is provided by the contractor and to require completion of all grading and erosion control along Meadow Lane. In addition, the developer will be required to provide a letter of credit or cashier's check in the amount of $5,000 to cover the value of the uncompleted street paving portion of Meadow Lane. 16. Consideration of Allowing the Grantinq of Gambling License Renewal. The Knights of Columbus had submitted an application to the Charitable Gambling Board for renewal of their bingo license conducted at the vFW Club. It was the consensus of the Council to take no action in regards to opposition of this license renewal. 17. Consideration of Establishing Minimum Requirements on Food Service for Sunday Liquor Licenses. The City Administrator informed the Council that he had received an inquiry from a resident of Monticello concerning the City's policy regarding Sunday liquor licenses and the requirement for food service provisions to allow sale of liquor on Sunday. State Statutes allow the City to issue Sunday liquor licenses only in conjunction with restaurant, hotel, or clubs that serve food to at least 30 persons. It is up to each community to determine what the definition of food Council Minutes - 9/28/87 service is; and since the City of Monticello had not established a minimum requirement, the Council discussed what level of food service should be required for a Sunday liquor license. After a brief discussion, the City Administrator was instructed to check with surrounding communities and also with the League of Minnesota Cities to see if a minimum or model ordinance is recommended regarding food service levels normally required for Sunday liquor license and to place the item on the agenda at the next meeting for consideration. 18. Consideration and Review of the Proposed 1988 Budget of the SWC4. Each year the Cable Coamission adopts its own budget for the upcoming year, and the City of Monticello, being a member of the ten community commission, reviews the budget set by the Joint Powers Commission. The budget proposed for 1988 would require the City of Monticello to contribute $6,411 towards the operation of the Commission, which is returned in the form of a franchise fee from Jones Intercable Company at the end of the year. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to ratify the budget set by the SWC4 for the year 1988. 19. Consideration of a Simile Subdivision Request to Resubdivide Two Residential Lots. A variance Request to Allow, the Placement of a House within the Sideyard Setback of a Resubdivided Lot Line, and a Variance Request to Allow Two Residential Lots, When Subcivided, to be Less than the Minimum Lot Square Footage. Applicant, Dan Frie. Mr. Tim Witschen and Dan Frie requested a variance to allow for the subdivision of Lots 6 b 7, Block 38, Lower Monticello, into two new lots, one with an existing house and the other remaining portion to be used for an additional residential lot. The subdivision request as proposed would require a variance from the minimum lot standards in that the newly created lot would be 330 eq ft less than the standard required when the property was originally platted, and approximately 1,670 ft short of the newly required lot size of 12,000 sq ft. in addition, a variance would be needed to allow the existing house to be within 7 1/2 ft of the property line where normally 10 ft is required. The property owners felt the variances were a reasonable request in that they were only a few hundred feet short of the former requirements for a city lot and felt the newly created lot would support an additional residential dwelling rather than demolishing the existing house and constructing a four-piex apartment unit. The Planning Commission had reviewed this subdivision request and variances and recommended denial on the basis that a hardship had not been shown by the developers and based on the fact that two variances would be required. D Council Minutes - 9/28/87 After much discussion by the Council regarding the subdivision, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to reaffirm the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the request based on the facts that the newly created lot would be less than the original city standards for a similar lot and that the variance would be necessary to allow the existing house to be only 7 1/2 ft from the property line. 20. Consideration of Underground Sprinkler Installation at Monticello City Hall. The 1987 Budget included funds for the installation of an underground sprinkling system at the Monticello City Hall. Two bids were solicited from area contractors and received by the Building Inspector Friday, August 25. The first bid from Fair's Garden Center proposed the use of a Rainbird sprinkler system in the amount of $5,840. An additional estimate of $390 or more would be required to bring a service connection to the outside wall of City Hall for connection to the underground sprinkler system. As a result, the bid would be in the neighborhood of $6,300. A second bid was received from Ak-Sar-Ben of Elk River for a complete installation from inside of City Hall in the amount of $5,815.70. The system proposed by Ak-Sac-Ben was a Toro sprinkler system, similar to the Rainbird system. After discussing the bids and materials proposed, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Warren Smith, to accept the second low bid from Fair's Garden Center in the amount of $5,840 with the City to provide the water service to the outside of the building, voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, and Warren Smith. Bill Fair abstained. 