Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 12-14-1987AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, December 14, 1987 -• 7:30 p.m. :. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Pran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held November 23, 1987, and the Special Meeting Held December 7, 1987. 3. Citizens Comments/Petition, Requests, and Complaints. 4. Consideration of Variance Appeal to Allow Construction of a Building Addition Within the Sideyard Setback Requirements. Applicant, American Legion Post #260. 5. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Auction Sales in a B-3 (highway business) Zone. Applicant, Martie's Farm Service. 6. Consideration of Feasibility Study on East County Road 39 Improvements and Calling for a Public Hearing. 7. Consideration of Setting a Public Hearing on the Proposed Downtown Streetscapes Improvement Project. 8. Consideration of Approving change Order 42 and Authorizing Final Payment on the 1986-7 Project - S 6 L Excavating. 9. Consideration of Well and Pumphouse Improvements for 1988 and Review of Cost Estimates. 10. Consideration of Replacement Tractor, Mower, Snowblower for the Public Works Department. 11. Consideration of Appointment of Operator/Mechanic Position. 12. Consideration of Ratifying 1988 Salary/Wagee for Non -Union Employees. 13. Consideration of Approving Inter -Fund Transfers for 1987. 14. Approval of Bills for the Month of December. 15. Adjourn. MINUTES RDGUI 4R MEETING - MONTICELI.O CITY COUNCIL Monday, November 23, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan Blonigen, Warren Smith Members Absent: None. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 9, 1987. Citizens Comments/Petition, Requests, and Complaints. Mr. Roger Belsaas, Vice President of the Monticello Lions Club, appeared before the City Council to seek permission for the Lions Club to proceed with their planned dedication for the new Monticello bridge. Mr. Belsaas indicated that the Lions Club had participated in the dedication of the old bridge in 1929. At this time, the Lions Club has not designated a date for the planned dedication. John Simola stated that the bridge completion is expected to be in August or September of 1988. The City Council granted permission to the Lions Club to proceed with their plans for the dedication of the new bridge in 1988. They also suggested that the Lions Club work with John Simola. Joy Swenson, President of the Historical Society, appeared before the City Council and requested the granting of a gambling license for pull tabs at the Legion Club. With no further discussion, Fran Fair made a motion to take no action in regards to opposition of granting a gambling license for the historical society. Warren Smith seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Consideration of General Concept Stage Review of PUD Known as Highland Heights one. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Company. Mr. Dennis Taylor, representing George Rivera, appeared before the City Council and reviewed the general concept known as the Highland Heights One. 'he general concept stage shows only how the developer could service the property from existing cervices. This planned unit development was reviewed by John Simola, Gary Anderson, and OSM engineers. John Simola indicated two concerns about the planned unit development. one was the need to upgrade Marvin Road to the City standards at least the length of the development from Highway 25. The second concern is the possible congestion of traffic at the intersections on Highway 25. Ibis is due to the number of driveways and the location of the driveways as planned. Council Minutes - 11/23/87 Of concern by the City Council was how this development would be served by water and sewer. John Simla said to serve the development with water and sewer, a lift station would be required, either a temporary lift station or a long-term lift station. John further indicated to the City Council that the determination of the lift station would be addressed with the preliminary plat stage. Fran Fair made a motion to approve the general concept stage review of a planned unit development to be known as Highland Heights One. Warren Smith seconded the motion. with no further discussion, the motion passed 5-0. Consideration of Preliminary Plat Review of a Proposed New Subdivision Plat. Applicant, City of Monticello. The City of Monticello is proposing to replat Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, into six smaller lots. To replat these into six smaller lots, we require a subdivision plat to accompany this. A preliminary plat has been prepared by Dennis Taylor, Taylor Land Surveyors, and meets all the minimum requirements for a preliminary plat stage. The rationale behind reducing the lot sizes is to increase the marketability of our property. The total cost for the improvements is approximately $75,000. In order for the City to recover their cost of the project, the City is looking to sell the lots for approximately $15,000 per acre. John Badalich suggested for cost effectiveness the City combine this bid with another spring project bid. Bill Fair made a motion to approve the preliminary plat review of the proposed new subdivision plat. Fran Fair seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the motion passed 5-0. 6. Consideration of Sketch Plan Review for a Proposed New Subdivision Plat. Applicant, Tom Brennan. Mr. Tom Brennan appeared before the City Council and presented a sketch plan for his unplatted land west of Minnesota Street. 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). This unplatted land consists of slopes and drop-offs. Mr. Brennan's plans are to grade the area, construct cul-de-sacs, and construct walkout dwellings to best utilize the contour of the land. The City Council informed Mr. Brennan of the City Ordinance for park dedication of a new subdivision. The ordinance states the developer shall provide developable land or cash equivalent to 10 percent of raw land cost. Warren Smith made a motion to approve the sketch plan review of a proposed new subdivision plat for the unplatted land west of Minnesota Street. Bill Fair seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the motion passed 5-0. 9) Council Minutes - 11/23/87 7. Consideration of Final Payment on Gazebo in Ellison Park. The City Council awarded the contract for the construction of the gazebo in Ellison Park to Blonigen Builders of Monticello. The original contract cost was $8,987 for the construction of the gazebo. However, during construction of the building, three items needed attention, therefore increasing the budget by $308 .95, bringing the total construction cost for the project to $9,295.95. The items needing attention were the roofing felt underneath the cedar shingles, additional shingles, and a block support and cedar plank to reinforce the railing. Additional features planned for the spring of 1988 are ramps, decorative sidewalks, ornamental lighting and outlets, and sealing of the structure. John Simola remarked about the good workmanship for the project; and Mayor Grimsmo indicated that the gazebo was a good fit to the environment of the park. Bill Fair rade a motion to make final payment to Blonigen Builders in the amount of $9,295.95. Fran Fair seconded the motion. with no further discussion, the motion passed 5-0. 8. Consideration of Downtown Streetscape Improvement. Koropchak informed the City Council of Monticello's Downtown Redevelopment Program or Streetscape Plan, stating the original concept was to include 1) the upgrading of pedestrian walkways, 2) the lowering of street lighting; and 3) the placement of plantings to soften the concrete or asphalt right—of-ways. On October 8, 1987, an informational meeting was held at the Monticello City Hall. Mr. Geoff Martin, Design Planner for Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban Inc. , presented the public and property owners with two new design plana; and the City staff had prepared preliminary finance options. Its result of this meeting was the establishment of a volunteer committee and the general consensus to go along with Concept A design plan. Since that time, the committee has met twice. At their last meeting held on November 12, the consnittee's general consensus was to approve the preliminary design plan as presented that day by Mr. Martin with recommendation for the City staff to prepare 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 the maintenance plan to the City Council at their November 23 meeting for recommendation, direction, or input back to the committee. This being said meeting, Mr. Geoff Martin updated the City Council on the design plan Concept A, indicating the study includes the areas of Broadway, Pine Street, and the three major downtown parking lots. The City Council reviewed the five preliminary finance plan options: Option 1 being 77 percent assessment, 23 percent ad valorem, Option 2 being 70 percent assessment, 30 percent ad valorem; Option 3 being 61 percent akasessment, 39 percent ad valorem; Option 4 being 20 percent assessment, 80 percent ad valorem; and Option 5, parking lots being 100 percent ad valorem with the remaining total project cost being 70 percent assessed and 30 percent ad valorem. Council Minutes - 11/23/87 The majority of the City Council agreed that it was time the City invested in the downtown area, that the City needed to identify their downtown area and to invest in the downtown area. Dan Blonigen did not agree with the majority of the City Council. He felt the cost of the project outweighed its benefits and that it was designed to help a few individual businesses. Mayor Grimsmo stated he was sorry to see that the concept did not include apartments above buildings. Fran Fair agreed with Arve Grimsmo and also indicated that with the improvement of downtown, individual businesses would be encouraged to upgrade their store fronts. The City Council continued to discuss the 20 percent assessment and the 80 percent ad valorem. Dan Blonigen indicated he could consider 50/50, but not 20/80. Koropchak further presented an option for the City Council to consider. The option included Block 35 store backs. The concept would be for the property owners to grant the City an easement for parking and landscaping and for the City to maintain. General consensus of the City Council was that the item was a separate issue to be assessed differently. Stan Douglas of Golden Valley Furniture suggested that a City Council member or a City staff member poll the property owners to see whether they were in favor or not in favor of such a project. :fie City Council agreed that this was a good idea after costs have been determined. Fran Fair made a motion to recommend to the committee Option 4, 20 percent assessment and 80 percent ad valorem based on the preliminary figures excluding Block 35 store back improvements and this without commitment by the City Council. Warren Smith seconded the motion. The City Council requested that the City Administrator confirm the figures and determine the increase of property tax for a $50,000 home. Voting in favor of the motion was Arve Grimsmo, Bill Fair, Fran Fair, and Warren Smith. Voting in opposition of the motion was Dan Blonigen. 