City Council Agenda Packet 11-23-1987AGF.MA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 23, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grirn=D
Council Miers: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to Order .
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held November 9, 1987.
3. Citizens Comnents/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
4. Consideration of General Concept Stage Review of PUD Known as Highland
Heights One. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Company.
5. Consideration of Preliminary Plat Review of a Proposed New Subdivision
Plat. Applicant, City of Monticello.
6. Consideration of Sketch Plan Review for a Proposed New Subdivision Plat.
Applicant, Toss Brennan.
7. Consideration of Final Payment an Gazebo in Ellison Park.
S. Consideration of Downtown Streetscape Improvement.
9. Consideration of Update on Old Highway 25 Bridge.
10. Discussion of the Realignment of the Intersection of County Road 39 East
and County Reid 75.
11. Consideration of Bills for the Month of November.
12. Adjournment.
c
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 9, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
umbers Present: Arve GrimSmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan Blonigen,
Warren Smith
Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 26,
1987.
4. Consideration of Annexation Compromise Response.
Previously, the City Council had requested a written response from
Monticello Township officials in regards to the City's annexation
boundary compromise offer consisting of approximately 2,000 acres
within the OAA area. Mr. Tom Hayes, City Attorney, informed the
Council that the Township formally responded to the City's offer and
indicated it was unacceptable as presented. It appeared from their
response that they were willing to continue discussions with the City
if the City was willing to consider a smaller area for immediate
annexation and the establishment of a development area for future
annexation needs; but as it presently was presented, a compromise
would not be forthcoming on the larger area proposed.
Attorney Jim Metcalf, speaking on behalf of his client, Rent
Kjellberg, noted that Mr. Kjellberg had originally petitioned for his
700 plus acre property in the OAA area to be annexed but held off on a
formal petition, as he was informed the City was pursuing annexation
of the entire OAA area. It was noted that Mr. Kjellberg is anxiously
awaiting the ruling from the Municipal Board, as he is ready to
continue his development plans for his property and requested that the
Council ask the municipal Board to make a final decision as soon as
possible.
Mr. John Sandberg likewise noted that he had originally started a
petition to have a 34 -acre parcel, known as the Halliger Tree Farm
property, annexed into the City and delayed his own petition because
the City was pursuing the annexation of the entire area. He also
requested that the Council discontinue further discussions with the
Township on a compromise and immediately request the Municipal Board
to rule on its petition before them. During discussions by the
Council, it was the consensus of all members that an effort has been
made with the Township to arrive at a reasonable compromise; but the
delays so far have not been fruitful, and it appeared the only
alternative was to request the Municipal Board to make a decision on
the City's request. Oouncilmember Bill Fair also requested that City
Attorney, Tom Hayes, inform the Municipal Board that if the entire OAA
D
Council Minutes - 11/9/87
area is not annexed into the City, the Municipal Board should rule to
disband the OAA area. Mr. Hayes noted that in all likelihood, this
was a separate issue that would have to be settled at a later date
with the Municipal Board by a separate request.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to direct the City Attorney to inform the Municipal Board of
the City's attempt at a compromise with the Township which was found
unacceptable and request that the Municipal Board place on its agenda
for immediate consideration the petition for annexation of the entire
area.
Consideration of Final Payment on Ctter Creek Road Realignment and
Liquor Store Parking Lot Improvements.
Consulting City Engineer, OSM, Inc., recommended that final payment in
the amount of $8,554.90 be paid to Buffalo Bituminous, Inc., for the
recently completed Otter Creek Road realignment and Liquor Store
parking lot improvement project. The total project cost for both
projects was $34,519.37.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and
unanimously carried to authorize the final payment to Buffalo
Bituminous after receipt of lien waivers and other appropriate data
the amount of $8,554.90.
6. Consideration of Purchasing Bleachers for Softball Fields.
As part of the softball field construction near the NSP Training
Center, the City has proposed to purchase bleachers and benches for
the fields. Two quotes were received for the equipment, one from Earl
F. Anderson in the amount of $8,121, and a second quote from Stadiums
Unlimited in the amount of $7,332. It was recommended by the Public
Works Director that the bleachers be purchased from the low bidder,
Stadiums Unlimited.
As part of the reconstruction of the Fourth Street Park, the
ballfield, which is predominantly used by the Girla' Softball
Association, was enlarged and plans called for establishing a
permanent fence line but utilizing seasonal outfield fencing that
could be removed in the winter. Two quotes were received for the
fencing from Century Fence in the amount of $3,109, and Trojan Fence
in the amount of $3,097.71. In addition to the fencing cost, an
additional $487 was requested for seasonal sockets that would be
placed in the ground to allow the fence to be removed easily during
the winter.
Motion was made by Bill Pair, seconded by Warren Smith, and
unanimously carried to authorize the Public works Department to
0
Council Minutes - 11/9/87
purchase the bleachers and benches for the new softball complex from
Stadiums Unlimited in the amount of $7,332 and to authorize the
purchase of fencing for the Fourth Street Park from Trojan Fence in
the amount of $3,584.71, including the seasonal fence sockets.
Consideration of Accepting Revised Drainage Plan and Criteria
Necessary Before Acceptance of Chelsea Road Project.
At the previous Council meeting, Mr. Bill Block, the engineer for Jim
Boyle on the Chelsea Road Project, appeared before the Council to
request a modification in the ponding requirements for Chelsea Road.
Mr. Block noted that he had been working with John Badalich, City
Engineer, on an alternate method for providing drainage within the
street right-of-way along Chelsea Road rather than developing a pond
within the adjacent property, as currently the owner was uncertain as
to how the property would develop and where an actual drainage pond
should be located.
Mr. Boyle and his engineer had requested City approval of the ponding
modification in an effort to proceed with closing out the project so
that the City could accept the road and utilities and take over
maintenance as soon as possible. A staff meeting was held with
Mr. Block and City Engineer, John Badalich, concerning additional
problems that were needed to be corrected before final acceptance by
the City. Although there were some minor construction problems that
had to be completed by the contractor, two areas were discussed which
the City requires before acceptance of a project, including lien
waivers indicating that all suppliers and contractors have been paid
in full and a one-year warranty bond on the improvements. Currently,
Mr. Boyle has not received lien waivers from the prime contractors on
the project because of disputes over final pay quantities and also
indicated that it may be difficult for him to provide a warranty bond
as required by the City. As a result, the Council continued to
discuss whether the modification to the drainage pond allowing for
ponding in the street right-of-way is acceptable as a temporary
solution. It was the general consensus of the City staff and
consulting engineer that although it is not an ideal situation, the
temporary use of the right-of-way for ponding could be acceptable
provided the City had drainage easements that would allow for an
outlet from the right-of-way to some other permanent drainage
location. It also appeared to be the Council's opinion that the City
should not get involved in accepting the project as is until all of
the requirements normally required of a developer are provided,
including warranty bonds, lien waivers, and other criteria.
In regards to the modification in the pond requirements, motion was
made by Bill Fair, seconded by warren Smith, to approve as a temporary
modification ponding in the right-of-way provided the easement for the
original ponding area remains intact until the property is developed
0
Council Minutes - 11/9/87
and a plan is provided for proper drainage of the entire area.
Additional discussion was then held by the Council; and City Attorney,
1bm Bayes, noted his concerns over the City accepting an alternative
ponding modification at this time without being willing or ready to
accept the entire road and project as constructed. He recommended
that possibly the City should be informing the developer that the City
in the future would consider an alternate ponding modification when
the developer is ready to meet all of the other requirements for City
acceptance of the street and utilities. As a result, the motion to
approve the ponding modification was opposed 5 to 0.
After further discussion, it was also recommended that the City staff
or City Attorney notify the property owner, Jim Boyle, along with the
school district and the Sheriff's Department, that Chelsea Road has
not been accepted and is not a public street and that the sewer line
is considered a private service at this time until accepted by the
City.
8. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting for the Purpose of
Establishing 1988 Salary/Wage Policy.
A special meeting by consensus was set for 6:30 p.m., December 7, for
the purpose of reviewing and creating salary increases for non-union
personnel for 1988.
�21, �, - � - �x-z- 7,,/, -, - -
Rick Wolfstellpr
City Administrator
0
l
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
a. A Request for General Concept Stage Review of a Planned Unit Development
to be Known as Highland Heights One. Applicant, Rivera Financial and
Development Company. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. George Rivera will be in with his request for final general concept
stage review of a planned unit development to be known as Highland
Heights One.
The very minimal utility engineering requirements are required at the
concept stage review of this planned unit development. The developer
will only show how the property could be serviced from existing
services.
However, when we get into the next stage of development, the development
stage, more detail is required.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the general concept stage review of a planned unit
development to be known as Highland Heights One.
2. Deny the general concept stage review of a planned unit development
to be known as Highland Heights One.
C. STAFF RECOPWIMATION:
Staff recommends approval of the general concept stage review of a
planned unit development to be known as Highland Heights One.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed planned unit development; Copy of
the final concept plan for a planned unit development; ordinance
requirements.
fie
2. Front yard setbacks shall be established so as
to meet the general design criteria within
standard areas (zones) regulating the
particular use or structure.
3. Building Height(s) shall be established
so an to meet the general design criteria
within standard areas (zones) regulating
the particular use or structure.
20-3: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Twenty (20) copies of the
following exhibits, analyses and plans shall be submitted
to the Planning commission and council during the PUD
process, at the times specified in Section 20-6 of
this Chapter.
(A] GENERAL CONCEPT STAGE:
1. General Information
(a) The landownar-s name and address
and his interest in the subject property.
(b) The applicant -a name and address
if different from the landowner.
(c) The names and addresses of all professional
consultants who have contributed
to the development of the PUD plan
being submitted, including attorney,
land planner, engineer and surveyor.
(d) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient
control over the subject property
to effectuate the proposod PUD, including
a statement of all legal, beneficial,
tenancy and contractual interests
hold in or affecting Cho subject
property and including an up-to-date
cortitiod abstract of title or registered
property report, and such other evidence
as the City Attornay may require
to show the status of tho title or
control of the subject property.
2. Present Status:
(a) The address and legal description
of the subject property.
(b) The existing zoning classification
and present use of the subject property
and all lands within ons thousand
(1,000) fast of the subject property.