21. Consideration for the City of Monticello to Pursue the Airport Project. Recently, the City was informed of the City of Big Lake's withdrawal from the Joint Airport Commission. At this point, the City had the choice of continuing the feasibility study as to whether an airport is needed in the Monticello area on its own or also decide to withdraw from further exploration of the issue at this time. It was the general consensus of the Council members during the discussion that without the public support being shown at this time, the City of Monticello should consider discontinuing any efforts to study feasibility of a regional airport in or near Monticello. As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to discontinue all efforts in regards to a feasibility report on an airport at this time. 22. Consideration of Bills for the Month cf September. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approved the bills for the month of September as presented. Ric woirsteAdministrator City Administrator �' Council Agenda - 10/13/87 Annexation Update with City Attorney. (R.w.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the request of Terry Merritt, Executive Director of the Municipal Board, Terry, Pat Lundy, City Attorney Tom Hayes, and myself met on Tuesday afternoon, September 29, to review the annexation process so far and acquaint Terry and Pat with our new City Attorney, Tom Hayes. It was apparent from the meeting that Pat and Terry are still hopeful that the City of Monticello and Monticello Township can get together to reach some sort of agreement regarding the annexation proceedings rather than requiring the Municipal Board to make a decision. From that meeting, another meeting was scheduled with Pat and Terry, along with both attorneys, Bill Radzwill and Tom Hayes, who met on Tuesday, October 6, for the primary purpose of discussing whether there were any types of solutions that could be arrived at, including partial annexation areas that could be agreed upon and also possibly the establishment of a development area as originally proposed prior to the beginning of the annexation hearings. City Attorney, Tom Hayes, has agreed to be present at the Council meeting to update the Council on the status of the two meetings so far, and he may have information regarding what areas or possible solutions are worthy of further investigation. From my conversations with Terry and Pat, I feel at the present time the Municipal Board is probably looking at a smaller area for annexation than the City initially requested; and it is certainly apparent that the Executive Director is hoping a solution can be arrived at, possibly using the development area concept whereby parcels of land are annexed only into the city when development is about ready to occur. From a personal standpoint, the development concept is not necessarily all bad, but it still leaves the City in the position of not knowing exactly what its boundaries might be some day and makes it difficult to plan proper sizing of utilities for future extensions. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The purpose of this agenda item is mainly to provide the Council with an update from the City Attorney regarding his recent meeting with Bill Radzwill and Municipal Board representatives. At this point, I'm not advocating closing the door on future negotiating sessions; but if Mr. Hayes does not feel there seems to be any movement on the part of the Township in reaching a reasonable settlement, it may be desireable to set a deadline at which time the Municipal Board can be informed that no compromise will be forthcoming and that a decision will have to be reached by the Board itself. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. ME Council Agenda - 10/13/87 Consideration of Adopting Assessment Roll for 86-1 Project - John Meier Property. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last Council meeting, a public hearing was held on the proposed assessments to individual property owners as part of the 86-1 Improvement Project consisting of various street improvements along with water and sewer for areas such as 5 1/2 Street, Chestnut Street, Minnesota Street, etc. During the public hearing, property owner John Meier, who owns an 82 1/2' X 66' lot on 5 1/2 Street, objected to the amount of proposed assessment against his property. Mr. Meier felt that on at least two occasions, he was informed that the proposed assessment prior to the project ging completed would total about $3,000 and objected to the $5,559 assessment. Public Works Director, John Simola, did note at the last meeting that Mr. Jim Eisele, purchaser of Mr. Meier's property, was informed in June of 1987 that the total assessment might be $5,900. Mr. Meier was basing his objection partially on the fact that this information was given to Mr. Jim Eisele, who was not legally the owner of the property in June and should have been given to Mr. Meier instead. Mr. Meier's assessment was not acted upon by the Council as part of the assessment roil at the last meeting to enable Mr. Meier an opportunity to present a certified appraisal that would establish his contention that the value of the property had not increased by the amount of the assessment proposed. In other words, it's entirely Mr. Meier's responsibility to obtain an appraisal on the property prior to the improvements and appraisal of the property after the improvements are available. He would have to establish that the increase in market value did not total $5,559. Although the lot in question is only half the size of a typical city lot, it was the staff's contention that the proposed assessment was fair and equitable in that it did provide a new street surface, curb and gutter, along with storm sewer improvements