City Council Agenda Packet 02-13-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 13, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 23, 1989.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Public hearing on adoption of proposed assessment roll for 88-07 project.
5. Consideration of resolution approving MN/DOT preliminary plans for
improvements to Highway 25 bridge over I-94, including signals and
discussion of eastbound rartp.
6. Consideration of resolution certifying assessment roll for 88-07 project
to County Auditor.
7. Consideration of single subdivision request to subdivide an existing
unplatted residential lot into two unplatted lots - West Prairie
Partners.
L
B. Consideration of simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2
(heavy industrial) lot into two I-2 lots - Oakwood Industrial Park
Partnership.
9. Consideration of approving final subdivision plat - Charles Ritze.
10. Consideration of Cunny Fresh Foods request.
11. Consideration of reimbursement for damage on sewer backup - Den James.
12. Consideration of authorizing the purchase of fire department equipment.
13. Consideration of adopting recycling plan and authorization to prepare
RFP.
14. Consideration of authorizing additional clerical staff appointments.
15. Consideration of authorizing establishment of a Section 125 Plan for
employee benefit program.
16. Adjournment.
MINUTES
RE=AR MEETING - MONTICMW CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 23, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Ren Maus, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith
Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of minutes.
Motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve minutes of the
special meeting held December 12, 1988. voting in favor: Fran Fair,
Warren Smith, and Dan Blonigen. Ren Maus and Shirley Anderson abstained.
Motion carried.
Motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Warren Smith to approve minutes of
the regular meeting held January,9, 1989. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
4. Public Rearing - Proposed modification of the redevelopment plan for
Redevelopment Pro)ect #1 twdification of tax increment plans for
Districts i-1 through i-9, and adoption of tax increment I1nanCIng Plan
for District 1-8.
The public hearing was opened. The Economic Development Director
reported that the Monticello SRA has contracted with Business Development
Services for the purpose of expanding the existing tax increment
financing project area and for the purpose of combining individual tax
increment district finance plans into one financo plan. vat Pelstring
was present and reported that the proposed action to expand the project
area and combine finance plans provides the opportunity to utilize tax
increment financing to its full potential. The action also identifies
project 1-8 which involves the uce of TIF to purchase land associated
with the development of the NSP regional service center in Oakwood
Industrial Park. There being no further comments from the public, the
public hearing was closed. After discussion, motion by Fran Fair and
seconded by Warren Smith to approve a resolution to modify the
redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Project +1, Modification of Tax
Increment Plans for Districts 1-1 through 1-7, and adoption of tax
increment financing plan for District 1-8. Motion passed unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 89-2.
S. consideration of conditional use Permit and variances to narking and
sideyard aetoacx requirements for Temple Baotist Church.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill provided Council with background
information on the matter and reported that the Planning Commission
{ recommendod denial of the conditional use permit and associated
l variances. O'Neill informed Council that due to the sale of only two of
CU
Council Minutes - 1/23/89
the four lots formerly associated with the Church, the Temple Baptist
congregation has insufficient land area for maintenance of proper side
yard setbacks and insufficient land available for parking. It was
suggested by O'Neill that the nearby playground parking area could
possibly serve as an overflow or joint parking area for the
congregation. After O'Neill's presentation, discussion ensued.
Councilmember Anderson noted that Lot 3 should not be separated from
Lots 1 and 2, especially with the building so close to the lot line (less
than one foot). She stressed that this will be the only chance that the
Church will have to acquire Lot 3.
Dan Blonigen did not support the manner in which the transaction was
conducted but noted that it is not up to the City to get involved with
business transactions and that the City cost make a decision regarding
the conditional use permit without considering the business transaction
that led to the need for the variances. Ren Maus and Warren Smith agreed
with this position.
Pran Pair noted her displeasure with the transaction and suggested that
the developers provide the Temple Baptist Congregation with Lot 3.
Ken Maus reiterated that we don't want to lose sight that the applicant
is Temple Baptist Church, and not the developers and attorneys.
Motion by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Warren Smith to approve the
conditional use permit request contingent on the following:
1. Applicant shall properly screen the area in accordance with the City
of Monticello Zoning Ordinance requirements.
2. Temple Baptist Church shall develop hard surfaced parking area within
five years and Uie parking area shall contain at least 26 spaces.
3. Dust control of the parking area shall be maintained.
4. A 20 -Foot easement must be acquired from the owner of Lot 3.
The motion included a 16 -apace variance to the 42 -space parking
requirement.
The motion included a variance to the 20 -foot side yard setback
requirement associated with operation of a church facility in an R-2
zone.
These variances were necessary to allow the applicant the reasonable use
of the structure and land available to the applicant.
voting in favor of the motion: Ren Maus, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen,
Ran Pair. Opposed: Shirley Anderson. Motion carried.