(c) A map depicting the existing development
of the subject properly and ell lend
within one thousand (1,000) [set [j
thereof and shoving the precise location
1 of existing streets, property lines,
J casements, water mains and storm
and sanitary severs, with invert
elevations on and within one hundred ( 100)
fact of the subject property.
3. A written statement gencrallly describing
the proposed PUD and the market which
It is intended to serve, showing its relationship
to the City's comprehensive Plan and how
the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged
and operated in order to permit the development
and use of neighboring property inaccordance
with the applicable regulations of the
City.
4. Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions
of the existing site conditions at a scale
of one hundred ( 100) fact. All of the
graphics whould be the same scala as the
final plan to allow easy cross reference.
The use of overlays is recommended for
clear reference. The following shall
be includod.
la) Contours - minimum two (2) foot intervals.
Location, typo, and extent of tree
cover.
(c) Slope analysis.
(d) Location and extent of water bodies,
wetlands and streams and f loodplains
within throe hundred (300) foot
of the subject property.
(o) Significant rock outcroppings.
(f) ISxioting Drainage patterns.
(g) Vistas and significant views.
(h) Soil conditions as they affect development.
5. Schematic drawing of the proposed development
concept including but not limited to the
general location of major circulation
elements, public and common open apace,
residential and other land uues.
I
6. A statement of the estimated total number
\
of dwelling units proposed for the PUD
and a tabulation of the proposed approximate
allocations of land use expressedin acres
and as a percent of the total project
area, which shall include at least the
following:
(a) Area devoted to residential uses.
(b) Area devoted to residential use by
building type.
(c) Area devoted to common open space.
(d) Area devoted to public open apace.
(a) Approximate area devoted to streets.
(f) Approximate area devoted to, and
number of, off-street parking and
loading spaces and related access.
(g) Approximate area, and floor area,
devoted to commercial uses.
(h) Approximate area, and floor area,
devoted to industrial or office uses.
7. When the PUD is to be constructed in stages
during a period of time extending beyond
a single construction season, a schedule
for the development of such stages or
units shall be submitted stating the approximate
beginning and completion data for each
such stage or unit and the proportion
of the total 1'UD public or common open
•pace and dwelling units to be provided
Or constructed during ouch such stage
and the overall chronology of development
to be followed from stage to sl ago.
S. %hon the proposed PUD includes provisions
for public or common open space or service
facilities, a statement describing the
provision that is to be made for the care
and maintenance of such open space or
service facilities. If it is proposed
that such open space be owned and/or maintained
by any entity other than a governamontal
authority, copies of the proposed articles
(�
of incorporation and bylaws of ouch entity
shall be submitted.
9. General intents of any restrictive covenants
1 that areto be recorded with respect to
property included in the proposed PUD.
10. Schematic utilities plans indicating placement
of water, sanitary and storm severs.
(13) DEVELOPMENT STAGE: Development stage submissions
should depict and outline the proposed implementation
of the general concept Stage for the PUD.
Information from the general concept stage
may be included for background and to provide
a basis for the submitted plan. The Development
Stage submissions shall include but not be
limited to:
1. Zoning classification required for Development
Stage Submission and any other public
dociaions necessary for implementation
of the proposed plan.
2. Twenty (20) seta of preliminary plans,
drawn to a scale of not loos than one (1)
-' inch oquals one hundred (100) feet for
scale requested by the administrator)
containing at least the following information.
(a) Proposed name of thu dcvololment
( which shall not duplicate nor be
similar in pronunciation to the name
of any plat theretofore recorded
In the County wharoin the sub)oct
property is situated).
(b) Property boundary linos and dimensions
of the property and any significant
topographical or physical features
of the property.
(c) The location, size, use and arrangement
including height in stories and Peet
and total square foot of ground area
coverage and floor area, or proposed
buildings, including mobile, homes,
and existing buildings which will
remain, if any.
(d) location, dimensions and number of
all driveways, entrances, curb cuts,
parking stalls, loading spaces and
access aisles, and all other circulation
elements including bike and pedestrian;
(j and the total Site coverage of all
circulation olementa.
0
D
S. LIMITATION ON GENERAL COISCEPT PLAN
1
APPROVAL: Unless a Development Stage
�!
Pian covering at least ten (10) dwelling
units or the area designated in the
General Concept Plan as the first
stage of the PUD, whichever is greater,
has been filed within nine (9) months
from the date Council grants General
Concept Plan approval, or in any case
where the applicant fails to file
Development Stage and Final Plans
and to proceed with development in
accordance with the provisions of
this Ordinance and of an approved
General Concept Plan, the approval
may be rovoked by Council action.
In such case, the Council shall forthwith
adopt a resolution repealing the General
Concept Plan approval for that portion
of the FUD that has not received final
approval would otherwise be applicable.
Upon application by the applicant,
the Council at its denerotion may
extend for additional poriodo not
in excess of nine (9) months each,
the filing deadline, for arSy Development
`
Stage Plan, when, for good cause shown,
such extension is necessary.
(CI DEVELOPMENT STAGE:
1. PUR,OSE: The Purpose of the Development
Stage Plan is to provide a apacific
and particular plan upon which the
Planning Commission will baso its
recommendation to the Council and
with which substantial compliance
in necessary for the preparation of
tho Final Plan.
2. SSUBMISSION OF DEVELOPMENT STAGE:
Upon approval of the General Concopt
Plan, and within the time established
by Section 20-0 Ea) 3 of this Chapter,
the applicant shall filo with the
Administrator a Development Stage
Plan consisting of the information
and submissions required by Section 20-3
of this Chapter for the entire PUD
or for one or more stages thereof
in accordance with a staging plan
approved as part of the General concept
Plan.
D
(b) Developer meets with the City Planner
and/or City staff to discuss the
proposed davelopement.
(c) Planning Commission formally acknowledges
filing of the application(s) for
PUD, sets a public hearing and refers
the applications) back to City staff
and appropriate commissions for their
official review.
(d) Planning commission holds a public
hearing.
(0) Planning Commission makes a reco=cndation
to the City Council on the General
Concept Plan.
(f) City Council reviews all recommendations
and approves/denies application(a).
0
3. OPTIONAL SUBMISSION OF DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PLAN: In cases of single Otago PUDE or
where the applicant wishes to begin the
first stage of a multiple Otago PUD immediately,
he may at his option, submit Development
Stage Plans for the proposed PUD OWultaneously
with the submission of the General concept
Plan. In such coca, the applicant shall
.
comply with all the provisions of the
ordinance applicable to submission of
the Dovalopment Stage Plan. The Planning
Commission and Council shall consider
such plans simultaneously ar.G shall grant
or deny DOvOlopmont Stage Plan approval
in accordance with the provisions of Section
2U-3 hereof.
d. EFFECT OF CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL: Unless
the applicant shall fail to moot time
schodulas for filing Davolopment Stege
and Final Plans or shall fail to proceed
with development in accordance with the
plans as approved or shall in any other
manner fail to comply with any condition
of this Ordinance or of any approval granted
pursuant to it, a General Concept Plan
which has been approved and a PUD Agreement
signed by the applicant shall not be modified,
revoked or otherwise impaired pending
the application for approval of Development
Stage and Final Plans by any action of
the City of Monticello without the consent
of the applicant.
0
At such conference, the applicant shall be
prepared to generally describe his proposal
for a PUD. The primary purpose of the conference
shall be to provide the applicant with an
opportunity to gather information and obtain
guidance as to the general suitability of
his proposal for the area for which it is
proposed and its conformity to the provisions
of City Ordinances before incurring substantial
expense in the preparation of plans, surveys
and other data.
(S) GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN:
PURPOSE: The General Concept Pian provides
an opportunity for the applicant to submit
a plan at the City shoving his basic
intent and the general nature of the entire
development as the basis for the public
hearing so that the proposal may be publicly
considered at an early stage. The following
elements of the proposed general concept
plan representthe immediate significant
elements which the City shall review and
for which a decision ohall be rcndared:
(al Overall maximum PLD density range.
(b) General location of major streets
and pedestrian ways.
(c) General location and extent of public
and common open space.
(d) Conaral location of residential and
non-rosidontial land uses with approximate
type and intensities of development.
(o) Staging and time achodule of development.
(f) Other spacial eritoria for development.
2. SCHEDULE: The length of time to accomplish
the following sequence of events may vary
duo to publication deadlines, agenda limitations
and/or the pro-astablishod mooting dates
of the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
(a) Developer filas application for conditional
use permit and rezoning (where applicable)
concurrently with the submission
of the General Concept Plan (at least
fiftaan (18) days prior to the Planning
1! 1 commission meeting).
0
W
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
5. A Request for a Preliminary Plat Review of a Proposed New Subdivision
Plat. Applicant, City of Monticello. iG.A. and J.S.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
'Me City of Monticello is proposing to replat Lots 9 and 10, Block 2,
Oakwood Industrial Park Addition, into six smaller lots. To replat these
into six smaller lots, we require a subdivision plat to accomplish this.
A preliminary plat has been prepared for us by Dennis Taylor, Taylor Land
Surveyors.
The preliminary plat as shown does meet all the minimum requirements of
the preliminary plat stage of a subdivision plat.
S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plat review of the proposed new subdivision
plat.
2. Deny the preliminary plat review of the proposed new subdivision
plat.
C. STAFF RECOMKENDATION:
(� City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for a proposed new
subdivision plat. All of the minimum requirements of the preliminary
plat process have been met for this proposed new sut>division plat.
The City Council may wish to consider at this time ordering plans and
specifications for the improvements to this plat. Plans and spec's could
be ordered from the City Engineer, or the Council could request that the
City staff prepare the plans and spec's using a minimal amount of
consulting engineer and surveying time. This could be discussed with
John Badalich at Monday evening's meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed preliminary plat, Copy of the
preliminary plat for the proposed new subdivision plat.
C
-2-
0
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
6. A Sketch Plan Review for a Proposed New Subdivision Plat. Applicant, Tom
Brennan. (G.A. and J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Tom Brennan currently owns the unplatted land west of Minnesota
Street around the Marvin Kramer property as you will note on the enclosed
sketch plan. Mr. Brennan is proposing to subdivide these two existing
unplatted tracts of land into some type of light commercial, multiple
family, and/or single family development. The current zoning for the
majority of this property is PZM (performance zone mixed). we do have
the piece lying adjacent to the I-94 freeway that is zoned B-3 (highway
business).