and sanitary sewer and water services to a property that before did not have any. The watermain was assessed at only 2/3 of the actual cost, and the street improvements, along with curb and gutter and storm sewer, was assessed at only 20 percent of the actual cost. I met with Mr. Meier on Tuesday afternoon and provided him with a breakdown of our cost for doing the improvement project for his property. I informed Mr. Meier that a certified appraiser would have to do the appraisal of the property before and after the improvements to establish his contention that the property did not increase in value by the amount of the assessment. Mr. Meier has been working with local realtor, Casey Kjellberg, and indicated he will be supplying information to me on Monday or Tuesday afternoon prior to the Council meeting. At this point, I am assuming that he will try to establish the market value -2- Council Agenda - 10/13/87 has not increased by the assessment amount, but it should probably be noted that i don't believe Casey Rjeliberg is a certified appraiser, only a real estate agent. Through conversations John Simoia has had with Jim Eisele, it appears that Mr. Meier was aware of the $5,900 estimate provided by John in June of 1987; and I believe Mr. Eisele's purchase agreement was prepared with both parties knowledgeable of the proposed $5,900 assessment figure. It is the staff's opinion that the half lot without sewer or water services available was not a very marketable piece of property in that almost any use proposed for the property in a coGmnercial nature would require sewer and water, as the property was not large enough for an individual septic tank. It seems reasonable to assume that the sale of the property to Kr. Eisele has established what the fair market value of the property is now with sewer and water services, and I believe it would be hard for Mr. Meier to justify that the property has not increased at least $5,555 in value. As part of the 86-1 Interceptor Sewer project, several future drop connections were made to the interceptor sewer line allowing for easier access connections in the future. These sewer drops were installed during the construction process at various locations to avoid costly connections in the future if certain parcels needed additional sewer connections. No assessment for a particular parcel is being proposed at this time, but a cost has been established for each drop connection in the amunt of $1,876.68 for a Type A drop and $1,506.79 for a Type B drop. If in the future a property owner or parcel uses one of these connections for a sewer service, it is recommended that the above charges with interest added from the date of the assessment roll be charged to the individual property owner using the connection. As a matter of record, the Council should indicate that the drop charges have been established and are deferred until needed by a specific property. This will be noted in the assessment records , and the City's cost will be recaptured in the future. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Assuming that Mr. Meier has provided a certified appraisal of the property to substantiate his claim that the value of the property has not increased by the amount of the assessment, the Council can consider the evidence supplied by Mr. Meier and adjust the assessment if it so desires. 2. if the Council does not agree with tha appraisal submitted by Mr. Meier, it can again request a certified appraisal be obtained before an adjustment is made. 3. Certify the assessment roll as previously presented and approve the Type A and B drop charges as future connection fees when used. Council Agenda - 10113/87 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Council's directive at the last public hearing was to require Mr. Meier to present a certified appraisal that established his claim. From mf conversations with Mr. Meier, it didn't appear he was willing to spend the additional money for a certified appraisal of the property before and after; and the only information, I believe, Mr. Meier will have is from his real estate agent acting on his behalf. For the year 1987, the market value of the property for tax purposes was established at $6,800, and I would believe Mr. Meier would have to show that the current market value of the property is less than $12,400 to be entitled to any possible reduction in his assessment. it would seem that possibly the easiest way to determine the market value today is to go by the actual purchase price of the property by Mr. Eisele, which I believe was more than the $12,400 figure. The lot size by itself should not be the sole reason for reducing the assessment in that the property has already shown that a sewer and water service is usable and desireable in that Mr. Eisele has constructed a building and hooked up to the City services. I believe, the City could establish that the market value of the property has increased by the amount of the proposed assessment and recommend that the assessment roll stand as presented. I will supply the Council with any information I receive prior to the Council meeting which may alter my recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -4- Council Agenda - 10/13/87 6. Consideration of Authorizing Preparation of Specifications for New Fire Truck. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE MD MCKGROUND: In early June, representatives of the fire department appeared before the Council to request approval to investigate the possible purchase of a new fire truck with a bucket to replace the existing 1962 Chev fire truck. The fire department members at that time were interested in purchasing a new pumper with a 55' bucket attachment that was estimated to cost approximately $175,000 to $200,000. They also were researching a 65' bucket truck that would add an additional $50,000 to the cost of the vehicle. The Council authorized the fire department to continue their research into the type of vehicle that would fit the needs for the fire department in the future and requested they return to the Council once a determination had been made on the type of truck they would like to bid. Since that time, the fire department members have been researching the type of trucks used by other fire departments; and they have determined that a pumper with a ladder rather than a bucket would be more appropriate. The department has consulted with over five dealers on the type of trucks that are available and has visited two plants that manufacture pumpers with ladder attachments. After completing their investigation, the department representatives feel they are ready to prepare specifications for bidding purposes for a new purnper with a 75' ladder attachment. The estimated cost of a truck of this nature is in the $250,000 to $275,000 range. Representatives of the fire department will be at the meeting to present their information on their research and be better able to explain their recommendations for the new truck purchase. As I noted during the budget process, I did not specifically levy an additional dollar amount to cover the anticipated cost of a new fire truck in 1988; but the fire hall construction fund should have approximately $195,00 to $200,000 available. Additionally, a truck of this nature usually takes from six months to a year to manufacture and would not be immediately available to the department. Most manufacturers have financing programs that are very attractive at a low interest rate similar to what we recently did for our computer purchase. The financing alternatives would be requested as part of the bid package, and a determination could be made later as to the amount of down payment that would be required, etc. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize the department to prepare specifications for the purchase of a new purtpoer with ladder attachment and authorize the advertisement for bids. -5- Council Agenda - 10/13/87 2. If it is determined that a new pumper with ladder attachment is not the type of truck the department should be looking for, the Council could direct the fire department to bring back additional information on whatever type of truck the council deems necessary. 3. Do not authorize any preparation of specifications for a truck at all. C. STAFF RECOMENDATION: Since the Council authorized the fire department to proceed with their investigation of a replacement pumper, I would assume that the Council is willing to consider a replacement pumper of some sort. I do not feel that I can provide a recommendation on what type of truck the department should be pursuing and can only advise that the fire hall construction fund will have approximately $145,000 available that could be used towards the purchase of a new truck. If a 75' ladder truck does come in at approximately $265,000, 1 would recommend the bids require financing alternatives that are available from the manufacturer. At this point I have no additional reference material, but I believe the fire department representatives will have information and brochures available for Tuesday night's review. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -6. Council Agenda - 10/13/87 Consideration of Establishing Minimum Requirements on Food Service for Sunday Liquor Licenses. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Since the last Council meeting, I have been in contact with the League of Minnesota Cities and also the communities of Big Lake, St. Michael, and Buffalo regarding requirements established by those camrunities on food service for Sunday liquor licenses. In checking with the League of Cities, they noted that the only regulation they have is the same as the State Statutes, which only indicate that food is required to be served, with no minimum model to go by. The League indicated that most comrnunities do not establish a definition of what is expected for food) service, but only require that some type of food service be available for a seating capacity of at least 30 people. In most cases, this could mean as little as serving pizza or hot dogs, etc. in checking with St. Michael and Buffalo, they also do not have any regulations on minimum food service requirements and only require that the facility have seating capacity as required by State Statutes. The City of Big Lake has recently approved Sunday liquor licenses and are more restrictive, issuing licenses only to bona fide restaurant establishments. If the Council is comfortable with the food definition being met by the serving of Stewart sandwiches, pizza, or hot dogs, for example, a general policy statement to that effect would make all establishments aware of what is expected to receive a Sunday liquor license. This policy statement would also enable the staff to inform prospective new license holders of our requirements. Other than one individual, I have not been aware of any complaints regarding Sunday liquor licenses; and unless the Council sees a need for requiring a broader range of menu items to meet the restaurant definition, I believe the only requirement would be that at least one type of food item be available. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Establish a definition of minimum food service expected to qualify for a Sunday liquor license. 