9. Consideration of Update on Old Highway 25 Bridge. Since August of 1987, John Simola has been in contact with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and other parties involved who make a determination as to whether or not the City of Monticello could retain the old highway bridge as an extension of the west Bridge Park. Mr. Simola began working with Johnson Brothers Construction and their bridge engineers to determine whether or not the two bridges could remain in place. Johnson Brothers prepared a plan showing the revamping of the approach abutment to the old bridge. This plan was presented to the Minnesota Department of Transportation on September 2, 1987. The general consensus of all parties involved at that time was that they agreed that the project appeared feasible. Research was done on the liability question of the bridge. Liability premiums generally don't go up unless there is a significant exposure to potential liability. The liability risk could be reduced significantly by proper inspection, engineering and maintenance, and pedestrian protection could limit the liability. Options were to consider saving the entire bridge or to save three spans of the bridge. Preliminary estimates to obtain the whole bridge and have it in good serviceable condition i Council Minutes - 11/23/87 would be in the neighborhood of $132,000; and very preliminary estimates indicate the City would need to set aside approximately $10,000 per year to maintain the whole bridge for the future. This completes a very brief summary on the research to save the Monticello bridge . At the City Council meeting, John Simola reported that as of Friday, November 21, 1987, all indications were go ahead for the City to acquire the bridge. At 4:30 p.m. on Monday, November 23, John received a telephone call from Jim LaBoe stating MN/DOT will not sell the bridge to Monticello. Mr. LaBoe's two main reasons for not selling the bridge were 1) the benefit to the contractor. The original contract called for the construction of a new bridge and the demolition of the old bridge. 2) The second reason was the amount of paperwork required. With the last minute turn of events, John Simola recommended that Johnson Brothers Construction demolish the bridge. Mayor Grimsmo thanked John Simola for his time and research and further indicated he was going to recommend to the City Council to dismiss the idea of saving the bridge because of the lack of public interest. Bill Fair made a motion to abandon the idea of saving the bridge for an extension of the city parkway system. Fran Fair seconded the motion. John Simola reminded the City Council that the final decision to acquire the bridge was still March 14, 1988. with no further discussion, the motion passed 5-0. 10. Discussion of the Realignment of the Intersection of County Road 39 East and County Road 75. This item involves the purchase of right-of-way from Gladys Hoglund for construction of the new County Road 39 East. The City and the County would share the cost of the purchase of the right-of-way. The County appraised the agricultural land at approximately $20 ,000 per acre. Attorney Jim Metcalf, representing Gladys Hoglund, indicated there was no tax advantage for Mrs. Hoglund to sell her property. The County has addressed a letter dated November 19, 1987, with a final offer of $38,000 to purchase the land from Gladys Hoglund. Deadline for response of this letter is November 30, 1987. It is City staff's understanding that Jim Metcalf will respond to the letter of November 19. The County has gone to significant lengths to determine the fair property value and to negotiate with Gladys Hoglund. If the final offer is rejected by Gladys Hoglund, the County's decision is to proceed with condemnation of the property. At this time, the County requests support from the Monticello City Council to 1) delay the project] or 2) support the County's decision for condemnation. The City needs to concern itself with the necessary improvements of utilities that would need to go in prior to the construction of County Road 39 East. The project would include watermain and sewer 9) council Minutes - 11/23/87 installation. Councilmember Bill Fair was not in favor of constructing a new road and thereafter construction of City improvements at a later date. Bill Fair made a motion to support the county's decision for condemnation should the final offer to Gladys Hoglund be rejected. The motion included the ordering of a feasibility study to serve East County Road 39 with sewer to Mississippi Drive and the setting of a public hearing at which to discuss proposed improvements. The motion was seconded by Llan Blonigen. With no further discussion, the motion passed 5-0. See Resolution 87-31. 11. Consideration of Bills for the Month of November. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of November as presented. 011ie Koropchak Economic Development Director 0 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, December 7, 1987 - 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair Members Absent: None A special meeting of the Monticello City Council was held at 6:30 p.m. on December 7, 1987, for the purpose of discussing and establishing a salary pool for 1988 salaries for non-union personnel. The Mayor called the meeting to order and briefly reviewed the procedures that have been used in the past three or four years regarding salary adjustments for non-union personnel. Mr. Grimsmo noted that in the past the Council has established a cost of living adjustment plus an additional amount of money that the Administrator has used for merit/performance pay above the estimated consumer price index. In regard to the estimated CPI index for 1988, Administrator Wolfsteller indicated that the best estimate has been placed at 5 percent and recommended that at the minimum, a 5 percent cost of living index be allowed. In addition, if the Council was agreeable to providing additional merit or performance adjustments above the cost of living, an additional percentage or dollar amount could be set up. Councilmember Blonigen had concerns about setting up a pool above 5 percent, as he felt this amount may be above what private employers are granting for increases during 1988. In addition, he had concerns for an automatic adjustment for all employees, as possibly there may be reasons for some employees not even receiving a guaranteed cost of living increase because of performance or other reasons. The Council then discussed the continuation of merit/performance increases being granted by the Administrator without guidelines being established for these increases. Mayor Grimsmo also noted that merit/performance increases should not be automatic but should relate to extra responsibility of the employee or special tasks performed or possibly longevity should be considered. It was the general consensus of the Council that in the future before merit/performance increases are considered by the Administrator, a list of criteria be established that all employees are aware of that would qualify for receiving an increase above the cost of living estimate. It was noted by the Administrator that for 1987 the expected inflation index was estimated to be 5 percent and that most employees received increases in this neighborhood. For 1987, all employees received a 4 percent adjustment for cost of living and after considering merit or performance adjustment, the majority of the employees were actually just keeping up with cost of living increases. As a result, based on the estimated CPI index for next year, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, that a total salary pool equaling 5 percent as a cost of living adjustment with an additional 1 percent be established for performance adjustment or merit increase as determined by the Administrator. All Council members were in favor except Blonigen, who felt that the 5 percent increase was more than sufficient for most employees. v Special Council Minutes - 12/7/87 The Mayor then turned the discussion to the Administrator's salary. The Administrator indicated that he had not presented a formal request for a specific dollar amount but asked that the Council consider allowing the Administrator or other employees, if they so desire, the ability to use part of the salary increases to purchase long-term disability insurance. It was noted by the Administrator that the request for the City purchasing long-term disability insurance for the affected employees would not be an increase above any dollar amount of the increase established but simply would permit an employee to add an additional benefit in lieu of a monetary raise for this benefit. Mayor Grimsmo supported an increase for the Administrator similar to the 6 percent pool established for other personnel. It was noted that school administration staff had received similar raises in the 6 percent plus area, and he felt the Administrator's salary for the City should also receive the same increase. Councilmember Smith, in noting that Wolfsteller has assumed extra duties since taking over the position as Administrator until another position is filled, also supported an increase in the 6 percent area. Councilmember Blonigen did not feel an increase of 6 percent was warranted at this time due to Wolfsteller only being promoted to the position recently and felt that more time should lapse before another increase of this nature was allowed. He indicated an increase of a lesser amount would seem more appropriate. Councilmember Bill Fair did not see any problems with supporting the 5 percent increase to cover the cost of living but felt at this time that it would be hard for the Council, as the Administrator's supervisor, to warrant a merit or performance justification, as he was new to the position and also did not feel that enough time had lapsed to allow a proper performance review. He indicated he supported a 5 percent increase rather than 6 percent, and that the Council could, during 1989 salary negotiations, review the performance of the Administrator and adjust the salary accordingly. After further discussion, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, to grant a 5 percent increase in the Administrator's salary for 1988 and allow the Administrator and other employees, if they choose, to purchase an individual long-term disability policy to be deducted from their total salaries paid by the City. Voting in favor was Bill Fair, Fran Fair, Warren Smith. opposed were Arve Crimsmo and Dan Blonigen. It was noted that the Mayor's opposition to the 5 percent increase was because he felt a 6 percent increase was warranted. Mr. Blonigen's opposition was because he felt more time should lapse before the Administrator was granted an additional raise over the recent promotion. The being no other business, the meeting was adjourned. nick Wolfstellqi City Administrator 0 Council Agenda - 12/14/87 Consideration of Variance Appeal to Allow Construction of a Building Addition within the Side Yard Setback Requirements. Applicant, American Legion Post #260. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AHD BACKGROUND: The American Legion is proposing to construct a 6 -foot addition onto the westerly portion of their building which faces Elm Street. "'he construction of this addition would be within the sideyard setback requirement. The two existing entries on the westerly portion of the building are already 2 1/2 feet encroachment within the sideyard setback requirement. The encroachment which the American Legion is applying for is to be within 11 feet of the sideyard setback requirement. You will note that construction has already begun with the footings and foundation wall for the proposed addition. Mr. Floyd Markling, representing the American Legion, went to each of the City Council members and supposedly did receive permission from each of the City Council members to proceed with the construction of the building addition, footings, and foundation wall. However, Mr. Markling also indicated that the consent he received from each of the City Council members was only to have the building addition footings and foundation wall installed. He also indicated that when his variance request comes before the City Council at their December 14, 1987, meeting, if the City Council decided to deny his variance request, Mr. Markling indicated that r,fter that time the footings and the foundation wall that are currently installed would be covered over. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1 . Approve the variance request to allow construction of a building addition within the sideyard setback requirement. 2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of a building addition within the sideyard setback requirement. C. STAFF RFX.'O14iFNDATION: City staff reenmmends denial of the variance request to allow construction of the building addition Within the sideyard setback requirement. City staff feels that we see no hardship created by this variance request to allow an addition to be put on to the existing building when adequate ingress and egress to this building through the existing entries already constructed within the sideyard setback requirement are sufficient. However, your decision may differ from our recommendation in that our recommendation is based on the failure of the applicant to demonstrate the hardship in hie variance request. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the variance request) Copy of the site plan. ME 4`• `` _ _ R A variance request to allow construction of a building addition Z.n the Prontyard setback `r nir t. ._ . erican n Post 0260 0 0 Council Agenda - 12/14/87 Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Auction Sales in a B-3 (highway business) Zone. Applicant, Martie's Farm Service. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Martie's Farm Service is proposing to conduct auction sales at their current facility for the purpose of selling baled quantities of hay and straw. Auction sales are an allowable use in a B-3 (highway business) zone only as a conditional use. These conditions, as indicated under the conditional use section for auction sales, deals primarily with activities of an auction sale around the entire site of the proposed auction sale. Most of these conditions deal with conditions that would have to be addressed if this property abutted any residential zone. With this not the case, the majority of these conditions do not apply to this particular conditional use request. Mr. Martie has found a need for this type of service at his current facility to service the need of his existing customers. Mr. Martie is proposing to conduct the auction sales, which may last from one to two hours at the most, depending on the quantities of hay and straw he has to sell. These would be conducted in bi-monthly or monthly auction sales depending on the need. If these were allowed and would continue on to next year, they would start on or shortly after ".hanksgiving and continue until the first part of March. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow auction sales in a 0-3 (highway business) zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow auction sales in a B -i (highway business) zone. C. STAFF RECOMMPNDATION: City staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow auction sales in a D-3 (highway business) zone. City staff recognizes that many of the conditions under the auction sales section in our ordinance are not applicable in this case. However, should development occur to the west of this site, the applicant is aware that some of these conditions may kick in on or before that time. Staff also recommends that the conditional use be granted for a period not to exceed one year at which time it will be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and with no complaints or conflicts arising from this type of event that it be allowed to he renewed. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the conditional use request[ Copy of conditions under auction sales section in B-3 zoning. -2- _ I . No outside pens or kennels. 1 2. Annual inspection by City Health Officer at owner's expense. 3. All animals must be leashed. 4. Treatmant would be limited to small domesticated animals. S. Sideyard setbacks would be 20 feet instead of 10 feet. 6. No outside storage of carcases. JK7 Commercial Storage contained entirely within a building. [Lj Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this Ordinance. [MJ Consignment Auction Sales and/or Auct`.on Sales. 1. The architectural appearance and function pian of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonabals distance of the lot. 2. At the boundaries of residential districts, a strip of not lose than S' shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 M of this Ordinance. 3. Any light standard islands and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. 4. parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section S IG) of this Ordinance. S. parking areas and driveways shall comply with Chapter 3. Section S [0]. 6. vehicular access points shall be limited. shall create a minimum of conflict through traffic movemants, shall comply with Chapter 3. Saction S of this Ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the City _ Engineer. 0 7. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed 1 that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence, and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [91 of this Ordinance. S. The entire area shall have drainage system ' which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. All signing and information or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9. 10. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 11. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. 12. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G) of this Ordinance. 13. Outside sales connected with the principal use is limited to 30% of the groes floor area of the principal building. This percentage may be increased as a condition of the conditional use permit. 14. Outside sales areas may not take up parking space as required for conformity to the ordinance requirement. 15. No pets or livestock may be sold at this auction sales facility. 16. Provisions must be made to control and reduce noise when adjacent to a residential zoning district. 17. All outside storage shall be effectively screened from publicview in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (0), and limited to 10% of the gross floor area of the principal use building. nP 0 Council Agenda - 12/14/87 6. Consideration of Feasibility Study on East County Road 39 Improvements and Calling for a Public Hearing. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last meeting in November, the City Council ordered the City staff to proceed with the utility improvements for East County Road 39 to the area near Mississippi Drive. OSM will present their feasibility study at Monday evening's meeting. As we discussed at that last meeting, I prepared a questionnaire along with a letter of explanation to those residents between Mississippi Drive and the eastern city limits. Since there has been some interest by the tree farm and Mr. John Sandberg, I also sent them a questionnaire. Copies of the blank questionnaire and letter are enclosed for your review. At the time of the drafting of this agenda supplement, we have received several of the questionnaires back. The majority of the questionnaires at this time indicate positive results for extension of sewer and water to the eastern city limits. I will have a tabulation of the results of these questionnaires at Monday evening's meeting. If the majority of the people in that area are in favor of utility extension, the City Council could request that the feasibility study be modified to include extension of services beyond Mississippi Drive to the eastern border of the city limits. This modified feasibility study could then be presented at the January 11, 1988, meeting just prior to a public hearing on the subject. 01 At this time, I have not received preliminary information from OSM as to the content of the feasibility study to Mississippi Drive. I have, however, included for your review a short, simple. feasibility study I did for the Gladys Hoglund property which I presented to James Metcalf. This simple feasibility study could give you some food for thought for Monday evening's meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. The first alternative could be to accept the feasibility study to Mississippi Drive and order a public hearing on the proposed improvements for the January 11 meeting. 2. The second alternative, if the results from the questionnaire warrant it, would he to modify the feasibility study to include utility service to the eastern boundary of the city limits. OSM would need some direction as to the area to be studied, whether it would be only the city itself or a portion of the OAA area in addition to the city property. This modified feasibility study would be due January 11 and would be presented just prior to a public hearing on the proposed improvements. -3- • Council Agenda - 12/14/87 3. The third alternative could be to not accept the feasibility study and to delay the installation of improvements. This would not be in the best interest of the City of Monticello or Wright County and could present problems with the County Road 39 improvement project itself. C. STAFF REXXMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the public works Director that the Council consider either alternative number one or number two depending upon the outcome of the questionnaire summery. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of simple feasibility study for Gladys Hoglund property, copy of questionnaire sent to East County Road 39 residents: Resolution for adopt ion. Pnone (512) 295-271, Metro (612) 9733779 November 30, 1987 Mayo,: Am Grin»mo Gly nS. lonven Mr. Jim Metcalf Fran Fair 313 West Broadway Wi liamFait Monticello, MN 55362 Warren Smda City 4 Monticello MONTICELLO, MN 553829245 Dear Jim: Administrator: a¢x Watstener This is intended to be a "very rough" initial feasibility study of PUblW Woes: proposed improvements to the service road and County Road 39. They Jona S+,rw+a are based upon your engineer's statements that sewer is not needed cae�n�a �rq: along County Road 39 for the full length and you can pick up sewer Economic Development: near Mississippi Drive. The costs do not include engineering, ,sore KOMM21811, inspections, legal or bonding costs, which could add another 20-258. Also, the actual assessments would be determined later, especially the assessments, if any, for sewer near the intersection of Mississippi Drive. Sincerely, John E. Simola Public Works Director DESA d Enclosure cc: File 250 East Broo0wev Moacao, Minnesota )/ ROUGH COST ESTIMATE UTILITIES COMM ROAD 39 EAST AND SERVICE ROAD November 30, 1987 SERVICE ROAD UTILITIES I. Water 132 ft. 8" PVC Main @ $19.50 ft. " S 2,574.00 1. 635 lin. ft. 8" D.I.P. water main @ $ 15 ft. _ $ 9,525.00 2. 90 lin. ft. 6" D.I.P. water service @ $14 ft. $ 1,260.00 3. 2 - 6" valves @ $300 ea. S 600.00 4. 2 - 8" valve @ S400 ea. S 800.00 5. 1 - 2" corp @ $200 = S 200.00 6. 1 - 2" curb stop @ $300 $ 300.00 7. 15 lin. ft. 2" copper @ $12 ft. $ 180.00 8. 1 - 7.5 ft. hyd. @ $1,000 - $ 11000.00 7. 4 - 8" gatevalves (hyd.) @ $400 ea. + S13,865.00 1,600.On -,M77 Ii. Sanitary Sewer 1. 132 ft. 8" PVC Main @ $19.50 ft. " S 2,574.00 2. 30 ft. 8" PVC Stub @ $19.50 ft. $ 585.00 3. 1 - STD MH @ $950 ea. • $ 950.00 4. 3 ft. Excess MH Depth @ $55 ea, ft. _ $ 165.00 5. 1 - 8" x 4" PVC Wye @ $80 ea. • $ 80.00 6. 35 ft. 4" PVC Service Pipe @ $12 ft. $ 420.00 7. 1 - Break into Existing MH (lungs sum) • $ 250.00 B. 1 - Bituminous Restoration (lump sum) • $ 250.00 9. 