As you will note on the sketch plan, it would provide a collector route
link between the intersections of Country Club Road and Elm Street and
Minnesota Street with the extension of West Seventh Street.
The actual final location for the collector road between 1,0cuat Street at
the mall and Country Club is yet to be determined. Many meetings were
held with property owners in the past and produced a possible location
for the collector road which would not significantly harm any one
development. Mr. Brennan's property shows the location as was proposed
from those many meetings. It does take a portion of the Kramer
(` property. Prior to development of this property, the rights to that
property must be obtained. Mr. Brennan has indicated that he troy wish to
change the location of the collector road slightly. If this is to be
done, it is recommended that we get together the same groin of property
owners along with the City Engineer and discuss a possible change. Once
Mr. Brennan's property is developed, the collector road will be pretty
well locked in with the exception of this section between Locust and
Minnesota Street.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Approve the sketch plan review of a proposed new subdivision plat.
2. Deny the sketch plan review of a proposed new subdivision plat.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
With the site plan as proposed, City staff recommends approval of a site
plan review for this new subdivision plat. The site plan does contain
sufficient information with the proposed layout of the utilities that
exist there.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed sketch plan requestr Copy of the
Csite plan for the proposed new subdivision plat.
-3-
SKETCH PLAN OF A PROh SED LAND SUBDIVISION
Cr, [.-N7:•:! y cirr OF MpvrrLjLO, wwwr W. , M/NN£5om n, TOM ~ O� 1
'r N J
A.
to
SMN
�/ ! ate+•... � // � s • r ''...'. �.. �
.,..w.. .,• '
ti i
�•4 R .ice. y .
w��' ..! _. � d ..ter ..w• •�a= ' �.p1�I t
tiM' - 1� ANr Yovi-.'KNt fM(�. w •�'tw w a t
I m Y®= 91p~. II N, Hl M W a o, •m 1
004M - last I M'3318
tta'Y .I-✓wrrl...� ' �...w Ita
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
Consideration of Final Payment on Gazebo in Ellison Park. W.S.I
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On September 28, 1987, the Monticello City Council awarded the contract
for the construction of the gazebo in Ellison Park to Blonigen Builders
of Monticello for a lump sum of $8,987. The building is now complete,
and the construction has been approved by City staff. -he Building
Inspector is expected to give his final approval upon his return from
vacation.
The contract with Blonigen Builders set forth a lump sum of $8,987 for
the construction of the gazebo. During the construction of the building,
three items needing attention were addressed.
1. The plans did not call for roofing felt under the cedar shingles.
The City staff chose to have the contractor lay felt prior to
shingling. In addition, we ran short one small package of shingles
due to extra care in finish cutting during construction.
2. The railings placed between the poles were made of fir and did not
appear stable upon completion. We asked the contractor to add one
small supporting block in the middle of each railing and place a
cedar 2 x 6 plank across the top of the railing.
3. The third item involved the strength of the structure itself. when
completed, the gazebo appeared to have inadequate bracing between the
roof structure and the support poles. During the shingling process,
the building was seen to move approximately an inch from side to side
as the workers were on the roof. We contacted Cedar Forest Products,
and they manufactured and sent the bracing and bolts to us at no
extra cost. We directed Blonigen Builders to install these braces.
The total for all of the above extras amounts to $308.95. Adding this to
the original bid of $8,987 makes a total construction cost of $9,295.95.
The cost of the materials for the gazebo from Cedar Forest Products was
$9,712. We, therefore, have a total of $19,007.95 in the building at
this time.
Additional features planned for the spring of 1988 are ramps, decorative
sidewalks, ornamental lighting and outlets, and sealing of the structure
to prevent moisture penetration of the nontreated woods.
B. ALTMATrvE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative number one to to make final payment to Blonigen Builders
in the amount of $9,295.95.
2. The second alternative would be not to award final payment to
f Blonigen Builders.
-d-
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
C. STAFF RECOMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that the City make
final payment to Blonigen Builders in the amount of $9,295.95.
D. SUPPORTIM DATA:
Copy of statement from Blonigen Builders.
-5-
Statement
�E a v � V-A 'A
n 1 1 Date
Tn
Terms
PIGS$@ detach and return upper portion weirs your ramittartca. S
0
3 MAI V %Ajq,�
WFADUO r3
Y �,• • • Your Cheat in Yaw tiaaatft
1M
0
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
8. Consideration of Downtown Streetscape Improvement. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Downtown Rehabilitation Program or Streetscape Plan is a
project that's been in the air for a number of years. As a result, some
business leaders and City staff personnel have become frustrated because
of its longevity and no decisions. A streetscape design plan was
completed by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban in August of 1985 and
thereafter presented to the affected property owners who basically
rejected the density of the design. Several conversations between a
handful of downtown leaders and our previous City Administrator
transmitted. In March 1987 the downtown leaders gathered approximately
50 business persons' signatures indicating an interest in the project
without commitment. The interest was a design which included:
1) Upgrading of pedestrian walkways) 2) The lowing of street lighting;
3) The placement of plantings to soften the concrete and asphalt
right-of-ways. Additional items to be considered were upward lighting of
trees and electrical outlets at the base of trees in pedestrian areas;
grates and tree guards to minimize vandalism; sidewalk accent options
such as kiosks, benches, standards for event flags or banners, and a
speaker system for background music.
On October 8, 1987, an informational meeting was held at the City Hall.
Mr. Geoff Martin, Design Planner for Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban
presented two new design plans; and the City staff had prepared a
preliminary finance option. The general consensus was to go with
Concept A design plan, and a volunteer committee was established to
define the design plan. The committee has met twice; and at the last
meeting on November 12, the committee's general consensus was to approve
the preliminary design plan as presented that day by Geoff Martin, with
recommendation for the City staff to prepare a preliminary finance plan
(options) and a maintenance plan for the approved preliminary design
plan. City staff was to present the approved preliminary design plan,
preliminary finance plan, and maintenance plan to the City Council
meeting on Monday, November 23, for recommendation, direction, or input
back to the committee. Committee members are Barry Fluth, George
Johnson, Al Loch, Marn Flicker, Stan Douglas, Steve Johnson,
Oouncilmember Bill Fair, and City staff members Rick wolfateller, John
Simola, and 011ie Koropchak. This brief summary brings us up to date.
Mr. Martin will be present at the Council meeting to present the
preliminary design plan approved by the committee. Included in the
agenda are three finance plan options and a streetecape and parking lot
maintenance plan.
After Mr. Martin presents the design plan, I suggest the City Council
proceed to discuss the financial options. There are various ways to
assess the benefitted property owners by assessment per square footage of
site, square footage of building, square footage of retail/office space,
front linear footage, etc. Another consideration is who benefits from
-6-
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
the streetscape project: direct property owners, secondary street
property owners, general public, or a combination? What percentage is
assessed versus ad valorem? According to Minnesota Statute 429, Local
Improvements, Special Assessments, a municipality may sell bonds and
assess an 80/20 percentage. An election would be required for bonds if
less than 20 percent of the cost of the improvements to the municipality
were assessed against benefitted property. At present, there are no
state programs available to assist in the financing of streetscape. Main
Street is in the development stage and Buffalo is an active participant.
The Main Street Program provides technical assistance to cities for
organization, design, promotions, and economic restructuring. Examples:
advertisements, celebrations, and the encouragement of local bank
participation by offering low interest, long term loans to businesses in
need of a store front/back face lift. Buffalo's streetscape was financed
by Tax Increment Finance, the district being certified before August
1979, whereafter the statutories changed. Chaska's project was financed
by State Highway Aid for new highway and sidewalks, TIP for new
sewer/water mains and city streets; property owners were assessed 208;
and the city picked up the remaining. Since the Monticello Streetscape
project doesn't include any public improvements, TIF is unavailable.
This leaves the City of Monticello with assessment/ad valorem.
City staff considered the various options listed above and felt
assessment by linear front footage as the fairest way. we then felt
property owners should be assessed by degree of benefitted density of the
design. Ad valorem is the benefit to the community and benefit to other
businesses not directly affected by this phase of the project. As
phase II and III will be in the future, those benefitted property owners
would be assessed. Businesses are assessed by the benefitted cost of the
design per linear front footage. The cost per linear front footage was
based at a 9% interest rate over 15 years, which comes to an annual
average payment of $124.06 per $1,000 of the designated project cost.
The estimated costs include Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban's contingency
and the City added another 106 contingency for their expense. The
direction the committee is looking for is what percentage of assessment
verses fld valorem the rouncil would consider. Three optinns are provided
for you, and others may be considered.
Streetscape and parking lot maintenance plans are provided for you. The
committee is looking for a maintenance plan and how this would be
financed. I contacted the cities of St. Cloud, Buffalo, Edina, and
Chaska to see how the individual cities budget for their maintenance
plane. Maintenance plane in these communities are generally covered by
city tree funds, city street department budgets, or general funds. I
separated the plana because it's my understanding the city has considered
a parking lot maintenance plan in the past; therefore, it certainly is an
issue. However, it is not urgent at this time. The City Council not
being provided with any dollar figures for the maintenance plans may make
it difficult to give some direction to the committee. Again, the issue
is whether the plans would be financed by assessment or ad valorem; and
if so, by what percentage.
-7-
C
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
This information has been provided to assist you for discussional
purposes. No staff recommendations are given.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
New design maps presented at the meeting; Financial Options I, II, and
III; streetscape preliminary maintenance plan with examples of other
cities' finance plans; and a parking lot preliminary maintenance plan
with examples of other cities' finance plans.
-8-
1,
MONTICELLO STRE£TSCAPE
PROJECTED COSTS
OPTION I
TOTAL PROJECT COST $517,154.00
ASSESSMENT 77% 397,926.00
AD VALOREM 23% 119.228.00
10% Contingency included in total project costs
Linear front footage based 9% interest rate over 15 years. ($124.06 per $1,000.)