2. Take no official action on a policy and assume that all establishments are meeting the state requirements of at least serving some food product. C. STAFF RECOMtENDATION: Since it is up to each municipality to determine what minimum food service is required for a Sunday liquor license, I recommend that the Council establish what it feels is acceptable to qualify for a Sunday _7. council Agenda - 10/13/87 liquor license. Considering I have only received one inquiry from a citizen, if the Council is comfortable with at least one food item being served on Sundays, a general policy statement to that effect would be sufficient. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -a- Council Agenda - 10/13/87 8. Consideration of Executing the 1988 Law Enforcement Contract with Wright County Sheriff's Department. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the last four years, the City of Monticello has contracted with the Sheriff's Department for a total of 6,905 hours of patrol coverage. At the recommendation of the Sheriff's Department, the City has authorized adding an additional patrolman on Friday and Saturday evenings to help eliminate the cruising problem the City has been encountering. As part of the 1988 Budget, I had included an additional 416 hours of patroling for the purpose of providing an additional police officer for Friday and Saturday evenings for a total of six months. This would bring the total hours of protection to 7,321 if the additional patrolman was needed every weekend for six months in 1988. Prior to the adoption of the budget at the last Council meeting, I was informed by the County Coordinator, Dick Norman, that the County Board of Commissioners was considering a recommendation from the budget committee that no additional hours be granted to contracting cities in 1988 above 1987 levels. Because the County was also concerned about the levy limit placed on their 1988 budget, they were projecting no increase in police officers to provide additional services to contracting cities. At the time the budget was adopted, I was still uncertain whether the County Board would allow Monticello to increase its hours. After consulting with Mr. Norman, I presented a letter to the County Board requesting approval to increase our contract hours by 416 because of the cruising problem. Mr. Norman indicated after the County Board meeting that the Board did approve allowing the City to increase its hours as needed up to the 416 hour level. The hourly rate established by the County Board for 1988 will be $19.50 per hour. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Ratify the contract certifying the number of hours of coverage at a maximum 7,321 at the rate of $19.50 per hour. 2. Do not execute a renewed contract. This alternative does not seem feasible unless the Council is willing to start its own police department. C. STAFF RECCMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the contract be ratified at the rate of $19.50 per hour and that the additional hours totaling 416 hours be added to the contract as approved by the County Board. These additional hours for weekend coverage during the summer months can be used as necessary) but if the problems along Broadway with cruising and loitering are solved early in the summer, the contract can be reduced back to the previous level of coverage. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the contract proposed for ratification. APPENDIX A 1988 Hourly Rate - $19.50 Annual Contract Fee - $142,759.50 Services provided by Wright County Sheriff: 24-hour call and general service 7,321 hours annual patrol coverage assigned as follows: a) 16 hours per day, four days per Week (3,328 total hours). b) 19 hours per day, three days per week, two of which shall be Friday and Saturday (2,964 total hours). c) 613 hours assigned at discretion of scheduling authority. d) Additional 8 hours per day, Friday and Saturday, not to l exceed 416 total hours, assigned at discretion of scheduling authority. J PAUL McALPINE, (Chairman) First District BASIL SCHILLEWAERT Second District "fICHELLE BOGENRIEF Third District AnL YN NELSON, (Vice Chair) Fourth District LEROY ENGSTROM Fifth District El COUNTY OF WRIGHT WRIGHT COUNTY COURTHOUSE Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Tel: (612) 682-3900 Metro: (612) 339-6881 1-800-362.3667 September 18, 1987 Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator City of Monticello Rt. 4, Box 83A Monticello, MN. 55362 Dear Mr. Wolfsteller: RICHARD W NORMAN County Coordinator This to formally notify you that the Wright County Board of Commissioners has set a rate of 519.50/Hour for law enforcement services provided to Contract Cities for 1988. You should also be aware that the Budget Committee of the Whole will be recommending to the County Board next Tuesday that no increase in hours be granted due to staff levels and the three percent levy limit. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Richard W. Norman l County Coordinator RWN/mr cc: County Board of Commissioners Sheriff Wolff C September 18, 1987 Dear Clerk: Sometime back some of you had inquired as to what we thought the contract price would be for 1988. Based on that, Chief Deputy Powers did an analysis as he has in the past and we came up with 519.25 per hour. This was presented to the Board. However, the Board,.without our knowledge at their meeting on September 15th, raised this to $19.50 per hour for the year 1988. I thought that you would want to know this information as soon as possible since I am sure you are in the process of preparing budgets. DW: dl Should you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to contact me. Yours truly, I6UDar6&jAff � Wright County Sheriff 1 LAM ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT THIS AGREEr1ENT, omde =d entered into this _ day of Ip_, by and between the County of Wright and the Wright County Sheriff, here- inafter referred to as "County" and the herein.