1 - R 6 R Utility Pole (lump sum) • $ 500.00 lin. ft. 10" stub @ $21 ft. $ $ 5,774.00 COUNTY ROAD 39 I. Water T: -1140 ft. frontage south side, say 10" @ $21 ft. X 508 (one side) • $11,970.00 2. 350 ft. frontage north side, say 10" @ $21 ft. X 50% (one side) - $ 3,675.00 3. 4 - 7.5 ft. bury hydrants @ $1,000 aa. • $ 4,000.00 4. 40 lin. ft. 8" hyd. lead @ $18 ft. o $ 720.00 S. 20 lin. ft. 10" stub @ $21 ft. $ 420.00 6. 1 - 10" gat evalve @ S450 S 450.00 7. 4 - 8" gatevalves (hyd.) @ $400 ea. + S rn 1,600.On -,M77 1I. Sanitary Sewer at Mississipp i Drive 1. 230 tt. - 101, PVC @ $13 ft. S 5,290.00 2. 3 - STD MH' a @ $950 ea. • S 2,850.00 3. 12 ft. Excess MH Depth @ $55 ft. • S 660.00 4. Remove 80 ft. 8" PVC 6 1 MH (lump sum)- S 1,000.00 Lv� III. Forcemain T. Lover 125 ft. of 8" D.I.P. forcemain and manhole - lump sum e $ 2,000.00 2. Bypass pump during construction - lump sum S 1,500.00 3. Remove 110 ft. 8" D.I.P. forcemain @ $6 ft. S 660.00 $ 4,160.00 POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS TO BE ASSESSED SERVICE ROAD 1. Water 508 $13,865 - $ 6,932.50 2. Sewer 759 $ 5,774 - $ 4,330.50 511,263.00 COUNTY ROAD 39 1. Water @ 508 of 10" Main and 1009 Other a $22,835.00 2. Sanitary Sewer Work at Mississippi Drive Unknown TOTAL $34,098.00 C e CITY OF MONTICELLO i� EAST COUNTY ROAD 39 UTILITY EXTENSION QUESTIONNAIRE 1. I have had problems in the past with my septic tank system and would be in favor of a sanitary sewer extension. YES NO 2. I have had problems in the past with my well or well water and would be in favor of a water main extension. YES NO 3. I have had problems in the past with high ground water and would be in favor of a storm sewer or underdrain system to help alleviate the problems. YES NO 4. I have no problems with my septic tank, well, or ground water, but would be in favor of utility extensions to avoiaiiigher costs in the future and having my yard dug up again in the future. YES NO 5. I currently own undeveloped land along or near County Road 39 and would be in favor of utility extension to the city limits so that I could develop my property. YES NO 6. Comments. I understand that completing and signing this questionnaire does not obligate me in any way and that the City would determine costs through a feasibility study and hold a public hearing before considering ordering any utility extensions to my property. NAME DATE 0 RESOLUTION 87 - RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE Im:pROVEmENT OF O=M ROAD 118, 39, AND FRONTAGE ROAD WHEREAS, pusuant to resolution of the Council adopted November 23, 1987, a report has been prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, City Consulting Engineers, with reference to the improvement of County Road 118 and County Road 39 between I-94 and approximately 125 feet east of Mississippi Drive with watermain, and between Mississippi Drive and County Road 75 along new frontage road (old County Road 39) with sanitary sewer extensions and appurtenant work, and this report was received by the Council on December 14, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ?WrICELW, MINNESOTA: The Council will consider such improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the isprovement of 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement of the day of , 19 , in the Council Chambers of the Cly Haii at 7:30 p.m. ano the Admin`istrator shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the Council this 14th day of December, 1987. mayor City Administrator A Property Owner Mr.6Mrs. Krautbauer Mr.6Mrs. Stokes Esther Lund Mr.6Mrs. Burnham Mr.6Mrs. Michaelis Mr.6Mrs. Kraus Mr.6Mrs. Haaland Markcus Land 6 Oil Mr.6Mrs. Erickson' Thomas Johnson Mr.6Mrs. Kocon MN DNR Mr.6Mrs. Vanorny Mr.6Mrs. Middagh Mr.6Mrs. Pitch Patrick Blonigen Gary Host Mr.6Mrs. Peterson Joanne Ralliger John Sandberg Total - 20 6 - 1006 EAST OOURrY ROAD 39 UTILITY QUESSTIONNAIRE SUM@9ARY Favor Not in Some Type Past Favor of No of Utility Utility Any Utility Response Extension Problems Extension X X X X X X X X X Sewer/Water High Ground Water x Sewer/High Ground Water Sewer/Water High Ground Water Water/High Ground Water X Sewer/Water 5 d 256 206 t Council Agenda - 12/14/87 7. Consideration of Setting a Public Hearing on the Proposed Downtown Streetscapes improvement Project. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On October 8, 1987, the first informational meeting was held at City Hall with interested downtown business people at which time Mr. Geoff Martin, Design Planner for Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, presented two new designs on possible streetscape improvements. The general consensus at that meeting was to go with Concept A Design Plan, and a volunteer committee was established to define the design. The committee has met a number of times, most recently the day after the last Council meeting, November 24, and continued to work on refining the designs for the streetscape project. 7%e committee, as a whole, certainly seemed in favor of the Council's indication of assessing only 20 percent of the project with 80 percent being on ad valorem taxes; and 011ie has been working on an approximate assessment roll for the affected property owners based on this assumption. In refining the cost of the project, the total project has been estimated at $640,000, which would make approximately $130,688 as the assessable portion with the remainder being on ad valorem. The committee at this point feels enough information has been gathered and conveyed to the City Planner regarding the design changes and feels that an additional information/public hearing should be formally held by the Council on the proposed improvement project. In discussing the project schedule with Mr. Martin, he recommended that the Council hold a public hearing as soon as reasonably possible on the proposed iirprovement to allow his firm sufficient time to prepare plans and specifications. The committee discussed whether an informational meeting by the committee with the planner presenting the final design selected should be scheduled before the actual public hearing required by statutes for an improvement project or whether the Council public hearing would suffice. The intent of a meeting being established prior to the meeting of the Council ordering preparation of plans and spec's would be to allow the committee additional time to address any concerns or questions the property owners may have on their assessment or the project in general. The Consulting Planner recommended that if at all possible, the Council proceed with ordering plans and specifications around January 14 to allow sufficient time for their firm to complete the plans, aevertise for bids, and award a contract for early spring construction. The options exist for the Council to hold a special meeting prior to the regularly scheduled January 11 meeting for the purpose of the public hearing on the proposed improvement project or to hold a public hearing on January 11 if they feel they could also make a decision on ordering plans and specifications that night. Naturally, the other option would be to direct the committee to hold an informational meeting prior to the normal first Council meting in January at which time the committee, along with -5- Council Agenda - 12/14/87 staff, could address any concerns of the project and provide this information to the Council at the January 11 meeting, at which time preparation of plans and spec's could be ordered. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Assuming the streetscape project will proceed and be financed as a city improvement project under Chapter 429, a public hearing will eventually have to be held on the project. 1. The first alternative would be to establish a public hearing as a special meeting January 4 to allow the Council time to analyze any comments made prior to the regular Council meeting, at which time the plans and specifications could be ordered. 2. The second alternative would be to hold the public hearing at the regular Council meeting of January 11 if the Council would feel comfortable immediately after the public hearing ordering plans and specifications to proceed. 3. The third alternative would be to direct the volunteer committee to hold an informational meeting on the project prior to the January 11 Council meeting for input before the regular required public hearing of January 11. C. STAFF REC'OMENDATION: If the Council feels comfortable with the streetscape project public hearing being held on January 11 and at the same meeting order preparation of plans and specifications, I would recommend that a special meeting not be held and the public hearing be held on January 11. If there is consensus amongst the members that an additional informational meeting he held earlier than January 11 so that the Council is aware of all the input prior to ordering plans and specs, the Council could still hold a public hearing officially on January 11 but recommend to the committee that an informational meeting be held earlier at their discretion. As always, I'm certainly not in favor of holding special meetings unnecessarily, and one of these two methods would certainly eliminate the need for a special meeting and still accomplish the purpose of providing information to the public. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution setting a public hearing on the etreetscape project. -6- RESOLUTION 87- t_, R:FSOLOTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON STREETSCAPES IMPROVEMENT WHERFAS, pursuant to resolution of the Cbuncil adopted March 9, 1987, a report has been prepared by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Oban, Inc., City Consulting Planners with reference to the improvement of Broadway, River Street, and Third Street between Linn Street on the west to Palm Street on the east with sidewalk, curb, landscaping, and other appurtenant work associated with a Downtown Streetscape Improvement, and this report was received by the Council on November 23, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of such areas, including public parking lots, in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $640,000.00. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the day of January, 1988, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 p.m, and the Administrator shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law, L Adopted by the Council this 14th day of December, 1987. mayor City Acministrator Col Council Agenda - 12/14/87 8. Consideration of Approving Change Order !2 and Authorizing Final Payment on the 1986-7 Project - S 6 L Excavating. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The above referenced project has been completed and the City Engineer has recommended final payment. Project 86-7 consisted of major improvements to the Lauring Lane/Washington Street area. Included in this project were the installation of a large diameter storm sewer, curb and gutter, street construction, sanitary sewer, and water improvements, as well as the creation of a new city park. In addition, Project 86-7 extended watermain south down County Road 118 from Chelsea Road so that the new school may be served by water. Change Order +2 involves some tree removal and disposal in the area of the City's new park and additional grading that was needed along Fallon Avenue near the apartments due to the severe slope. The total value of Change Order 92 is $2,500. Due to Change Orders 1 6 2, as well as some internal project overruns and the grading of the new city park, the total project cost came to $295,837.70. This results in a final payment due the contractor, S 6 L Excavating, of $26,470.30, of which the City Engineer is recommending that the City withhold $2,000 for corrective turf restoration in 1988. Of the total construction cost, $271,640.70 is related to the Construction 5/Lauring Lane Project. The tax increment budget for this improvement with contingencies totals $271,600. we, therefore, are $40.70 over budget for this portion of the project. For the County Road 118 waternain extension, our original budgets indicated a cost of $32,060 for construction. So we are significantly under that portion of the project, as the construction cost was only $24.197. After final payment is authorized, we will assemble all of the engineering costs, testing costs, bond costs, and we will be desessing the Malone property, the Rand Mansion property, and the school for their benefiting portions of the project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative number one would be to authorize final payment to S 6 L Excavating in the amount of $26,470.30 upon receipt of the proper state documents and lien waivers. This alternative would include the withholding of $2,000 for corrective turf restoration in 1988. 2. The second alternative would be not to authorize final payment to S 6 L at this time. Since S 6 L has completed the project, this alternative does not appear to be applicable. -7- Council Agenda - 12/14/87 C. STAFF R XM94ENDATI0N: It is the recommendation of the public Works Director and City Engineer that the City Council opt for alternative number one and authorize final payment to S 6 L Excavating withholding the $2,000. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the letter from 091 corrected; Copy of the Change Order f2 corrected; Copy of the final payment schedule corrected. NOTE: The documents were corrected due to a last minute negotiation with the contractor which cut the final payment amount by $330. -a- Orr sem, Ass�am L in.tnc 2021 East Henntptn Amnut Mmneapohs, MN 55413 612.331-8660 FAX 331.3806 Engintrrs Survtyon Planners December 8, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Mnntirello, Minnesnta 55362 Re: Final Payment Construction 5/Lauring Lane Project 86.7 OSM Comm. No. 3841 Dear Mayor and Council Members: All work for the referenced projects has been completed in accordance with plans and specifications. r $26,470.70 l we hereby recommend final payment in the amount of 62649048 to S t L Excavating, 800 S. Highway 10, St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301. The original contract amount was $280,436.60 and total payments equal 6296.4040. $295,837.70. Please make payment upon receipt of State of Minnesota Form 134 (Certificate of Compliance from the Commissioner of Taxation) and lien waivers (or a sworn statement by the Contractor related to the absence of the same). As discussed in my letter to John Simola, the City may wish to withhold $2,000.00 to do any corrective turf restoration in 1988. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-14AYERON SCIAT�ES, INC. Charles A. Lepak, P. Project Engineer CAL:mlj cc: S 6 L Excavating IN 0 a C N° 1768 CONTRACTORS FOUNDED 1965 600 S. HWY. 10 ST. CLOUD, HN. 88301 (6121251-9230 City of Monticello AV" Attn: Charles Lepak Orr Schelen 14ayeion & Associates, Inc. 7m� vo.+nonin Are 1,Wtg-238 MPS MN DATE DESCRIPTION OF WORK PRICE City of Monticello Work done behind apartment building 1bursday Sept. 24 9-24 D-3 Cat 6 hours 070/hr 420.00 L-4 Loader 6 hours CB5/hr 510.00 T-2 thick 43 hours C38/hr 171 .00 T-5 truck 4j hours 0338/hr 171.00 Bobcat 3 hour 050/hr 25.00 1,29 Saturday Sept. 26 9-26 D-3 4 hours 1-2f0 290.00 Loader 4 hours GB5/hr 340.00 Truck 31j hours 438 13 753.00 Fill 180 yds 0 Sl/yd 180.00 China or dlAcMancia must be romw within 10 dap. TERMS: NET 30 d1Y8 14►IIb IntstrKst Or mash oluaps0 On pW dw IRcealaara». TOTAL I1 2,230.00 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERCIN 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021 E. HENNEPIN AVE. • SUITE 238 MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55413 CHANGE ORDER NO.2 ................ 2.500.00 s.. 2;83&46...... RE: ..Project 86-7 . .......... S & L Excavating, Inc. .......... Contractor 800 S. Highway N10 ................. I............................. St. Cloud, MN 56301 ........... ........... I......................... Dear Sir (a) Under your contract dated ........ April 27 ........................ 10..87 With ..the, Lity..of Monticello. owner for i Construction 5/Lauring Lane: Project 86-7 .. ............. we an authorlred by the owner to hereby dlmt you remove six (6) trees 65.'00 .................... ............ and et ir>Ef}.ii0•each-to .grub six (6) stumps at $66.<10. each? to regrade S L the east side of Fallon Avenue after construction of the retaining ....................................... ............................................. w a I I (see attached invoice for S2, 230.00). ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................ and to add to (fir JMW aha contract In accordance with contract and wadflnNon, do atm d Two Thousand and zero ..... I .. " " "Pt4e 'fl utfd red' end ................... . ... . / 100 Dothin There will be on extension of ..... ..... daya for complatlon. The data of cont*tloa of contract wnei-R. to 6? and cow wW he .9./30... to .�7.. A, ,. of ..Iol.N can.acr Total Addltlms Total tlaductbtt. Contact to Oat. $280,436.60I S6r43&rZ -0- I 5386.866.60 $6,100.00 9286,936.60 Approved.......................... lo.... Ra�aetfuDy !?obmltnd, � ............... I ............... I........... owns. OtR-fCHELIEN-MAYQON i ASSONAM SNC. ..................................... Par coat...,., CREST 10111 PAYMXT VDIIM Estimate Voochte No. S i Final »-• Date I Decenhir 7, 1917 For Period'Ending s November 30, 1987 - Project ttwher s 86-7 Class of York I Utility and Street Construction YTo :. S ! LExcavatinq, Inc. ------•--------..«_.....«......«---'--•••-- goo- So. wy. 1 10 Location s St. Cloud, Its. $6301 --•-.-----_-_— ------ »»_.»»_s.:»..»»_....» (612) 251.9230 For s City of Nonticello, Ytiot County, Minnesota A. original Contract Amount s 280136.60 B. Total Additions 1^. 6,100.00 -64* 0 C.O. No. 1 a 2 C. Total Dedeclioos f ... » 0.00 286,536.60 D. Total Foods Eacmbered » » » 1 .386866.61 E. Total Valae of York Certified to Date a 295,837.7096167.16 •-�.»~--«-.»..»- F. las Retained Per tatip 1 c 6 1.10 S. less Total Previous Payments / 269367.11 N. Approved for Payment, This Report 11 .76810.70. 526,170.30 I. Total Payants 10111ding This Voucher _- •«»•«......1 295.837.703WI6 A 7. Balance Carried Foreard 1 -8,971. 10 -9311.11 APPROALS ORR-SCNEIEN-MYEROI a ASSOCIATES, INC. Puraotat to out field IbsavatJan; all perloMd In accordano vi Its our eemtrul, w heeetsy Corti ly'that the materials are satisfactory-Aid the aw k properly performed +n accordance with the plan and Specifications and that the total work is IN 2 tcwjltttd as of November 8, 1167 .-W pereby rtc of oatmentof�off this':v Cher. Si0ned I....Sighed S Construction Observe This Is to certify that to the hest of my knovledq, idormation. And belief, the loantiliel ud,ealaes of work certified herein IS A fair apprmimate estimate for the period covered by this vooche3. Contrator I S i l Excavating, Inc. Sipped BY Date I Title City of Ibot+cells Voucher Checked By e Wo e hpINS ,....»�. Apposed Ger payment •-_«.�...._...»�_...»....... Aethorlal bpreantattee Date I 3811 D ----------------- Date December 7, 1987 Utility and Street Construction Project No. 66-7 for the City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota Contract Date ; April 27, 1987 York Completed : November 30, 1987 800 - so. Nty. 110 J St. Cloud, No. 56301 Ph.(612) 251-9230 Mork Started : April 30, 1981 Completion Date : August 31, 1987 York Completed Iten. Contract This Amount Total to Date No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Month This Month Guiltily Total Price ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SCNEDULE 'A' - Project No. 86.7 1 - Sanitary Sewer and Appurtenant Wort (01) B' P.V.C. OR 26 L.F. 255 16.00 (02) 10' P.V.C. SDR 26 L.F. 646 20.00 (03) Standard Manholes (8' Deep or incl Ea. 5 1000.00 (04) Elcess Manhole Depth L.F. 25 71.00 (05) O's 4' P.V.C. ores Ea. I 25.00 (06) 10'1 6' P.V.L. Vyes Ea. 3 55.00 (07) 4' P.M. Service Pipe, SDR 26 L.F. 90 9.00 (OB) d' P.M. Seruice Pipe, SDR 26 L.F. 160 10.00 (09) Granular Foundation Material C.Y. 50 .01 (10) Granular Badding Mater,ai C.Y. 50 .01 (11) Manhole Reconstruction L.F. 3 100.00 (12) Remove Pipe L.F. 50 5.60 (13) 4' Insulatice SJ . 80 5.00 (14) Lump Sun Bid Item 2-8 L.S. 1 100.00 (15) Lump sum Bid Item 2.4 L.S. 1 200.60 (Id) Lop Sun Bid Item 3r1 L.S. 1 1500.00 29226.00 Total 4mr Ito No. 1 .................................................6 0.00 4 2 - Water Main and Appurtenant live 0 0.00 792 • ................................... (17) 6' D.I.P. Class 52 L.F. 800 13.00 (10) 12' D.I.P. Class 50 L.F. 640 18.60 (19) d' Gate Value and Boles Ea. 5 300.00 (20) 12' Gate Valve and Boles Ea. 1 746.00 (21) Nydranis (8' Bury) : Waterous Pacer Only Ea. 3 1062.00 Page 2 of 5 3841 4080.00 0 0.00 244 3904.00 12920.00 0 0.00 674 13480.00 5000.00 0 0.00 5 5000.00 1775.00 0 0.00 32.6 2320.60 25.00 0 0.00 2 50.00 165.00 0 0.00 3 165.00 810.00 0 0.00 87 783.00 1600.00 0 0.00 110 1180.00 .50 0 0.00 0 0.00 .50 0 0.00 0 0.00 300.00 0 Oleo 0 0.00 250.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 400.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 300.00 0 0.00 1 300.00 1500.00 0 0.00 1 1500.00 29226.00 4 0.00 4 - 28790.60 10400.00 0 0.00 792 10296.00 12032.00 0 0.00 632 11881.60 1500.00 0 0.00 5 1500.00 746.00 0 0.00 2 1492.00 3106.00 0 0.00 3 3186.00 cs i'iu•u'vuu[nrr liP��1 �,n71�� -_�� T-... " Date : ,L,, Dicembtr 7, 1987 ---------------------------- Utility -------------------------- Ulility and Street Construction Project No. 86-7 for the City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota Item No. Itoo (22) Hydrant Ettentions (23) Value Bus Eattosidnt (24) Fittings (25) 8's 6' Cut -ins Connection (26) Conotction to 12' O.I.P. (27) 1' Corporation Stop (28) 1' Curb Stop tao got (29) 1' Copper, Type 9 (30) 2' Corporatiat Stop with Saddle (31) 2' Curb Stop and But (32) 2' Copper, lips A (33) 4' Thict Insulation Contractor S 6 L Eaurating, Int. 800 - So. a,y• e10 J St. Cloud, Mn. 56301 Ph.(612) 251-9230 Page 3 of 5 384) O -n .....................0 36219.00 4 0.00 4 36436.10 1 3082,60 lot aI for Ito No. 2 ....................... 0.00 Wort Completed Stora Drain 80 187.58 15000.00 ---------------- (34) Contract Section v/ Trata Guard This ftmmet Total to Date Unit Quantity Unit Price total Price Month This Mouth Quantity Total Price .................... L.F. yy .............................. 2p0.00 1100.00 0 .......................... 0.00 3 660.00 L.F. S 36,00 150.00 0 0.00 7.5 225.00 Etta. 2500 110 2500.00 0 0.00 2325 2325.00 Ea. 1 500.00 500.00 0 0,00 1 500.00 Ea. 1 150.00 150.00 0 0.00 1 150.00 Ea, I 25,00 25.00 0 0.00 1 25.00 Ea. ) 65.00 65.00 0 0.00 1 6100 L.F. 80 9,50 760.00 0 0.00 68 646.00 Ea. 3 150.00 450.00 0 0.00 5 750.00 Ea. 3 100.00 300.00 0 0.00 5 500.00 L.F. 170 11.50 1955.00 0 0.00 163 1874.50 S.F. B0 $.D0 400.00 0 0.00 72 360.011 Page 3 of 5 384) O -n .....................0 36219.00 4 0.00 4 36436.10 1 3082,60 lot aI for Ito No. 2 ....................... 0.00 3 - Stora Drain 80 187.58 15000.00 ---------------- (34) 7's 3' End Section v/ Trata Guard Ea. (35) 7'-0' a 3'-0' Boy Culutrt L.F. (36) 71,31 Bot to 60' Elliptical transition (8' Lo.) Ea. (37) 60' Elliptical to 60' Circular lrausition (6' Lg.)Es. (38) 60' A.C.P. Clea 11 L.F. (39) lot Manhole 0.00 Ea. (40) 12' A.C.P. Class III L.F. (41) 15' A.C.P. Citta III L.F. (42) 27' O.C.P. Class 111 L.F. (43) 27' A.C.P. Class IV L.F. (44) 30' Q.C.P. Class IV L.F. (45) 12' A.C.P. Class III Catch Ass in Liao► L.F. (46) Standard Writ Orcin Manholtt Ea. Page 3 of 5 384) O -n .....................0 36219.00 4 0.00 4 36436.10 1 3082,60 3062.60 0 0.00 1 3002.60 80 187.58 15000.00 0 O AO 80 15000.00 1 3155.00 3155.00 0 0.00 1 3155.00 1 3155,00 3155.00 0 0.00 1 3155.00 256 101.00 25056.00 0 0.00 258 26058.00 1 1685.00 1685.