BROADWAY STREETS
Blocks 51, 52. 53
$338.140.00
36, 35, 34
$21.19 per linear front footage (equal annual payments) (1.980 ft)
Blocks 50.37, B 6 D
39,657.00
$4.97 (990 ft)
PINE STREET
Blocks 52. 53. 34. 35
12,197.00
$1.15 (1.320 ft)
WALNUT STREET
Rjallberg's
7,932.00
$9.84 (100 ft)
TOTAL ASSESSED
5397,926.00
PARKING LOTS
Block 35
$ 49,170.00
Block 34
35.420.00
Block 52
23,638.00
SIDE STREET
Block 35 West Side
11.000.00
TOTAL AD VALOREM
$119,228.00
UN
OPTION II
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$517,154.00
ASSESSMENT 70Z
363,514.00
AD VALOREM 30%
153,640.00
BROADWAY STREETS
Blocks 51, 52, 53
$338,140.00
36, 35, 34
33,814.00 10% Ad Valorem
304,326.00 Assessed
$19.07 (1,980 ft)
Blocks 50, 37, B 6 D
39,657.00
397.00 12 Ad Valorem
39,260.00 Assessed
$4.92 (990 ft)
PINE STREET
Blocks 52, 53, 34, 35
12,197.00
122.00 12 Ad Valorem
12,075.00 Assessed
$1.14 (1,320 ft)
WALNUT STREET
(
- Kjellberg's
7,932.00
79.00 12 Ad Valorem
$9.74 (100 ft)
7,853.00 Assessed
TOTAL ASSESSED
$363,514.00
PARKING LOTS
Block 35
$ 49,170.00
Block 34
35,420.00
Block 52
23,638.00
SIDE. STREET
Block 35 West Side
11,000.00
FROM ASSESSED PORTIONS
Broadway, Pine, and Kjallberg's
34,412.00
TOTAL AD VALOREM
$153,640.00
C
PARKING LOTS
OPTION III
Block 35
TOTAL PROJECT
COST
5517,154.00
ASSESSMENT 61Z
23.638.00
317,556.00
AD VALOREM 39Z
Block 35 West Side
199,598.00
BROADWAY STREETS
Blocks 51, 52,
53
5338,140.00
36, 35,
34
74,391.00 222 Ad Valorem
263.749.00 Assessed
$16.52
(1,980 ft)
Blocks 50, 37,
B 4 D
39,657.00
3,966.00 102 Ad Valorem
$4.47
(990 ft)
35,691.00 Assessed
PINE STREET
Blocks 52. 53,
34, 35
12.197.00
1,220.00 102 Ad Valorem
$1.03
(1,320 ft)
10.977.00 Assessed
WALNUT STREET
Kjellberg's
7,932.00
793.00 102 Ad Valorem
$8.86 (100
ft)
7,139.00 Assessed
TOTAL ASSESSED
$317,556.00
PARKING LOTS
Block 35
$ 49.170.00
Block 34
35,420.00
Block 52
23.638.00
SIDE STREET
Block 35 West Side
11,000.00
FROM ASSESSED PORTIONS
Broadway, Pine, and Kjellberg's
80,370.00
TOTAL AD VALOREM
$199,598.00
U
U
SUBJECT
Tress and Shrubs
Sod
Liter Containers
Benches (Wood)
Decorative Pavers
Tree Crates
Speaker System Wiring
Outlets
Street Iighta
Existing
Ornamental
Christmas Decorations
Banners
Broadway Node
Streets
L
J
CITY STREETSCAPE MAINTENANCE PLAN
MAINTENANCE
Yater and Trim - Seasonal, weekly
Water. Mow, and Trim - Seasonal, weekly
Empty - Weekly
Clean
Bulbs
Seasonal
Festiva
Snow Removal - Seasonal
Clean
Snow Removal - Seasonal
Swoop - Seasonal
REPAIR
X
Paint, other
Yearly
Paint
X
X
Paint
Paint
X
REPLACEMENT
Yee
X
X
X
Yee
X
X
X
Parte
Bulbs
STREETSCAPE MAINTENANCE FUNDS
St. Cloud - Trees replaced from City Forest Budget.
Other maintenance from General Fund.
No assessemnts
Buffalo - General Fund (hires seasonal part-time person)
Chamber purchases flowers
No assessments
Edina - City Ordinance created one position, assessment
of 13 to 16 cents per sq ft (may raise to 20 to 25 cents)
General Fund
Chaska - Trees replaced by City Reforestation Program
General Fund
Community Organizations and Store Owners
No assessments
D
PUBLIC PARKING LOTS MAINTENANCE PLAN
Snow Plowing and Removal - Seasonal
Sweeping - Seasonal
Over -lay and striping - as needed
St. Cloud - Dwayne Casper, 255-7200
7,437,441 1987 Budget
Street Department Budget
No assessments
Buffalo - Gary Mattson, 682-1181
604,063 1987 Budget
City Street Budget
No assessment
Edina - Francis Hoffman, 927-8861
7,861,020 1987 Budget
General Fund
Parking Ramp Employees Fee
Chaska - Shirley Brewer, 448-2851
700,762 1987 Budget
Street Department Budget
No assessment
Monticello - 1,677,137 1987 Budget
11
cy
z
z = z cadn'" Treatment* to Patj
R I VE42
u
0
Q3=
r-,-1 B
0
Q
r
in im,
BROADWAY
Ljuu LL
J
L
Li 3
% 0
Lvow'. "y"I THIRD
r'luov AM T'.11truen
PI.,,V co.m.'ar.1 Tentage t. shagagrav uAbbSTUDY AREA
Parking A'--* 01
Cart F.Arwo
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
9. Consideration of Update on Old Highway 25 Bridge. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
During a Council meeting in August of this year, the City Council
requested that I contact the Minnesota Department of Transportation and
other parties involved to make a determination as to whether or not the
City of Monticello could retain the old highway bridge as an extension of
West Bridge Park. I have updated the Council on several occasions in the
past. At this time I will try to summarize my research to this point.
Immediately after the meeting in August, I began working with Johnson
Brothers Construction and their bridge engineer to determine whether or
not the two bridges could remain in place, as there appeared to be a
conflict with the two bridges on the south bank of the Mississippi.
Preliminary field investigation and a study of the 1928 plans for the old
bridge, as well as the plane for the new bridge, indicated that the
conflict between the structures of the two bridges may not exist or may
be as little as an inch or two. Johnson Brothers then prepared a more
detailed set of plans showing a revamping of the approach abutments to
the old bridge. In order to keep the two bridges completely separate
from each other, it would require a major revamping of the approach
abutment to the old bridge, in addition, some walkway work would have to
be performed as well as riprapping or replacement of the old embankment
in front of the abutment of the south shore of the Mississippi.
After the preparation of a detailed set of drawings by Johnson Brothers,
we met with representatives of the Minnesota Department of Transportation
on September 2 at the Johnson Brothers Construction office in East Bridge
Park. During that meeting we explained to MN/DOT that the uses for the
bridge would not involve vehicular traffic in the future. The only
vehicular traffic allowed on the bridge in the future would be for
service of the park and/or for maintenance. we informed MN/DOT that the
approach to the bridge would come from west Bridge Park. The
construction supervisors from MN/DOT, as well as their bridge maintenance
people, agreed that the project appeared feasible and that they, being
Leo Ohmscheid and Jim LeBoe, would work with us to determine whether or
not the bridge could be turned over the City of Monticello. During our
meeting, a couple of comments came out by MN/DOT. One was that the north
end of the bridge exits into the River Inn parking lot. It was MN/DOT's
intention to turn all of the remaining property back to the River Inn.
In addition, there were some timetables that had to be met by both MN/DOT
and Johnson Brothers Construction. If all of the information or releases
could not be gathered by a certain date, the project would have to be
dropped. Johnson Brothers was to determine a date at which they could
not save the bridge and it had to come down. And Leo Ohmscheid suggested
that I draft a letter to Gary Niemi, the District Engineer in Brainerd,
requesting that MN/DoT determine the feasibility of leaving the bridge in
place and assist us with obtaining releases from other parties involved.
-9-
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
After obtaining a cut-off date of March 14, 1988, from Johnson Brothers,
and information from the Council that we did not want to maintain anymore
property than was absolutely necessary on the north side of the
Mississippi River, I drafted a letter to Gary Niemi on September 22. I
also met with Joe Robinson of the River Inn and informed him of our plans
to obtain feasibility information about saving the bridge. Joe seemed to
have some mixed emotions about saving the bridge, as he felt if it was
commercialized in any way it might detract from his business. But after
thinking it over, he fe It more positive about the idea and would agree to
negotiate an easement sometime in the future for access to that end of
the bridge should the City feel it necessary.
Approximately two weeks after my letter was sent to Gary Niemi, I
discussed the proposed project with him over the phone. He was not
entirely supportive of the idea, as MN/DOT had just indicated the bridge
needed to be replaced and federal funds were involved in the project. In
addition, he indicated that the bid to remove the bridge was only
$25,OOO; and MN/DOT's estimates were well above that figure. Gary felt
that there might be some significant financial gain to the contractor
should the bridge be left in place. We did discuss that the contractor
was willing to do a significant amount of construction to allow the
bridge to remain in place and that there were some trade-off's involved.
Gary indicated that he would forward the information on to the
appropriate people and would respond in writing to the City of
Monticello.
Recently, the Council requested that I give a formal update of the bridge
project at the regular meeting of November 23. In preparation for this
meeting, I again talked with Gary Niemi of MN/DOT, who indicated Jim
LaBoe was handling much of the research from the St. Cloud office. I
contacted Jim LaBoe, and he indicated that MN/DOT was to have much of
their information back from their people around the 19th of November and
that it may or may not be available in time for Monday evening's
meeting. If the information from Jim LaBoe arrives in time, I will
include it with the supplement as an add-on or it will be presented
Monday evening.
To look at the liability question of the bridge, Rick Wolfateller talked
with our insurance agent. It to my understanding that Rick was informed
that there may or may not be an increase in insurance premiums because of
the bridge. Liability premiums don't normally go up unless there is
significant exposure to potential liabilities. In order to determine
what potential liabilities may or may not exist with the bridge, I
invited Douglao Holm from Northstar Risk Services, Inc., who is the Loos
Control Consultant for our insurance company, to view the bridge with me,
look at the risks, and also look at ways of controlling the risks. Their
suggestions and recomme=ndations are included under supporting data. It
was their general consensus that proper inspection, engineering, and
maintenance, and pedestrian protection could limit the liability. It
would be best, however, to develop a plan for use of the bridge so that
lose control measures could be properly implemented and any risk reduced
ae low as possible.
-10-
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
Since there was some work that would be needed to upgrade the bridge, I
again discussed those items needed with Johnson Brothers Construction.