£ter referred to sa the •'Municipality"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the municipality is desirous of enteringinto a contract with the County for the performance of the hereinafter described law enforcement protection with the corporate limit. of said municip.11ty through the county sheriff, and WHEREAS, the County is agreeable to rfndering such aervices, and protection on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and M UIREAS. such contracts are authorized and provided for by the pro- vision of Winn. Stat. 1977, Sec. 471.51 and Laws 1951. Chap. 372, and Minn. Stat. Arui. 1961, See. 436.03; NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the terses of the aforesaid statutes, it is agroed a fall... : 1. That the County by way of the Sheriff agree• to provide police Protection within the corporate limits of the municipality is the extent and in manner o hereinafter set forth: a. gacept .s .thorwtse hereinafter ■pacifically at forth, ouch as rvtras .hall en'— only duttem and functions of the type naming rithin Cha Juridictiaw of th. Wraght County Sheriff pursuant to Minnemoto Laws and Statutes. b. Except as ethe mioe hereinafter prowls for, u a atandus level of .amen prevl dd .hall be the sue bu{a Havel e! service vhich is provided for the unincorporated areas of the County or Wright, State of Ins.". at.. c. The rendition of nervi.... the ■tmndaM d perforoance, the di.c:pline of the of ficara, and ether matters Incident to the perrn nonce of such .e ry ire. and control of or -a se apluyad .hal] rasain !n and under the control of the Sheriff. d. such sarvl0. shall ineluda the anforea-nt of Minnesota Mata Statutea ad Lars and the sunlclpal erdf nanous dilM era of the sue type and .ialur. of M:nneamta Stat. statute and Laws •nforcd by the Shari ff rithin the un{oarprated tmrr{tmry of said .'aunty. j 1. That it is agreed that the sheriff shall have full coper.tlan and u.istano from the —e{pality, its officers, gents and employees, so as to hsilitata the perHrmanaa of this ag--t. 0 3. That the County shell furnish and supply all necessary labor, supervision, equipment, communication facilities for dispatching, cost of jail detention, and all supplies necessary to maintain the level of service to be readered herein. a. The manicipality shall not be liable for the direct payment of ' any salaries, rages, or other compensation to any personnel performing services herein for said County. ' S. The municipality shall not be liable for compensation or in - de maity to any of the Sheriff'a employees for injuries or sickness arising out of its employment, and the County hereby agrees to hold harmless the municipality against any such claims. S. The County. Sheriff, his officers, and employees shall not be demand to asauma any liability for intentional er negligent acts of said municipality, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof. I. This agreement shell be effective from to •• a. The municipality hereby agrees to pay to the County the sum of ; • for lar enforcement protection for house per day of daily patrol service and :a hours call and general s—icas t /1 from amid Sheriff's office during said term of this agreement. •• p. If the annual salaries of the deputy sheriffs ora increased at any time during the term herein stated, this contract shell not be increased. 10. The municipality shell have the option of reneging this agreement for on additional successive twelve-month period. To exemise' this option. the municipality shall notify the county administrator not later than sixty • days prior to the expiration date of this agreesent. ll. It is understood and agreed that the offonses for which arrests are Yds pursuant to Kate statutes the county shall stand all costs of the courts and its prosecution. when arrests are made under municipal ordinances of tlo municipality, the municipal attornel shall prosecute such cue, any and all fines collected shall be paid to the aright County Treasurer's Office. 13. WMRZAS, legislation has bon enacted effective July 1. 1473. maki" it mandatory that the County Court remit to all munieipalitteo within the amid county+ ani half of all fines levied sad oollsotad from traffic violation arrests Yds in said municipality. and. i •a WHEREAS; it is understood that the contract fees is based upon the County receivtng the entire mount of all fines _ iIt is understood that the mmiclpslity shall return to the Wright Ccanty Sheriff all fine sanies received free the County. Said municipality I • shall remit by check no later than thirty 1101 days from when said fine 1 monies are received by said Wanicipdity. ' 17. for the purpose of maintaining cooperation, local control and general information an existing complaints and problem in amid municipality, i ooa member of the municipal council, the myor, or other person or persons, shall be appointed by amid council to act a police coomiaioner/s 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 WHEREOF the municipality, by resolution duly adopted by Its governing body, caused this agreement to be signed by its mayor and at- tested by its clerk, and the County of Wright, by the County Board of Com- missioners, has caused these presents to be submcribed by the Wright County Sheriff and the Chairman of .aid board and the mesl of said board to be • sfflaad thereto and attested by the clerk of mid board, ali on the day and you first above rrilten. Mayer ATTEST. Clerk BOARS of WRIGHT COUNTY COIMISSIONSAS ■Y Cha t rean ATTEST, Clak. Board of Ccunty Comuu.nen Wfsght county mnarlr■ 0