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 45 22.00 990.00 0 0.00 42 924.00 20 22.00 460.00 0 0.00 O 0.00 393 30.10 11790.00 0 0.00 341 11730.00 240 34.50 8260.00 0 0.00 220 7590.00 30 42.40 1240.00 0 0.00 95 4085.00 200 22.00 4400.00 0 0.00 288 6336.00 5 1000.00 5000.00 0 O b 6.5 6500.00 Estimate Voucher No.� 5 6 Final ---'^--------------------- pate : Decenber J, I9bJ utility aid Street Construction Project No. 86.7 for the City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota Item No. Item (47) tsceu Manhole Depth (48) Catch Basins, 4'-0' Dia. 449) Catch Basins, 2's 3' (50) Luny Sun Bid Item 1-4 (51) Remove gad Salvage Pipe (Ail Sires) (52) Class II Rip Rap with Cement Grout Contractor i S 4 L Excavatingi Inc. 1 800 - So. Noy. 110 St. Cloud, Mn. 56301 Pb.(612) 251-9230 Total for Item No. 3 ................................................1 92883.60 s 0.00 4 - Street Construction and Restoration (53) Cannon Excavation (E.V.) C.Y. (54) Work Completed L.F. (55) Contract L.F. This Amount Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Month This Mmnth ----------------------------------------------------------- L.F. 2 80.00 160.00 0 0.00 Ea. 2 900.00 1800.00 0 0.00 Ea. 5 600.08 3000.00 0 0.00 L.S. 1 500.00 500.00 0 0.00 L.F. 160 12 1920.00 0 0.00 C.Y. 32 42.5 ............ 1360.00 0 ............ 0.00 Total for Item No. 3 ................................................1 92883.60 s 0.00 4 - Street Construction and Restoration (53) Cannon Excavation (E.V.) C.Y. (54) Remove Curb and Butter L.F. (55) Saw Cut Bituminous (Full Opts) L.F. 456) Granular Fill hoose Volume) C.Y. (57) Class 5 Ton (56) 12331 Bituminous Base Course, Incl. Bitm,nout 0 0.00 Material for Misture Ton (59) 02341 Bi luminous Waring Course, Incl. Bituminous 2100.00 490 Material for Mi.ture tom (60) 12357 Bi tminous TO Coat Gal. (61) 8616 Curb and Butter L.F. (62) Concrete Drivway Enlrantes (0' Thicsness) S.Y. (63) God (Incl. 4' of Topton) S.Y. (64) Seeding (Inti. 4' 04 Topso l) Ac. (65) Remove Bituminous Pavement S.Y. (66) Value Bos Adjustments Ea. (67) Manhole Adjustments (a. (68) Erosion Barriers L.F. 469) Crushed Rock for Driveways ton (70) Bituminous Spillway 2'e 5' L.F. (71) Clearing ad Grubbing L.B. t;•lot al for Item No. 4hice ... �./ 4 0( 5 - 3041 Total to Dale Quantity Total Price .................... 0 0.00 3 2700.00 7 4200.00 0 0.00 160 1920.00 28.5 1211.25 Is 97646.85 13000 1.33 17290.00 IIID 1476.30 10410 13845.30 20 2.00 40.00 0 0,00 90 100.00 1200 .75 900.00 0 0.00 1250 937.50 700 3.00 2100.00 490 1470.00 1320 3960.00 2400 4.40 10560.00 0 0.00 2447 10764.80 1000 18.00 18008.00 0 0.00 943 17334.00 600 21.20 16960.00 0 0.00 OU. 29 16153.35 400 1.10 440.00 400 440.00 400 440.00 3600 4.10 15804.00 0 0.00 2400 14212.00 100 IBM 1850.00 0 0.00 190 3515.00 2000 1.92 3840.00 975 1672.00 6325 12144.00 1 4085.00 4085.00 1 4085.00 1 4065.00 1100 1.00 1100.00 0 0.00 1594 1594.00 2 75.00 150.00 I 150.00 2 150.00 3 150.00 450.00 2 300.00 3 450.00 840 1.50 1200.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 60 9.95 597.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 80 7.00 Sd0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 900.40 900.00 0 0.00 1 900.00 ...........• 96906.00 4 9793.20 1 102666.95 Estimate Voucher No. 5 6 Final Data Camber 7, 1981 ----------------------------------------- Utility and Street Construction Project No. 86-7 to the City of Monticello, Yriot County, Minrosota Ilia , No. 1 t em Contractor : S 6 L Excavating, Inc. J SOD - So. lady. 110 St. Cloud, Mn. 56301 Ph.(612) 251-9230 York Completed Contract Ibis Anount Total to Date Unit Quantity Wit Price Total Price Month This Month Quantity Total Price -----------•-------------------------•------------------------------•------------------------------•--•---- ---------------•------•------- O Total for Schedule 'A' ( I Ito 1 thru 4) ..............................t 255234.60 1 9793.30 1 265540.70 SCMEDULE 'B' - Alternate Add, Project No. 87.1 I - Yater Main and Appurtenant Worts ------------------------------------ (72) 16' D.I.P. Class SO L.F. 720 27.00 19440.00 0 0.00 (73) 6' O.I.P. Class 52 L.F. 20 25.00 500.00 0 0.00 (74) 16' Butter4l) Valve ono Boa Ea. 1 1500.00 1500.00 0 0.00 (75) 6' Gate Valve and Box Ea. 1 300.00 200.00 0 0.00 (76) Nydran1 (B' Burr): Mueller Can tur an Only Ea. 1 1062.00 1062.00 0 0.00 (17) Valve Boa Extensions I.F. 5 30.00 151.00 0 0.00 176) Fittings lbs. 1800 1.25 2250.00 0 0.00 -- - Total for Alternate Schedule '8' - Project No. 87.1 .................1 25202.00 6 0.00 Total for Schedule 'A' - Protect No, 06-7 ...........................1 255234.60 6 9793.30 Total for Sctedule 'A' and Schedule 'B' .............................1 280436,60 9793.30 Change Order No. 1 3600.00 0.00 Change Order Ito. 2 2830 AO 2,500 3870.00 2, 50 Total to Date.......................................................1 -2s"A0 / 4 2'620,21 286,536.60 12,293.30 Page 5 of 5 3841 9 730 19710.00 12 300.00 I 1500.00 I 300.00 I 1067,00 0 O.OD 1060 1325.00 1----24197.00 1 265540.70 1 289737.70 3600,00 0 -5820.00 2,500 4 '"m4hill 295, 837. 70 Council Agenda - 12/14/87 Consideration of Well and Pumphouse Improvements for 1988 and Review of Cost Estimates. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In July of 1985 when reviewing the water system study, we discussed the need for an additional well, as maximum daily water usage during peak times was over 1 1/4 million gallons and approaching 1 1/2 million gallons. In 1986, the City Council authorized OSM to prepare plans and specifications for the necessary water improvements. At the time of the water study, the estimated cost of the new well and punphouse was $190,000 plus engineering, etc. In 1986, we drilled one test well near the water reservoir which indicated a lower quality well than those in the downtown area. In order to achieve 1,000 gallons per minute in the area of the reservoir from the new well, it would be necessary to gravel pack the well, which will mean more maintenance in the long run. At this time, we decided to spend a few thousand dollars and drill another test well near the freeway to determine if we could place a new well on the site without the gravel packing. This test well indicated similar conditions to the first boring. Because of the pending water improvements, we decided to hold off on the 7 -year routine maintenance for well number one, as it costs several thousand dollars to pull the turban purtpr and it would be necessary to pull it to upgrade it for a higher pressure. In 1967, we found ourselves with a well that was two years overdue for maintenance and were pupping so much water during the middle of the summer that one well could not keep up. We asked the community for a voluntary odd/even sprinkling ban, and they cooperated. Although the results were less than anticipated, we were able to make it through the summer without actual water rationing. In order to have a well and purphouse in operation for our peak usage in ,7uly and August, it would be necessary to begin construction very early in 1988. I, therefore, asked OSM to prepare an updated cost estimate for the well and punphouse. The anticipated costs are as follows: well $ 64,000 pumphouse S 72,000 Equipment $ 64,000 Site Work $ 21,000 TOTAL Contingencies 109 S 22,100 Design Engineering 6 Field Engineering $ 36,465 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 6 ENGINEERING COST $279,565 -9- A Council Agenda - 12/14/87 By adding bonding costs and such, we could be up in the area of $290,000 for this project. In order to fund this project, it would be necessary to 1) hold a referendum, or 2) significantly increase the water rates through a revenue bond, or 31 roll it into an improvement project such as the East County Road 39 utility improvements whereby it would be performed under Chapter 429 aired at least 20 percent of the overall project would be assessed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to call for a public hearing on January 11 for the proposed water well and pumphou se improvements with the idea of combining them with the East County Road 39 utility improvements. Since the plans and specifications have already been ordered sometime ago, they could be finished in early January and we could let bids most likely in February or early March. 2. The second alternative would be to call for a public hearing for the project on January 11 utilizing the rate increase and revenue bonds. 3. The third alternative would be to do nothing at this time but wait until we can do the entire water improvement project. This does not appear practical, as I feel we have a need to guarantee at this time an adequate supply of water to the city residents even if it still is at a lower pressure. C. STAFP REOOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director and, I believe, the City Engineer that the Council proceed with a public hearing for this improvement as outlined in alternative number one. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Please refer to your July 1985 copy of the water etudyr OSM will be bringing additional information for Monday evening's meeting. -10- Council Agenda - 12/14/87 10. Consideration of Replacement Tractor, Mower, Snowblower for the Public Works Department. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE. AND BACKGROUND: Due to the ever increasing amount of turf that the City maintains, City staff looked at the possibility of adding an additional mower for the Parks Department. The actual need for an additional piece of equipment was compounded by the fact we were having problems with the Allis Chalmers tractor mower. The Allis Chalmers was purchased on a low bid back in 1982. It was purchased with a 4 -wheel drive option and an underslung mower with cab and blower. The factory did not offer the underslung mower on the 4 -wheel drive tractor. Big Lake Equipment, however, modified the tractor and mower to make it usable. We have encountered several problems with the Allis Chalmers over the past few years. The high center of gravity makes it extremely susceptible to roll over on steep slopes, and it was rolled over in 1984. In addition, the mower has not worked out well in the fact that it has no clearance top or bottom and does not fit well under the tractor. Therefore, it has been subjected to damage at many times and is almost impossible to get properly adjusted for a level cut. It has, therefore, been the least used mower in our fleet, while the other two tractor mowers have seen more extensive use. During the preparation of the budget for 1987, we placed $6,500 in the Park Fund for the purchase of an additional mower. During the summer of 1987, we looked at the many options available to us. We felt that wider mowers would increase production time, and there were a great number of front mounted mowers on the market which would enhance our mowing capabilities. They all, however, had drawbacks in that they must be transported from site to site with a trailer and/or pickup. We then looked at another tractor/mower unit, but we always kept coming back to the problems encountered with the Allis Chalmers, so no decisions were really made on which way to go. This fall, with the installation of the new computer systems, we have a program which can assist us with such decisions. The project scheduler