Johnson Brothers had agreed to do all of the construction necessary to
leave the bridge in place as well as the sidewalk connecting the two
parks. In addition, they would provide concrete barriers as we requested
to barricade or limit access to both ends of the bridge. I asked Johnson
Brothers for a cost estimate for the painting and minor concrete repair
needed to the bridge. After an inspection by Johnson Brothers
Construction, they put together a quote based upon MN/DOT specifications
for the repair of the concrete and the painting of the bridge. The quote
is included for your review. The cost for the painting is $90,000, and
the cost for the concrete work is $31,000. The painting job could last
8-10 years and the concrete work much, much longer. The bridge will not
be subjected to the vibrations and loads that it is currently under. In
addition, it will not be subjected to a continual salt spray for many
months of the year, which has a detrimental effect on concrete and paint.
An estimate for putting chain link fencing on the downstream side of the
bridge and attaching it to existing railings would be in the area of
$2,500.
In 1983 the Council looked at the possibility of repairing the existing
sidewalk lighting on the bridge. The low bid at that time was $1,650.
Assuming inflation and some additional deterioration in the last four
years, I would estimate the lighting repairs to be about $2,000.
My next quest for information took me to the need to know the current
condition of tho bridge and the suitability for the uses intended.
MN/DOT has enormous amounts of information about the bridge and its
maintenance records will be turned over to us for evaluation. In order
to get an estimate on what it would cost to initially inspect the bridge
to determine its overall condition and to periodically inspect the bridge
as necessary, I contacted Bob Kilgore, the bridge engineer from
Orr-Schelen-Mayron. Bob and I had a chance to meet with Johnson Brothers
Construction as well as a chance to view the bridge. Bob's firsthand
observations were related to how good of condition the bridge appeared to
be in. The condition of the understructure where we observed it, as well
as the steel and the decking, revealed no major problems. The decking
itself has been recently replaced by MN/DOT and is in excellent
condition. I talked with Bob about the need to fence the downstream side
of the bridge. He indicated that this would be a good idea. His initial
response, however, was that we would need only to go to the top of the
existing railing.
Mr. Kilgore indicated that after an initial investigation, the bridge
should be routinely examined on a small scale, possibly every three years
or so. During discussions with Mr. Kilgore and Derek Rogt of Johnson
Brothers Construction, we discussed the possibility of leaving only the
three southerly spans in place and removing the two northerly spans. Mr.
Kilgore indicated that this certainly could be accomplished, as did Mr.
Fogt. Mr. Pogt, however, did indicate that if Johnson Brothers had to
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
remove part of the bridge and leave part of it stand and still do a
significant amount of construction work to allow a portion of the bridge
to remain in place, there would be a point at which it would not be
economical for Johnson Brothers to do a significant amount of work in
saving portions of the old bridge. Such would be the case if we wanted
to leave only one or two spans of the bridge. The biggest advantage of
removing two spans would be that we would cut our ownership and
maintenance costs by 40 percent. The drawback is we would not have a
link completely across the river to Sherburne County.
The following are the estimated costs associated with the bridge.
1. Bridge purchase $ 1.00
2. Repairs
I. Painting $ 90,000.00
ii. Concrete Repair $ 31,000.00
TOTAL $121,000.00
Three Spans Only
$121,000 x 601 . 5 72,600.00
3. Downstream Side Fencing $ 2,500.00
4. Sidewalk Lighting Repair $ 2,000.00
5. Engineering Inspections
I. Initial investigation and
summary report $ 3,000.00 - $5,000.00
Testing $ 11500.00
ii. Periodic inspections and
report $ 500.00 - $800.00
..he above are the costs currently known associated with the bridge. With
the proper maintenance, one would expect the bridge to last well in
excess of 50 years into the future. As far as the maintenance costs on
the bridge per year, once the salt spray and vibrations have been removed
from the bridge, one would expect very little, if any, structural repaire
would be necessary other than the upkeep of the painting system. At this
time, it is possible that a fund of $10,000 per year could be set aside
in an interest bearing account for bridge related maintenance. If the
bridge is to be torn down at sometime in the future, one could estimate
that the cost to completely remove all five spans sometime in the future
would be $103,000 (State estimate). All of the above costa could he
greatly reduced by removing two of the northerly spans and limiting the
project to 60 percent of its entire scope.
B. ALTERNATSVF. ACTIONS:
1. Alternative number one would be to abandon the idea of saving the
bridge for an extension of the City parkway system.
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
2. Alternative number two would be to continue with additional
investigation to save the entire bridge and to have the information
so that the Council may make a decision one way or the other by
March 14, 1988.
3. The third alternative would be to continue the investigation but only
saving three of the spans and limiting our immediate and future
costs. As in alternative number two, we would continue to
investigate and gain precise information so that the Council could
make a final decision on March 14, 1988.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION -
Very early on I indicated a great deal of skepticism in pursuing the idea
of saving the old bridge. But at the Council's request, I have followed
through with your request and gathered as much information as was
possible at this time. The gathering of this information, as well as
discussing it with many of the parties involved, has softed my
skepticism. My preliminary investigation indicates that the project is
feasible and that the risks are manageable. This means then that the
Council should make its decision whether to continue or not based upon
the future use of the bridge as park and as to whether or not it will be
an added attraction or enhancement to our park system. The second factor
to consider if the answer to the first analysis is that yes, it would
enhance the city park system, yes it would be an attraction to the City
of Monticello, then the City Council should look at the cost. Current
preliminary estimates are in the neighborhood of $132,000 to obtain the
whole bridge and have it in good serviceable condition. The cost of
obtaining only 60 percent of the bridge would be between $80,000 and
$90,000. Very preliminary estimates indicate that we may need to set
aside $10,000 per year to maintain the whole bridge for the future.
Possibly 60 percent of this figure could be utilized if only three spans
are kept.
It is difficult for me to give a precise staff recommendation, as the
Council has to determine whether or not they want to keep the bridge or
portions of it based upon these costs. The costs, when taken alone,
can seem quite high. When weighed against the cost of a softball
facility at $125,000, or a small gazebo project for $28,000, it may not
seem significant. But yet it has to be considered. If the Council is
still serious but wishes more exact data and cost figures, it would be
beat to continue with the study and research and make the decision in
March. The only coat expenditure we would see to go further at this time
would he for the engineering study which, depending upon the scope, could
reach $6,500. This continued effort, however, should only be put forth
if the Council is of the consensus that, the bridge or a portion of it
should be saved.
-13-
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
September 22 Letter to Gary Niemi; Bid from Johnson Brothers for painting
and concrete repair; Copy of artist's rendering of the bridge saved by
the City of Keokuk, Iowa; Copy of map showing old bridge location and new
bridge location; Copy of letter from North Star Risk Services, Inc.
i
L
At a Wednesday, September 2, meeting with Leo Olmscheid and Jim LaBo,
as well as other MN/DOT representatives, Johnson Brothers
demonstrated the feasibility of leaving the old bridge intact. The
approach to the old bridge would be removed, and access to the bridge
would be gained only through West Bridge Park. It would be the.
City's intention to remove aijapublic vehicular traffic from the
bridge. A copy of the proposed plans is enclosed for your review.
It is anticipated that Johnson Brothers Construction would perform
all of the construction work necessary to allow the two bridges to
co -exist at no cost to MN/DOT or the City of Monticello. MN/DOT
would then not pay the $25,000 bridge demolition price in the
contract with Johnson Brothers.
The City is currently obtaining prices for the concrete restoration
and the painting necessary to preserve the bridge for many years in
the future. The MN/D0T staff in St. Cloud have indicated their
support for the preservation of this bridge and have asked that we
forward to you a request to assist the City in obtaining the proper
releases from MN/DOT and other necessary agencies. Our target date
for a "go" or "no go" for this project is March 14, 1988. If all of
the releases cannot be obtained by this date, and the Council does
not sign ownership of the bridge at its regular meeting on the 14th,
the bridge contractor, Johnson Brothers, will initiate demolition
procedures which cannot be reversed on the following day, March 15,
1988.
:60 Eeer eresaww
Aonocsuo, M1n++aeDn
63362.9245
(..itty 4 Monticef[o
MONTICELLO, MN 55362-9245
September 22, 1987
Phone (6t 27295-2111
Mevo (612)333.5739
Minnesota Department of Transportation
District 3
Mawr:
301 Laurel Street
nr
Ae C"Msma
P.O. Box 978
crnatong81-17en :
Fen
Brainerd, MN 56401
Fre. Fa"
wdlam FW
JWX McAwem
Attn: Mr. Gar Niemi
Y
District Engineer
Re: Preservation of the Old Highway 25 Bridge over the
AaUDem l
Tom
Tom El
Mississippi
F;hence Ovecm,:
Rick wowretew
Dear Gary:
PyDUC warke:
Jon" si1Oe
The City of Monticello Council has requested that I obtain
Pmnnmo AMISM :
Gen An4ereon
feasibility and cost information in preserving the old Highway 25
Y 9 Y
Eemomc oevekv-wt
bridge over the Mississippi as an extension of the City of Monticello
Ome lcaM=r1ox
park system. Earlier meetings with engineering and construction
staff from Johnson Brothers indicated two bridges could exist side by
side without an interference fit.
At a Wednesday, September 2, meeting with Leo Olmscheid and Jim LaBo,
as well as other MN/DOT representatives, Johnson Brothers
demonstrated the feasibility of leaving the old bridge intact. The
approach to the old bridge would be removed, and access to the bridge
would be gained only through West Bridge Park. It would be the.
City's intention to remove aijapublic vehicular traffic from the
bridge. A copy of the proposed plans is enclosed for your review.
It is anticipated that Johnson Brothers Construction would perform
all of the construction work necessary to allow the two bridges to
co -exist at no cost to MN/DOT or the City of Monticello. MN/DOT
would then not pay the $25,000 bridge demolition price in the
contract with Johnson Brothers.
The City is currently obtaining prices for the concrete restoration
and the painting necessary to preserve the bridge for many years in
the future. The MN/D0T staff in St. Cloud have indicated their
support for the preservation of this bridge and have asked that we
forward to you a request to assist the City in obtaining the proper
releases from MN/DOT and other necessary agencies. Our target date
for a "go" or "no go" for this project is March 14, 1988. If all of
the releases cannot be obtained by this date, and the Council does
not sign ownership of the bridge at its regular meeting on the 14th,
the bridge contractor, Johnson Brothers, will initiate demolition
procedures which cannot be reversed on the following day, March 15,
1988.