0-1
Council Minutes - 1/23/89
6. Consideration of request to lease or lease with option to buy old fire
hall building - Bruce Langford.
Bruce Langford was present to express his interest in the use of the old
fire hall as a billiard center.
After discussion, the Council directed staff to work with Langford on
potential terms of sale. Council indicated that sale of the building is
preferrable to a lease agreement. ' Coir C-,,')
7. Consideration of resolution setting a public hearing on adoption of
assessment roll - 88-07 Project - Floyd Markling and Monticello Country
Club.
Jim Agosto, representing the Monticello Country Club, and Jim Metcalf,
representing Floyd Markling, indicated they are trying to come to an
agreement on the appropriate split of project costs. It was suggested by
the City Administrator that the assessment notice to each party indicate
five possible assessment amounts as recommended by the City Engineer.
The final decision on the assessment formula will then be decided on the
the 13th of February, 1989.
Motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt a
( resolution setting a public hearing on said assessment roll for
7:30 p.m., February 13, 1989. Motion passed unanimously.
t SEE RESOLUTION 89-3 and RESOLUTION 89-4.
8. Consideration of paying for damage on sewer backup - Ben James.
Gene Pyle of Fyle's Excavating and Matt Theisen of City staff reviewed
circumstances leading to a sewer backup and subsequent damage to property
owned by Ben James. Staff informed Council it is difficult to determine
if staff action to clear the obstruction in the city sewer line may have
contributed to the damage experienced by Mr. James, in addition, the
City's insurance company did not view the City as being negligent in this
situation.
After discussion, staff was directed to present the case to the insurance
company again, and to consider negotiating a settlement with Ben James in
the event that the insurance company continues to view the City as not
being negligent. No formal action was taken on this matter.
9. Consideration of replatting request to replat an existing lot into six
townhouse lots and one common area lot. A variance request to allow a
repiatted lot to have less than the minimum lot width requirement. A
replattinq request to replat an existing lot into four townhouse lots and
one common area lot. Applicant, Jay Miller/Fairway Court.
Cary Anderson reviewed the site plan and noted that vehicular access in
and out of the parking spaces in front of townhome 9 and 10 will be
difficult. During the discussion, it was suggested that the townhomes be
shifted 15 feet to the rear of the lot which would create additional
needed space for vehicular movement in the parking area.
Council Minutes - 1/23/89
Motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve the variance
request to allow a replatted lot to have less than the minimum lot width
requirement and approve a replatting request to replat an existing lot
into four townhouse lots and one common area lot. Approval is contingent
on shifting structures 15 feet to the rear of the lot. Motion passed
unanimously. The variance is justified by unique shape of the lot.
Denial of variance would deny applicant reasonable use of the property.
10. Consideration of additional salary adjustment for Water Superintendent
position.
City Administrator Wolfsteller requested that Council consider an
additional 28 increase for Matt Theisen in 1989. Be went on to note that
when Matt received his recent promotion, it was agreed that he would be
considered for a raise at such time that he successfully completes a
probation period. It was Administrator Wolfsteller's view that Matt has
met and exceeded expectations and that consideration of a 28 increase is
appropriate at this time.
After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Warren
Smith to grant Matt Theisen an additional 2% salary increase in 1989.
Motion passed unanimously.
11. Consideration of PSC contract increase at the waste Water Treatment
Plant.
Public Works Director Simola informed Council that demands placed upon
the waste water treatment plant have increased over 20 percent= and in
accordance with the City contract with PSG, the contract amount must
increase. Simola informed Council that he is satisfied with the
documentation and testing associated with determining the extent of the
increase demand and recommends that Council approve a change in contract
price for PSG due to a change in scope of services at the waste water
treatment plant. The change in scope of services shall be based upon
$31.20 per percent of flow per month over or below the trigger, $25.46
per percent of total suspended solids per month over or below the
trigger, and $41.30 per percent per month over or below the trigger for
BODS.
After dis,:uasion, motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to approve the recommended increase. During discussion, Dan
Blonigen noted that he is not sure the actual increase in coat to run the
plant is fairly represented. voting in favor: Fran Fair, Shirley
Anderson, Ren Maus and Warren Smith. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. Motion
carried.
12. Consideration of gambling license renewal - Legion Club.
.Ju le—L
Motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve eaid-saguest.
Motion passed unanimously. Council thanked the Legion Club for the
report on expenditures of gambling proceeds.
0
Council Minutes - 1/23/89
13. Consideration of adopting ordinance amendment to cover elected officials
under workmen's compensation.