enabled us to plug in all of the mowing sites throughout the city, the times at which they must be mowed, the time of travel between the sites, and come up with a schedule by which all of the mowing could be accomplished with the least manhours and least pieces of equipment. The computer told us that during peak times of the year, we only needed three pieces of equipment and that during much of the year we would, indeed, have a backup unit with the third unit. We, therefore, revised our thinking feeling that we could do without a backup unit for mowing during the peak times. If all pieces were in good operating condition, there would be no need for a fourth unit. We began looking at which unit to replace, the Allis Chalmers or the Bolens. Although the Bolens tractor sm C Council Agenda - 12/14/87 is older than the Allis Chalmers, we have encountered very little problem, if any, with the tractor unit itself and it is currently in good operating condition. It did not appear practical to replace the Allis Chalmers at this time with another 4 -wheel drive tractor of similar capabilities only with a lower center of gravity and larger mower. The cost at this time would be exorbitant. We, therefore, look to modifying the John Deere tractor we have and fitting it with a snowblower and cab so that it could take the place of the Allis Chalmers; and the Allis Chalmers could be traded in in 1988 for a piece of mowing equipment with a wider mower but less the 4 -wheel drive, the snowblower, and the cab. In summary, our plans are for this year to purchase a snowblower, cab and heater, and wheel weights for our existing John Deere tractor and to look at replacement of the Allis Chalmers next year within the 1988 budget constraints and utilizing a less expensive piece of equipment with greater capabilities. Estimated- prices for the blower for the John Deere tractor are $2,150. The price for a cozy cab with heater, wipers, and defrosters is $2,175, making the total cost $4,325. This is approximately $2,200 under the amount budgeted for 1987. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize the purchase of the snowblower and cab for the John Deere tractor at a cost of $4,325. 2. The second alternative would be not to purchase the snowblower and cab but to look at purchasing a fourth unit or modifying another existing unit for some other option. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: it is the recotmwndation of the Public Works Director and Park Superintendent that the council authorize the purchase of the snowblower and cab at a cost of 84,325 as outlined in alternative number one. We will then look at replacing the Allis Chalmers next year as outlined above and will bring that back before the Council sometime in 1988. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of information on the snowblower. *NOTE: TWO QUOTES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE MEETING. -12- IV -- AZ-7� SNOW BLOWERS FOR UTILITY TRACTORS FEATURES 665 Co. be moremed on Category l 3•pdnt hitch; o, ort from of 660.000 a, (050 Thww (hont•moum kit required) Cutting Width -6% last 104nch-dismoter dlschargn ,.hula M101409200 dagger, manually or W nh hydrerdic morn. 71ro.atsge nasion Bavet-goer drat Optb,W S lion dackrr for additlOnai cordrol d lams atba chole Fib 660 through 1490 (except 636) and 2100 Thictom 40 676 WriW 6% -tent dumhlg s4dth i0m4ruh-0ymonr discharge chub can be rotated manualty Or hydreulkatiy Fluted spirsi sugar for rigidity and edreea resistance Individual &hoar bolts On blaaer and sugar s,rfflw ra provide added protection Iwo -$I"* dp*W for feed, efnclern anew removal I h,eopoanWn datiacum or 1lydravk '"Map control iota you out show whale ynu mann It Mourns on 1260, 1460, 11100, 31110 and 2380 pact" With Category 1, 2 or 2 Cuts. Coupler 31*fd talon ow 64&nPn OW PTD 47• end $9•inCh Shaanbolt lad was, for added dunWdntr Maeeopbnp, U•(otmed drlva&haft for egbr hookup and removal Hydraulic #trout rotation of 300 riearNr# /wo'atapa de ign� with 16-Inch.diesrtar sugar and 1m11sllw elorm-peer dreg With clundo eust4mn housing Throo,l)"tlon skull shop adjustable Now deflector ape,n Taro drift knives O1114nch modal can be mounted on from of 050 and 760 Dwwm puipped with aptle" ham Piro: also operates all m14. Oto of 684 Tiaeto*. a7.if attest ope,W# an wddaTO of 466. 706 and 666 Aactoa Council Agenda - 12/14/87 11. Consideration of Appointment of Operator/Mechanic Position. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As was discussed at a previous Council meeting, Jerry Schmidt is retiring effective January 1, 1988. The city staff placed advertisements in the local paper as well as the Minneapolis Star and Tribune to fill the vacant position. The closing date for applications was November 18. We received 103 applications for the position. A committee made up of myself, Rick Wolfsteller, and Roger Mack reviewed each application and resume separately. This proved to be no small task. After the individual reviews, we met collectively as a group and selected eight possible candidates for review. We interviewed three candidates from within the city limits of Monticello, three candidates from the immediate area, and two candidates from within 35 to 60 miles of the city of Monticello. After a detailed analysis of the information received during the interviewing process, the committee or group deliberated for approximately two days before reaching a unanimous decision. The committee or group's recommendation is that the City Council hire Mr. Allen Gapinski of Route 1, Box BO -A, Buffalo, Minnesota, as the new operator/mechanic to replace Jerry Schmidt. Mr. Gapinski has worked for Bergstrom Brothers Inc., a farm tractor and implement distributor in Buffalo, for approximately 13 years. He is currently the head mechanic for Bergstrom and has a wide variety of experience in the repair of light to heavy equipment. Mr. Gapinski has also worked as a service station mechanic for a couple of years and has attended a vocational school for two years specializing in farm equipment and diesel mechanics. Mr. Gapinski has operated a wide variety of equipment ranging from trucks and loaders to backhoes and appears to have a wide variety of skills related to our job description. We would ask that the City Council hire Mr. Gapinski conditional upon passing a health physical. we ask that the City Oouneil make it a policy in all future full-time positions to have the final applicants take a physical in regard to each job description. The physical should more than likely be performed by the City Health Officer, Dr. Donald Maus, and be paid for by the pity. B. ALTERNATTVF. ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to hire Mr. Allen Gapinski as an operator/mechanic to replace Jerry Schmidt contingent upon the passing of a physical in relation to the job description. I -13- C CoLmcil Agenda - 12/14/87 2. The second alternative could be to appoint Mr. Gapinski as an operator/mechanic but without the physical requirement. 3. A third alternative would be to not appoint Mr. Allen Gapinski as operator/mechanic. At this point in time, we feel he was the best candidate interviewed and all of his references have been checked and found correct. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the committee or group that the City Counci; opt for alternate number one and appoint Mr. Allen Gapinski as operator/mechanic condition upon his passing a physical. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -14- C Council Agenda - 12/14/87 12. Consideration of Ratifying 1988 Salary/Wages for Non -Onion Employees. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the special Council meeting held Monday, December 7, the City Council established that a 5 percent increase would be granted to all employees as a cost of living adjustment totaling $13,920, excluding the City Administrator. This adjustment was based on economic forecasts for 1988 projecting inflation to be 5 percent. In addition, the Council authorized that an additional 1 percent of the total 1987 salaries be made available for distribution by the Administrator as merit/perfortnance adjustments. This totaled an additional $2,784. The following is the rationale I used when offering salary adjustments. All four clerical people were increased $.56 per hour of which approximately S.48 reflected the 5 percent cost of living adjustment and the remaining $.08 counts for the increased work load occurring in the City Hall generated by our additional growth and the extra work generated by the computer conversion. This averages approximately a 5.6 percent increase. 011ie Koropchak, Roger Mack, and John Simola were all granted the 5 percent cost of living increase and an additional 1 percent for increased work loads and responsibilities. I believe all three of these department heads performed admirably during 1987 and have been a great benefit to myself assuming the Administrator's role and the transition. Liquor Store Manager, Joe Hartman, received an additional 1/2 percent above the 5 percent cost of living adjustment for the increased performance of the liquor store operation. All other non-union employees received the cost of living adjustment at 5 percent. B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS: 1. The Council may ratify the salaries agreed upon between the Administrator and the employees. 2. The Council may reject the agreed upon salaries and set them at some other level. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council ratify the salaries as agreed upon. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Tabulation of existing salaries, proposed increases, and 1988 salaries. -15- c A I iz 1987 Increase 1988 John Simola $35,155 $ 2,110 $37,265 Roger Mack $27,830 $ 1,670 $29,500 011ie Koropchak $24,800 $ 1,488 $26,288 Gary Anderson $27,825 $ 1,391 $29,216 Walt Mack $27,355 $ 1,368 $28,723 Joe Hartman $26,570 $ 1,461 $28,031 Lynnea Gillham $20,800 $ 1,165 $21,965 Diane Jacobson $20,300 $ 1,165 $21,465 Marlene Hellman $19,885 $ 1,165 $21,050 Karen Doty $19,427 $ 1,165 $20,592 iz Council Agenda - 12/14/87 13. Consideration of Approving Inter -Fund Transfers for 1987. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACF.GR00ND: Now that we're nearing the end of our fiscal year, I have prepared a few transfers between funds that should be approved by the council before year end. If there are no problems with the proposed transfers, a simple motion to approve the transfers between funds as listed would be sufficient. The first transfer of $43,050 from the Liquor Fund to the Capital outlay Fund is in accordance with the 1987 budget to cover some of the expenditures, including 1987'8 sealcoating program, improvements to County Road 39 West, dump truck purchase, etc. 7be second transfer is in the amount of $21,452 for the purpose of closing out the revenue sharing fund and transferring the money to the Capital outlay Fund for future purchases. Again, the 1987 Budget proposed transferring the remaining balance to the Capital Outlay Fund for purchases planned in 1987; and additionally, revenue sharing funds are no longer applicable and as a result, the fund is no longer necessary at this point. The last transfer is necessary to cover the deficit that has occurred) in the West County Road 39 construction fund. The City's share of the construction project, including engineering and easement acquisition cost, totaled $57,014. Item -Purpose Amount Transfer From Transfer To Transfer to Capital $43,050 Liquor Fund Cap. Outlay Outlay Fund per ' 87 Budget for Expenditures To close out surplus $21,452.36 Rev. Sharing Cap. Outlay balance of Rev. Sharing Fund To cover deficit in $57,014.49 Cap. Outlay West County const. fund - West Rd. 39 Co. Rd. 39 lop. Const. Pund 086 D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -16- i� GENERAL FUND - DECEMBER AMOUNT CHECK NO. Voss Electric Supply - Bulbs 328.86 25206 Water Products - Water meters,. etc. 2,084.86 25207 , Martie's Farm Service - Dog food 20.91 25208 General Industrial Supply - Paint and air hose 62.71 25209 Purcell Plumbing - Repairs 104.94 25210 General Rental Center - Saw blades rental 27.80 25211 Hutchinson Mfg. Sales - Bolts, etc. - Mtce. Dept. 48.70 25212 Wright County Highway Dept. - Culvert 217.00 25213 Kampfer Floor - Resand floors at Johnson rental home 388.00 25214 Motorola - Pager for Fire Dept. 372.00 25215 Trueman -Welter - Service call on tractor 57.50 25216 Bauerly Bros. - Class 5 3,683.75 25217 McDowall Co. - Furnace repair at City Hall 119.10 25218 National Electric Co.