:60 Eeer eresaww
Aonocsuo, M1n++aeDn
63362.9245
I WDOT
September 22, 1987
Page 2
As requested by Leo Olrmscheid and Jim LaBo, we have met with Joe
Robinson, the owner of the River Inn on the other end of the bridge
Ln Sherburne County. At this time we feel it only necessary to
provide enough space for the bridge and the support piers to exist
along with the minimum buffer distance on the north bank of the
Mississippi River in Sherburne County. It is our understanding that
all other property is in the middle of a negotiation settlement for
turnback to the owners of the River Inn. It is the: City's intention
to negotiate any right -0f -way or easements necessary for access to
the bridge with the owners of the River Inn. If such negotiation is
not possible, the end of the Mississippi River bridge will be totally
closed for any or all access and will exist merely as an extension of
the Monticello city park.
In order for the preservation of this bridge to occur, it is
imperative that we have your support along with the support of the
MN/DDT headquarters in St. Cloud and Johnson Brothers Construction.
Because of the time frame involved, it is necessary to move rather
quickly to obtain the necessary releases. If we can be of any
assistance, please contact us. If you wish to attend another meeting
between the contractor and the City, please notify us and we will
arrange for such a meeting. Thank you. 4.
Re ctfully,
John E. mole
Public works Director
JESAd
Enclosure
cc: Arve Crimsmo, Mayor
Rick Wolfateller, City Admin.
Derrick Pogt, Supt. Johnson Brothers Const.
MN/DOT Pile
JS
0
�M:!
1_
North Star
Risk Services, Inc.
November 9, 1987
Mr. John Simola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 83A
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Simola:
At your request, I researched the loss control recommendations for the
Highway 25 bridge which may be purchased by the City of Monticello in
the near future. Suggestions and recommendations we would have are as
follows:
R-1-87 The City should obtain written engineering records of a recent
inspection for metal and concrete integrity for the bridge
structure.
R-2-87 The handrail areas of the bridge should be so designed/modified
to reduce the potential of a person falling through the hand-
rails into the river. Perhaps a wire mesh screen would be
appropriate.
R-3-87 Consideration should be given to the entrance/exit areas of the
bridge to promote safe entry/exit.
R-4-87 The City's agent of record should be contacted about the purchase
of the bridge so that appropriate insurance can be applied.
R-5-87 It would be appreciated if you could submit a plan to North
Star Risk Services so we could evaluate this system from a
loss control perspective.
These recommendations are made for risk improvement purposes only. They
were not made for the purpose of complying with the requirements of any
law. rule or regulation. We do not infer or imply in the making of these
1401 a'esi 760 Stmt, Suite SS0 8 MW�, Mhmexcxa 5423 6 (612) R61 -R600 0 7UE\ 9102+01598 0
Mr. John Simola
City of Monticello
November 9, 1987
Page Two
recommendations that there are no other hazards and exposures in existence.
We assume no liability for recommendations provided. The purpose of the
recommendations is to assist in improving the risk exposure and to assist
you with your loss control program.
If you have any further questions . please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
C:e Q. 0 -
Douglas D. Holm, MS, ASP
Loss Control Consultant
DDH/cp
cc: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
/ Foster. Franzen, Carlson & Associates
C
D
imotsoN OM.
PO BP. l9024K nn,K MinnnO1P 55]]Dtpp2 �j
September 16. 1987
City of Monticello
City Hall
Monticello
Minnesota 55362
Attn: John Simola
Re: Repair of Old Bridge
Gentlemen:
3�
cmwmnm
T PKwM,.A.2! EYY2.11
Tpp
I.C. 29221416CL uP
We estimate that the following paint and concrete repairs would put
the old Mississippi River Bridge at Monticello in good condition for
the limited use your Park System would impose upon it. We also be-
lieve you will have a long life for the bridge. The paint system is
the same as we completed on the Aerial Lift Foot Bridge in Duluth
last year.
I. Truss Span Painting - 44,309 square feet
A. Commercial blast and carboline - single cost system
on the following areas:
1. Truss plumb posts, diagonals and bottom chord
to 7 feet above roadway.
2. Sidewalk brackets and stringers.
3. Floorbeams at abutments and over piers.
4. Stringers within 5 feet of deck joints at abutmemts
and piers.
5. Bearings.
II. Ornamental Railing - west side - 11,638 square feet
Near -white blast and cerboline - two coat system
III. Concrete Repair
A. Remove concrete that is deteriorated and repair with shotcrete
1, Deck edge full bridge length
East only and curb top.
2. South abutment - bearing area around east bearing.
3. Pier 1 cap nose at east end of pier to west of broken area.
4. Pier 3 cap nose east end of pier to just west of bearing.
5. Pier 2 and 4 cap nose at east end of pier only.
6. North abutment - bearing area around east bearing.
AN EQUAL OPPOATUNIrV EMPLOYER 0
City of Monticello
( September 16. 1987
`. Page 2
Cost for this work would be $90,000.00 for painting and $31,000 for
concrete repair.
We hope this information will assit you in determining the feasibility
of saving the bridge.
Yours very truly.
JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION
.
A. A. Sehlin
Senior Vice President
AAS:als
cc: R. W. Johnson
M. J. Scully
field
file
A,
Farm Rome
1,
V. 'N
EOUSE
CIA
AMC Ile,
0 HOU arta LER E
C
10AID
Li Q11
0
ILU
0
RVER
MISSISSIPPI
Bridge 4390
proposed location
AS & FNIAO
Rowowwy 2G.8 �
t/
C
10AID
Li Q11
0
ILU
0
0
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
10. Discussion of the Realignment of the Intersection of County Road 39 East
and County Road 75. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item seems to keep popping up for every other Council meeting. This
item, however, does not involve the service road and Curt and Anna Mae
Hoglund. It does involve the purchase of right-of-way from Gladys
Hoglund for the construction of new County Road 39 East. -he City and
County will share in the costs of the right-of-way purchase, and we have
been dealing with the Hoglunds on this issue for some time. Our original
discussions were held with Maurice in 1986. Due to Maurice's health, we
were unable to reach agreement on this right-of-way purchase with the
Hoglunds. After Maurice passed away, it took a considerable length of
time for Gladys to be appointed as executrix of the estate and obtain
power to sell property. Since that time, we have met on numerous
occasions with County staff members; appraisers; Gladys Hoglund and her
son, Tom Hoglund; and Bob Roblin, Consulting Engineer for the Hoglunds;
and their attorney, Jim Metcalf.
All of our meetings appeared to be for making modifications and answering
questions about the potential use of the property. For several months we
looked at the possibility of the proceeds from the sale of the
right-of-way to pay for the improvements such as the City's watermain
extension and the possibility of sewer services. On Wednesday,
` November 18, I was informed by Jim Metcalf that Gladys Hoglund is no
longer interested in any utility improvements to the property. And since
she would have to pay capital gains on any land sales, she was not
interested at this time in pursuing sale of her property. Mr. Metcalf
did indicate, however, that he and Gladys would respond to a final offer
in writing from the County. It is my understanding that such an offer
was mailed on Thursday, November 19.
The County goes to significant length to determine fair property values.
In this particular case for the East County Road 39 project, they are
using two appraisers who have set a value of $20,000 per acre on this
agriculatural land that the new County Road 39 would be crossing.
Because of the hundreds of parcels involved, they rarely negotiate beyond
what they feel is a fair and favorable price for land. If they were to
go above and beyond a fair price for any properties, it could
detrimentally affect the other hundreds of properties along County
Road 39 and the remaining portions of the project. The County,
therefore, is of the opinion that should Gladys Hoglund and .am Hoglund
and their attorney refuse the offer mailed to them on Thursday that
condemnation proceedings should be initiated by the County in order to
keep the project on schedule. our original estimates for acquiring this
right-of-way were approximately $41,000 of which the City would share in
50 percent. The final offer to the Hoglunds is approximately $38,000.
-15-
0
council Agenda - 11/23/87
If the project were to be delayed, the County would most likely stop
construction of East County Road 39 at the city limits near the Halliger
Tree Farm. The delay of one year could result in higher costs to both
the City and the County, as there are great cost advantages in doing the
service road and intersection realignment within a major project such as
East County Road 39. There is also some concern on the part of the
engineering staff at the County level that the County Board may use funds
allocated for East County Road 39 elsewhere in the county; and it may be
difficult in the future to get funds reallocated for the project. It is
the County staff 's opinion that if the final offer is not accepted that
we move for condemnation. The County has allowed, as stated earlier,
until November 30 for response. On December 1, the County Board will be
considering this issue at the County Board meeting.
The City needs to concern itself also with the necessary improvements to
utilities that will go in prior to or with the construction of county
Road 39 East. Cour watermain extension is slated for this road; and as
part of that, we will extend watermain up the service road to loop
MacArlund plaza and Riverroad Plaza. These drawings are already in
progress, as they were part of the work ordered when the Council ordered
plans for the water improvement project. We do not, however, have any
plans for serving this property with sewer other than a oouple of
feasibility reports which I did for the County and Jim Metcalf. The City
may wish to hold the public hearing at which to discuss watermain and
sewer installation with this project. This would also include that
portion of County Road 118 between I-94 and County Road 75. it is
important that we synchronize the installation of these utilities with
the County's project, which is intended to start in the spring.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to support the County's decision for
condemnation should the final offer to Gladys Hoglund be rejected.
This alternate would include discussions about the possibility of
ordering a feasibility study to serve East County Road 39 with sewer
to Mi-ssissippi Drive and the setting of a public hearing at which to
discuss proposed improvements.
2. The second alternative would be to delay the project and not condemn
the property at this time.
3. Alternative number three could be to further negotiate with the
County and Gladys Hoglund on the purchase of her property. This does
not appear r -o be in the best interests of the City or the County
unless the figures are very close, as it would tend to set a
precedent for all further County and City right-of-way purchases.
-16-
Council Agenda - 11/23/87
C. STAFF RECUlP MATION:
It is the recomnendation of the public Works Director that we proceed as
outlined in Alternative number one.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed realignment map; Copy of letter from County to Gladys
Hoglund.
A
0
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright County Public Works Building
Route No. 1 • Box 97.8
Buffalo. Minnesota 55373
Jcl. T. H. 25 and C. A. 138 W AYNE A. nNOALSON. P.E.
Telephone (612) 682-3900 COUNT' HIGHWAY ENGINEER
November 19, 1987
Mrs. Gladys Hoglund
Route 4 Box 176
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Acquisition of Property for Realignment of
CSAR 39 at the intersection with CSAR 75
Dear Mrs. Hoglund:
Almost a year has gone by since your eon, Tom Hoglund met with Richard
Marquette, County flight of Hay Agent and our two County Appraisers to look
at a proposed re -alignment of County State Aid Highway No. 39. That data
was December 31, 1986. Since that time, numerous meetings have taken place
in your home and at the Public Yorks Building in Buffalo. Mr. Jim Metcalf,
Attorney from Monticello, has been representing your interests for a
majority of the later meetings that have been hold. It has been a
complicated process with potential utility placements proposed by Mr. John
Simola, Public Yorks Director for the City of Monticello. This utility
work would involve placing sewer and water lines in the easement area to
serve future needs of the adjacent land.
Offers and counter offers were discussed and Mr. Metcalf's position
was that if some arrangement could be made with the City and County for
installing utilities to lieu of actual cash payment, then perhaps an
agreement could be made and the land purchased.
It appears that, at this point, no feasible arrangement has surfaced
to complete the acquistion of the property or tastall utilities as s
package arrangement. On November 18, 1987 we learned that you may not want
to pursue any additional utility work that would serve your property and
prepare it for future development. I would like to make you aware of the
County's policy on placing utilities on new roadways. The County's policy
has been that no open cutting would be permitted and that any future
utility services would have to be provided by boring, jacking or some other
method. In addition, there would be costs for restoration of disturbed
right-of-way.
Mrs. Gladys Hoglund
November 19, 1987
Page 2
I feel that the proposed shift of the intersection of CSAH 75 and 39
eastward is a stop forward which will in a short amount of time be a safety
Improvement for all motorists using the area to include businesses, the new
middle school and local residents. In addition, we feel this improvement
will eventually benefit your property by promoting a safer access,
Increasing highway frontage and reducing the initial cost for the
Installation of utilities.
Enclosed is the formal offer letter and Heal Property Acquisition
Certificate as our final offer to you. Mr. Metcalf will receive this
Information as well as the latest design Information. As you may be aware,
the City and County will share in the land acquisition costs. I feel that
a deadline of November 30, 1987 is a reasonable timeline to receive a
response to the enclosed offer since we have been discussing these issues
for such a long time. My intent would be to approach the Wright County
Board on December 1, 1987 with your decision and ask for their direction
from that point. Mr. Slmola may address this situation with the City
Council on November 23, 1987 and their decision will also be incorporated
into the County Board meeting on December 1.
I would hope that we could resolve the land purchase and perhaps a
defected payment schedule could be incorporated into the agreement reached.
Si=zyi-g-irz.
etely,
Y[ty Highway !near
PC: Jim Metcalf, Attorney at Law
Basil Schillewaart, County Commissioner
—JAn Simole, City of Monticello Public Yorks Director
VAP/jas
C
0
•"vr�
MACARC U! y0
I ..
s s r
• �'t'1
1
R1VIER
5 o i 3, •�'�' •
. � 'IsSJPA, A 'o
ORA/C i u' •�
_.... HIGHWAY _ I
s
C
NOVEMBER -- GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Data Mgmt. Design - Computer charges, travel expense, etc.
2,190.35
25067
MN. City Management Assoc. - Membership dues for Rick W.
35.00
25068
Monticello Times - Legal publications
1,189.59
25069
I.C.M.A. - Sub. to City Management Assoc.
255.00
25070
MN. Dept. of Health - Water analysis
299.27
25071
Smith b Hayes - Legal fees
3,185.00
25072
Dahlgren, etc. - Professional services
5.490.29
25073
Dept. of Labor and Industry - Exemption notice fee
25.00
25074
City of Golden Valley - Comparable worth study fee
286.00
25075
Int: Institute of Municipal Clerks - Membership dues
40.00
25076
Feedrite Controls - Water Dept. supplies
847.55
25077
Water Products - Meters and valves
1.233.52
25078
Automatic Systems Co. - Water Dept. repairs
176.60
25079
Rick Wolfsteller - Reimbursement for expenses
168.32
25080
A-1 Security Locksmiths - Install new locks at shop
196.00
25081
Gartners 6 Midtown - Liquid paper
3.15
25082
Gould Bros. - Fire truck repair
949.91
25083
Teleproducts Corp. - Alarm system for lift station in park
1,083.00
25084
State Chemical Mfg. Co. - Supplies for Mtce. Bldg.
190.43
25085
Fair's Garden Center -• Shrubs for parks
1,210.90
25086
Servicemaster of Monticello - Cleaning carpet at Fire Hall
154.00
25087
Wang - Computer maintenance fees
739.19
25088
Foster -Franzen Ins. - Insurance for Bland property
169.00
25089
OSM- Engineering fees
8,702.98
25090
ICMA - Payroll ded.
759.34
25091
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
123.04
25092
Wayne Mfg. - Final payment on Christmas decorations
3,993.89
25093
Govt. Training Service - Mayor's Assoc. conference - A. Grimsmo
105.00
25094
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at library
216.67
25095
Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense
275.00
25096
David Stromberg - Animal control expense
403.50
25097
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
3.00
25098
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
46.00
25099
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
40.00
25100
Wright County State Bank - FICA 6 FWT taxes
4,705.86
25101
Commissioner of Revenue - SVT
1,935.00
25102
PERA - Payroll ded.
1,345.89
25103
James Preusse - Cleaning city ha 11 and fire hall
450.00
25104
YMCA of Mpla. - Monthly contract payment
583.33
25105
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
25106
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
25107
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
25108
William Fair - Council salary
125.00
25109
Warren Smith - Council salary
123.19
25110
Richard Carlson - Planning Comm. salary
69.27
25111
Me. Joyce Dowling - Planning Comxn. salary
49.27
25112
Dick Martie - Planning Comm. saLery
69.27
25113
James Ridgeway - Planning Comm. salary
49.27
25114
Ms. Cindy Lemm - Planning Comm. salary
49.27
25115
Corrow Sanitation - Contract and landfill chargee
8,589.20
25116
State Treasurer - Building permit surcharge fee for 3rd qtr.
449.91
25117
Govt. Training Service - Reg, fee for seminar for 6
180.00
25118
Dept. of Not. Rae. - Dep. Reg. fees
12.00
25119
Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg, fees
18.00
25120
Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees
98.00
25121
Professional Services Group - WWTP contract payment for Nov.
22,083.35
25122
Monticello Fire Dept. - Salaries
1,466.78
25123
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
AME Ready Mix - Concrete, etc.
416.76
25124
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
1,286.56
25125
Northern States Power - Utilities
5,721.92
25126
Norwest Investment Services - Computer contract payment - Nov.
2,407.61
25127
North Central Public Service - Utilities
452.59
25128
Monticello Ford - Property taxes for L. Flake's building
958.43
25129
Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage expense
300.00
25130
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded.
204.00
25131
ICMA - Payroll ded.
759.34
25132
PERA - Ins. premiums - reimb.
27.00
25133
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
123.04
25134
Jerry Hermes - Library janitorial
216.67•
25135
David Stromberg - Animal control expense
302.00
25136
Liquor Fund - Reim. liquor fund for interest on investments
2,027.44
25137
Banker's Life - Croup Ins.
3,529.07
25138
Wright County State Bank - FICA 6 FWT taxes
4,362.74
25139
PERA - W/H
1.293.64
25140
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
214.00
25141
Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees
36.00
25142
Phillips 66 - Gas - Fire Dept. and Walt's Van
43.03
25143
Gruys, Johnson - Computer fees
290.00
25144
Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control expense
80.00
25145
Marco Products - Copy machine paper
63.90
25146
AT&T Inf. Systeme - Fire phone
3.96
25147
David Stromberg - Travel expense - animal control
23.50
25148
Gary Anderson - Travel expense
63.12
25149
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies - chair, transpar.
375.05
25150
Campbell Abstract - Closing costs - Ford building
39.00
25151
Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Depts.
246.38
25152
Unitog Rental - Rental of uniforms
142.40
25153
Dave Kern - Lettere for signs for city hall
667.40
25154
Central Eyewear - Action bands for glasses
16.85
25155
Pitney Bowes -.Postage machine rental
72.00
25156
Sentry Systeme - Fire dept. expense
54.00
25157
Maus Foods - Supplies
112.86
25158
Granite Electronics - Pager repair - Fire Dept.
77.32
25159
Persian's Business Equipment - Dictaphone repair
59.25
25160
Marquette Bank Mpls. - Parking bonds of 1974 - Interest
905.00
25161
Amoco Oil - Gas
32.67
25162
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - Towels and liners
63.96
25163
Monticello Printing - Letterheads, S/W postale, Fire Dept.
345.85
25164
Unocal - Gas - Fire Dept.
30.08
25165
Servi Star Hdwe. - Supplies
135.01
25166
Harry's Auto Supply - Supplies
196.18
25167
Simonson Lumber - City hall repair materials
189.23
25168
National Bushing - Floor dri, rectifier, etc. - Mtce. Bldg.
86.64
25169
Ben Franklin - Frames, film, tape
28.22
25170
Eull Concrete - 24 adjustment rings
92.40
25171
Gordon Link - Gas
399.86
25172
Hoglund Bus - St. Dept. repairs
100.27
25173
Buffalo Bituminous - Sand - St. Dept.
63.00
25174
Monti Motors - St. Dept. repairs
45.00
25175
Nelson Oil Co. - Gas
91.70
25176
Omann Bros. - Sand - St. Dept.
54.74
25177
Yonak Landfill - St. Dept. dumping
60.00
25178
Duerr's Water Care - Bland house payment
12.25
25179
Wright County Treasurer - Sheriff contract payment
10.645.21
25180
-2-
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
American Public Works Assoc. - Membership dues - Simola
55.00
25181
Local /49 - Union dues
115.00
25182
VOID
-0-
25183
MN. Public Emp. Labor Relations Assoc. - Dues for Rick
85.00
25184
Smith 6 Hayes - Legal
476.00
25185
Foster Franzen Ins. - Fire Dept. premium
481.95
25186
Mobil 011 - Gas - Fire Dept. 6 Walt's Van
70.82
25187
Safety Kleen Corp. - Equipment maintenance
40.00
25188
Monticello Times - Legal publications
1,049.65
25189
Personnel Decisions - Professional services
240.00
25190
Karen Doty - Mileage expense
35.60.