-- Work performed at IKI 775.00 25219 HCH Construction - Sign for City Hall 200.00 25220 Olson 4 Sons Electric - St. light, parking lot liter, etc. 7,339.78 25221 Elk River Concrete - Material 148.00 25222 Burlington Northern R. R. - Pipe line lease on Prairie Road 50.00 25223 Schillevaert Landscaping - Tree removal 250.00 25224 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 123.04 25225 ICMA Retirement - Payroll ded. 759.34 25226 VOID -0- 25227 Dept. of Nat. .Res. - Dep. Reg, fees 36.00 25228 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 27.00 25229 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 102.00 25230 "Jerry 'Hermes '- Library janitorial 216.67 25231 David Stromberg - Animal control expense 302.00 25232 Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense 275.00 25233 YMCA of Mple. - Monthly contract payment 583.33 25234 James Preusse - Cleaning City Hall and Fire Hall 450.00 25235 Mrs. Cindy Lemm - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 25236 James Ridgeway - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 25237 Dick Martie - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 25238 Mrs. Joyce Dowling - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 25239 Richard Carlson - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 25240 Arve Crlmsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 25241 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 25242 Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 25243 William Fair - Council salary 125.00 25244 Warren Smith - Council salary 123.19 25245 Wright County State Bank - FICA d FWI 4,425.66 25246 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT 1,906.00 25247 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,326.70 25248 MN. DTED - Reg. fee for seminar for 0. Koropchak 10.00 25249 Carrow Sanitation - Monthly contract b landfill charges 8,314.80 25250 Liquor Store Fund - Reimburse liquor fund for Work. Comp. 70.00 25251 LMC Ins. Trust - Balance due Work. Comp. Ins. 274.00 25252 City of Golden Valley - Comparable Worth study fee 200.00 25253 U. S. Postmaster - Postage machine fee 100.00 25254 Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fee 219.00 25255 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fee 462.00 25256 Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fee 148.00 25257 Unocal - Gas Fire'Dept. 60.31 25258 Servi Star Hdwe. - Misc. supplies 39.40 25259 Companion Pots - Muzzles - Animal Control Dept. 18.18 25260 Vance's Service Canter - Gas 4.00 25261 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depts. 97.07 25262 Roger Mack - Amway cleaning supplies 80.00 25263 Marlene Hellman - Misc. mileage 58.50 25264 Mpls. Tribune - Adv. - Asst. Adm. d Mechanic ]obs 277.20 25265 Amoco Oil - Gas - St. Dept. 32.83 25266 Double D. Electric - Services performed at Park 717.54 25267 Barco Municipal Products - Plow blades d rubber wheels 352.19 25268 Unitog Rental Service - Uniform rental charges 102.40 25269 Maus Tire Service - Fluid pump 48.00 25270 Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Depts. 148.25 - 25271 Big Lake Machine - Repairs 12.00 25272 Kangas Auto Radiator Service - Radiator repair - St. Dept. 56.50 25273 National Bushing - Parts 15.88 25274 General Rental - Rental of belt sanders 12.16 25275 ILME Ready Mix - Cement 86.73 25276 Yonak Landfill - Load of garbage - Mtce. Dept. 20.00 25277 Monticello Times - Ads b legal publishing 476.57 25278 W. S. Darley Co. - Chimney cleaner for Fire Dept. 54.16 25279 Local 849 - Union dues 115.50 25280 Duerr's Water Care Service - Water softener - Bland res. 12.25 25281 Wright County Highway Dept. - Sand and salt mix - CSAH 439 28,073.07 25282 Wright County Auditor - Sheriff's contract 10,645.21 25283 Monticello Printing - Sever/water recording sheets 5.10 25284 North central Public Service - Utilities 864.09 25285 Marjorie Goetzke - OAA Board salary 138.75 25286 Leroy Engstrom - OAA Board salary b mileage to meetings II0.40 25287 Thomas Salkowski - OAA salary 100.00 25288 Paul McAlpine - OAA Board salary 6 mileage 42.60 25289 Arve Grimsmo - OAA Board salary 90.00 25290 Franklin Denn - OAA salary 75.00 25291 O'Connor 6 Hannan - Airport Comm. fees 298.23 25292 Professional Services Group - WWTP contract payment - Dec. 22.083.35 25293 Turnouist Paper Co. - Towels 45.27 25294 Arve Grimsmo - Mileage 6 travel expense - Mun. Bd. 6 Mayor's 222.57 25295 League of MN. Cities - Handbook 80.00 25296 Wang - Computer charges 426.00 25297 DMD1 - Computer charges 3,648.75 25298 Monticello Agency - Bond renewal for City Adm. 50.00 25299 Holiday - Credit card for Fire Dept. - renewal 14.00 25300 AL b Julie Nelson - Sub. renewal 13.72 25301 Northern Oxygen - Supplies 11.70 25302 Monticello Ford - Repair Fire Dept. equipment 987.53 25303 Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase 800,718.70 25304 Wright County State Bank - Wire fee to Norwest Bank 10.00 25305 Hoglund Bus Co.- Parte 62.64 25306 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies - calculator 92.16 25307 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 936.84 25308 U. of MN. - Reg. fee for seminar for Gary Anderson 90.00 25309 Norwest Investment services - Computer payment 2,407.61 25310 Team Laboratory Chemical - Root destroyer 6 degreaser - W. 599.05 25311 REM Mfg. - Kam parte - General Ooerating 192.18 25312 Jim Hatch Sales - 12 flasher batteries - St. Dept. 25.68 25313 Fair's Carden Center - Sprinkler system - City Hall 6 tree v 6,112.68 25314 Feed Rite Controls - Hydro. acid, etc. 1,637.22 25315 Northern States Power - Utilities 51884.35 25316 Lynnea Gillham - Annual mileage expanse - 125.00 25317 -2- -3- GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Gary Anderson - Misc. mileage 83.04 25318 Biff's Inc. - Softball Assoc. expense 22.08 25319 Harry's Auto Supply - Misc. parts and repairs 318.28 25320 AT&T Info. System - Fire phone .:barge 3.96 25321 Dept. of Nat. Res'. - Dep. Reg. fees 146.00 25322 _ Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 386.00 25323 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 18.00 25324 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 4,633.87 25325 Payroll for November 24,446.81 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - DECEMBER $957,404.10 -3- LIQUOR MID DISBURSEMENTS FOR LIQUOR FUND - DECEMBER AMOUNT MCK NO. Quality Winei6 Spirits — Wine 541.03 13466 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 2,318.75 13467 Johnson Bros. - Liquor 2,544.09 13468 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 170.00 13469 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - November 212.00 13470 Wright County State Bank - FWT - FICA 620.94 13471 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 1,559.67 13472 Bellboy Corporation - Liquor 1,633.0'9 13473 State Treasurer - PERA 186.45 13474 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 1,932.00 13475 Cloudy Town Dist. - Misc. mdse. 111.00 13476 Bernick's Pepsi - Misc. mdse. 386.15 13477 Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdse. 250.20 13478 Dick Beverage - Beer 1,710.17 13479 Grosslein Beverage - Beer 11,800.58 13480 Day Dist. Co. - Beer, etc. 883.75 13481 Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse. 343.30 13482 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 647.63 13483 Coast to Coast - Misc. mdse. 4.89 13484 Thorpe Diet. - Beer 8,154,70 13485 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 11.50 13486 Kolles Sanitation - Monthly contract payment 133.50 13487 Monticello times - Adv. 147.20 13488 Northern States Power - Utilities 519.61 13489 North Central Public Service - Utilities 89.70 13490 Liefert Trucking - Freight 429.05 13491 Ed Phillipe 6 Sons - Liquor 4.299.84 13492 Quality Wine - Wine 827.15 13493 Granite City Jobbing - Supplies 129.79 13494 Maus Foods - Supplies 20.71 13495 Olson 6 Sona Electric - Equip. mtce. 10.25 13496 Griggs. Cooper - Liquor purchase 5.492.29 13497 Bridgewater Telephone - Phone chargee 69.22 13498 Johnson Bros. Wholesale - Liquor 1,388.26 13499 Ed Phillipe 6 Sone - Liquor 566.87 13500 Dahlheimer Dist. - Beer 17,373.80 13501 Payroll for November - 3. 774.20 LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR DECEMBER $71,293.33 - car or HRIricaw . !larthtT'Bul1dL16 IIol,vtarcmt Repor! i ii y&y'61016T6D B1 ' i'12UU7'$ m,d OSB -ti, or . .la•tL � A.;Et, "' `Z iL'. T.- '_- 17:11 -7 ei P63UUTS 155Ud Flt. OS`i'OBtlt !Ir Lb NOVOIbfR Le at'rcm• To Date Ta Data lu�iunfnu. .. . 4 Number 11 2 S 12 95 Valuation 1 53,400.00 $67,900.00 t 121,560.00 9 6,057,620.0 14,499,400.00 roa o' S82.80 862.73 709.50 40,143. 40,028.04 _ Surchar6se 25.70 '• 33.95 60.76 4,028.4 2,259:89 - OOISOTCIAL ' . thwbar 2 ,' ... i 21 Valuation 18,500.00 3,640,930. 721,630.00 ' r... 3-1-6ee ,220.50 97,815.1 5,515.27 9,25 1,820.1 ]65.5 UILU3TtUAL fhaobar 1 1 _ - 3 Value tion 470,600.00 1951000.00 ,'170,500.0 1.242000100 r..a , 3;241.59 670.AO 3,725.2 7,990.06 5-horsea '-239.30 97.50 385.2 621.35 rutimllro ' 11-ber f 1 ! 53 raoa 29.00 23.00 49,00 2.935.8' 1,739.00 0urchar6es .90 .50 1.00 40. 26.50 0211M , dumber I r f2 Vnlu.tlwl 9,000.00 10,000.0 92,400.00 rase 108.00 100.5 850.0 I aurahargos 4;50 6.0 46.00 "do- -' - - .... _. fAL t10. r17i1U 7:: • . 14- 5 B 23'3j 184 TOTAL VAU)hTION 541.000.00 -- 86.400:00 351.160,00 12,479.Q50.OQ 6.556.130.00 707.E Ffl9 3.961.39 1,106,23 1,429.00 64,718.9 56,122.07 '1o1N. LU•CnhaDLS 270.00 43,70 159.26 6,280.1+ 3.314.79 ("UMMIT ItiNT11 ry3r1 , • . __ _ N,u.bDr ... LO VINUT NAMMIll Hadar ,QQt6 11"UtiT ycOilld3Nitid. VNu4tlal 11,19 ymrr JADL yea,_ Swatsrweiy 1 1 727.73 127.95 1 55, 9o0.00 13 49 txyl e1 2 12 the ti -family 3 8 Camorr clot 3 S NEW atrla1 2 2 ttr s: Cw'agaa 11 11 S1F�n 0 0 ru1,111 8u11dia6. , 1 O; AL14IIl1T1Cr1 011 Rf.J'ALII Wel1L1g• 1 135.006.00 !`7,000.00 1 45 44 Comnorcl at 2 .220.50 9,25 18,500.00 1 0 .IJ - industrial ' I• t 2 1'UJ107)tU All (ryes 1 .23.00 .50 53 80 eccl'960A1 BTDUc'IUIU:e , • 0.1-1.9 Pool. i I / D.ch. 10 4 71:I1POtth01 YCIUU7 � � O O bl'110L11301i �'i' i ''Jf •' 101108 5 1,106.23 43170 60:400.003 184 333 I HIDIVIbUAL PErml! ACTIVITY REPOPT MONTH OF NOVFABER 1987 p ER>51T tLIKE R ( DESCRIPTION iDrl I NAME/ LOC AT 40N. �VALULTiON I IPERMT red° I SURCHARGE PLUME ING I SVRCHAR4�l 97-1135 Building Roo! Covorin9 Trinity Lutheran Church/ , R4Dlaccmeat AC 449 Wet Broad, "y 6 9,500.00 8112.$0 B 4.75 87-1136 Interior Ramed4l AS tbntie4114 Country Club/ ' 1209 001! Course Roid- 9.000.00 108.00 4.50 87- U 37 Rowe i Oari94 Or Marty Duobro•kr/2362 meadow Oak Avg. 55,900.00 481.05 21.95 823.00 8 .50 87-1138 Bowe i 04rage Rem 3ding AD Rcbart i V414rii 8amervillm/ , . 213 rst River 8t. 12.000.00 135:00. 6:00 ' TOTMS 886.400.00 8796.55 843.20 821.00 9 .so PLAN REVIEV 07-1137 Roue• i Garigi Or M4rty Dumbro•ki/2362 meadow Oak A— 9 286.68 TOTAL PNP AMEN „ 286.68 TOTkL REVENUE 9 9,949.93