25191
Eedar Forest Products Co. - Gazebo materials
9,712.00
25192
Feedrite Controls - Samples
20.00
25193
Dahlgren, etc. - Streetscape expense
3.961.12
25194
Frank Madden b Assoc. - Legal fees
762.90
25195
Maus Tire Repair - Flat tire repair
4.50
25196
Road Rescue, Inc. - Pager cases
10.00
25197
Griefnow Sheet Metal - Furnace repair at Johnson res.
22.00
25198
Monticello Fire Dept. - Travel expense for firemen
238.50
25199
MN. Dept, of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
250.00
25200
MN. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
72.00
25201
MN. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
18.00
25202
Blonigen Builders - Gazebo - labor - 8,987.00 6 material
9,295.95
25203
MPle. Star 6 Tribune - Adv. - St. position
166.32
25204
United States Salt, Inc. - Salt for streets
1,186.88
25205
Payroll for October
25.514. 12
GENERAL DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER - 1987
$172,151.74
I
LIQUOR FM
LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS -- NOVEMBER
AMOUNT
CFMCK
N0.
Fair's Garden Center - Parking lot expense
8.50
13404
Braun Engineering - Concrete for parking lot
28.00
13405
H 6 H Industries - Bulbs
212.36
13406
Viking International Products - Can liners
10.00
13407
Bellboy Corporation - Liquor purchase
1,412.90
13408
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
1,002.53
13409
Johnson Bros. - Liquor
2,158.93
13410
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
2,195.46
13411
Eagle Wine - Liquor
2,540.21
13412
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
170.00
13413
Cedar Map Co. - Adv.
130.00
13414
Wright County State Bank - FICA b FWT
696.52
13415
Commissioner of Revenue
222.00
13416
State Treasurer - PERA W/H
186.84
13417
Quality Wine - Liquor
836.40
13418
Griggs. Cooper - Liquor
2,141.29
13419
Ed Phillips - Liquor
1,921.54
13420
Johnson Bros. - Liquor
1,404.07
13421
Eagle Wine - Liquor
56.13
13422
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
6,828.59
13423
Eagle Wine - Liquor
637.14
13424
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
63.48
13425
North Central Public Service - Utilities
48.75
13426
Northern States Power - Utilities
576.20
13427
Ed Phillips - Liquor
2,661.20
13428
Bernick's Pepsi - Misc. mdse.
539.15
13429
Grosslein Beverage - Beer, etc.
15.329.70
13430
Olson d Sons Electric - Parking lot lights
58.50
13431
St. Cloud Refrigeration - Equipment repair
144.23
13432
Day Dist. Co. - Beer
608.63
13433
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. sides.
345.15
13434
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer
7,010.15
13435
Rubold Beverage - Wine purchase
319.60
13436
Dahlheimnr Diet. Co. - Beer
17,276.37
13437
Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdse.
176.30
13438
Granite City Jobbing - Store expense
123.70
13439
Jude Candy Tobacco - Misc. mdse.
678.51
13440
Dick Beverage - Beer purchase
2,084.40
13441
Monticello Times - Adv.
9.20
13442
Kolles Sanitation - Garbage service
133.50
13443
Coast to Coast - Store supplies
4.38
13444
Stromqulet Dist. - Misc. supplies
30.40
13445
Cloudy Town Diet. - Mist. supplies
278.75
13446
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
8.79
13447
Leifert Trucking - Freight
545.86
13448
City of Monticello - Sever/water - 3rd qtr.
89.83
13449
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
170.00
13450
Wright County State Bank - FWT 6 FICA
611.28
13451
Air Snake Systems - Cleaning furnace
345.00
13452
General Fund - Transfer to city fund per '87 budget
43.050.00
13453
PERA - Payroll dad.
190.54
13454
Banker's Life - Croup Ins.
356.11
13455
Ed Phillipe 6 Sons- Liquor
214.77
13456
LIQUOR FUND
AMOUNT
CFM
NO.
KN. Dept. of Public Safety - Retailer's card license
12.00
13457
Smith 6 Hayes - Legal fees
14.00
13458
H 6 H Industries - Light bulbs
254.67
13459
Quality Wine - Liquor
1,104.04
13460
Cruys, Johnson - Computer fees
110.00
13461
Ron's Ice Co. - Ice purchase
210.16
13462
Johnson Bros. - Wine
1,475.41
13463
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - October
7,877.01
13464
Wine Spectator - Subscription
11.95
13465
Payroll - October
3,710.70
TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER
$133,661.78
'
CITT Of IUNfICt>LL.O
ILdltly Uulld.Llg Dclwt,wL Relrort
1
1.12ULL7'0 w,d Usq
]tall, of OCTOBER 19 B7 ,
T6.i7,
r1000T5 ISSULD
Ii -til 84ptombe, Ile,Ll, OCtob4r
Leat fear To D9Lo to
D.Le 1
ILMIUI]Tf1AL
.
Ilumber _
15
11
70 127
93
lm,
V(2
1464].
f.53,40.0
11,551,97000 17,936,060.00 S
.,59077
4,471,500.00
'.
3
5.8
769 79,437.50
79,165,.71
,.wchvgee
7]R.7O
25.70
775.95 3,967.65
7,771.94 '
OOIDUMCIAL
Il,u4b0r
1
4 IB
19
V.1 u. Lion
10,000.00
1,097,500.00 7,640,970.00
707,130.00
Feee
117.00'
5,457.97 17,813.14.
5,794.77
3urc11vge4
5.00
.I
546.75 1,870.43
]55.80
LIWSTR]AL
]lumber
1
1
I 7
17
1:7uslton
12,100.00
178 100.00,
573,500.00
1,742,700.00
l.eo
175.90
7,241.59
I ],034.77
7,990.06
wchel gee
6.05
779,70
787.73
671.75
P1f11m1110
Ilumb.r
7
1
17 78
52
FaeO
164.00
29.00
586.00 2,686.00
1,716.00
rchvgee
3.50
.50
8.50 79.00
76.00
0111uL9
,
I) -b...
1
3
12
V41 uaL1m,
9,000.00
10,000.00
97,400.00
1e.e
10000
.
100.30
650.50
Owchvge.
4.50
6.00
46.00
IOTAL 110. P(1IIUly,
- _24
14--
41_-775_
179
TOTAL VAW ATIOrl
486,500.00
541,000.00
7,645,470.00 12,162,490.OD
6,469,730.00 ,
TOIAL Ily,f
6,010.67
7961.79
17,770.54 67,289,91 55,016.64
',01AL ...1c. Ic-
x.1.75
_ 770.00
11]]1.20 6,120085
3.761.09
CuiLamr IT111111
_
..
PFR
PUMIT IIAIUIIS
lumber
illuul OHU[Altcr Vnl soil a, 71, 0 rcor Lnet r�yt.
single F.m11y
t t
1 t 72
47 '
Ug11 e1
2
17
Ik,ILI-f_:.Iy
Canoacl el
]
S
IndueLrI.I
1
3,741.59
279.70 476,600.00 2
7 ,
It. e: G., .gee
]
205.00
9.50 19.000.00 11
11
sl g;
0
O
r.be 6ui 14 i.,4.
I
1
108.00 i
4.50 9,000.00 1
0;
A1.ITILA ICV] (11 IMPAIR
.
lA.el11„g.
7
337.60
14.20 I ;]0,400.04 1141
Ctlmnel'C1 e1
16
1, ,
111dU.L,'1 el
l• 1
I
1
1'W101 LIU
•
I
'
All type.
1
70.00
.50 5)
78 '
ACCI:•.BOe1 STRUCIUw:9
' 6vlmlep Pool.
' 1
t ,
D -l. '
1
40.00
2.00 4.000.00 10
4
7T.IIrO11A117 r1:N
0
1
0Ui
077103.1110.1
TOTAIS
Ii
•7,961.79
77().00 64T,000r 11b 179
22,
'
1
I
HIDIVIDUAL PEr..MIT ACTIVITY REPORT
MONTH O1 OCTOBER
1487
IERMIT
4UMHER
DESCRIPTION
-
IP f NAM£/LOCAT ION •
rrrttt
(VALUATION
III
I
'oERI!IT
rttt -
ISURCHAR6E�OlUM81NG ISURGMARGr
87-1171
Detach" Garage
R 'RiChrd Corl.on/400 E. 3rd at.
5 3,000.00
6 30.00
S 1.50
87«1123
OPon Porch Cncloaure
At Gordon Hoglund/110 E. Oakwood Or:'
1,500.00
25.00
1.00 '
87.1174
NOW. Roo! Shingle
-
R.Piacamant
At OPal Stokes/215 Locust at.
2,500.00
25.00
1.00
97«7125
Ham. Siding Replacement
John malar/lIt Millcraat Road
2,500.00
25.00
1.00
87-1126
Detached Garages
R 8.0.68. Properties/201 W. River at.
12,000.00
133.00`
6.00.
87.1127
Back
&I Morgan Clarity/3 Alvar.lda Clrcls
61000.00
40.00
2.00 -
87.1128
Mows Siding Raplaceaent
At JAms. King/648 Wet Broadway
6,200.00
100.60
4.10
87-1129
Detached Storage BNildiny
Roger Lindgren/1604 N. River at.
1,500.00
15.00
.50 '
07.1110
Mouse G Garage Realding
and R.ahingle
JOlks Pet.t'SOh,1530 Rivervlev.Dl*
10,200.00
117.00
5.10
B7«1131
Park GO.Wo
City of tonticallo/911 E. River At.
9,000.00
108.00
4.50 '
87, ,31
No W. G Carag. aseiding
aarri.11 Magnuson/313 E. 3rd at.
1.1
3,000.00
30.00
1.50
87-1131
Wraheua Building
03W2805 W. Co. Rd. 75
476,600.00
1,964.60
239.30 129,00 1.50
87-1114
Attached Gers91
Candl Thl1Out.t/116 had-. Lna
4,000.00
40.00
2,00
TOTAL
$541,000.00
62,655.40
6269.30 629.00 1.50
PLAn 11Eyi EW
••
87.1133
W lh- Building
1 NSP/2605 W. Co. Rd, 75
3 1,276.99
i
. TOTAL PLN REVIEW
6 1,216.99
TOTAL REVOIUE
3 4,231.19