Administrator wolfsteller informed Council that an ordinance must be
adopted to legally provide Council with this coverage. Dan Blonigen
questioned the need for workmen's compensation insurance and asked if
insurance was being duplicated. Administrator wolfsteller informed
Council that the insurance is not a duplication and that the City has
never had a claim. He went on to note that we have been paying the
premiums in the past and the coverage is available. He recommended that
this policy continue and that the ordinance amendment specifically
including elected officials be adopted.
After discussion, motion by Fran Fair and seconded by Dan Blonigen to
adopt said ordinance and review need for workman's conpensation for City
Council from time to time. Motion passed unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT NO. 168.
14. Consideration of entering a 1989 maintenance agreement with Wright County
Highway Department.
Motion by warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt said
maintenance agreement. Motion passed unanimously.
15. consideration of MN/DOT Qrogosed cost sharing arrangement on signal
installation at River Street and Highway 25.
Administrator Wolfateller informed Council that MN/DOT proposes to
install signal lights at River Street and Highway 25 and is asking the
City to participate in 12 percent of the project costs. Oounciimember
Smith noted that 12 percent is a reasonable amount, and to make an effort
to avoid contributing to the cost of the solution to the problem created
by MN/DOT would not be constructive.
Motion made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve
in participation of 12 percent of the cost to install said signal lights
with City participation not to exceed $9,600. Motion passed unanimously.
16. Consideration of participating in the Johnnv Elm Seed Program in
Monticello.
Public works Director Simola described the program which Involves
cooperative efforts of the local Boy Scout organization, City of
Monticello, and the Johnny Elm Seed organization. For $200 the City
receives 100 American Liberty Elms, each approximately one foot high. The
Boy Scouts plant the trees in a small nursery and care for them for two
to three years. when they become five to seven feet in height, they are
then ready for planting on city boulevards and parks.
After discussion, motion by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Fran Fair to
approve City participation in the Johnney Elmseed Program. Motion passed
unanimously.
Council Minutes - 1/23/89
17. Consideration of approving plans and specifications for demolition of
Stelton's and Jones property.
After discussion, motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Pair, to
approve said plans and specifications. Motion passed unanimously.
18. Consideration of Township cost sharing arrangement for new aerial ladder
truck as part of Joint Fire Agreement.
Administrator WolEsteller reviewed the formula for cost sharing
associated with township use of the new aerial ladder truck. WolEsteller
recommended that Council authorize the Joint Fire Hoard to establish a
separate agreement covering township use of the aerial ladder portion of
the new fire truck at $125 per time and include $150,000 as a
representative value of a new pumper portion of the truck within the
formula.
After discussion, motion by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith
to adopt said recoammendation. Motion carried unanimously.
19. Consideration of authorizing feasibility study for storm sewer
improvements - Construction 5 property.
Staff reviewed the request submitted by Construction 5 property which
asks for development of a storm sewer in replacement of a drainage ditch
I alongside their property. The request stems from the desire to increase
parking area associated with the planned development of an
office/warehouse facility. Council reviewed the request and suggested
that staff review the site plan and parking requirements and attempt to
reduce the length of storm sewer necessary to make the project work.
Motion by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to table the
matter pending collection of additional information. Motion passed
unanimously.
20. Approval of bills for the month of January.
Motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve bills as
submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, greeting was adjourned.
r/O' t79 11
Adalstant Administrator
0
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
Public hearing on proposed assessment roll for Project 88-07, Golf Course
Road sewer and water extensions. AND
6. Consideration of adopting an assessment roll for certification with the
County Auditor covering Project 88-07. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACRGROM:
At the last Council meeting, a public hearing was scheduled for
February 13 to consider adopting an assessment roll pertaining to this
project that served Floyd Markling's townhouse development and the
Monticello Country Club with sewer and water extensions. Except for some
minor restoration work, including sodding and seeding, etc., the total
project has been completed at a cost of $62,184.09. It is assumed that
the total project cost will be assessed to the two benefiting property
owners, and a notice to that effect has been mailed.
Previously, the City Engineer, John Badalich, outlined five alternative
methods of assessing this project. In each of his methods outlined in
the memo of September 22, a proposed assessment for the Country Club
could vary between $6,909 to a high of $51,129. For Mr. Markling's
development, the assessment could vary between $11,054 to a high of
$55,274. Although all of the assessment methods proposed Dy the Engineer
have merit, Mr. Badalich recommended method p5, which would result in an
assessment for the Country Club of $23,844.09, and Mr. Markling's
development, $38,340.00. This is approximately a 62-388 ratio.
Typically, the notice of the assessment hearing includes the proposed
assessment for each parcel; but in this particular situation, I have
informed both parties of five possible assessments that will be discussed
by the Council for consideration. In the meantime, Mr. Markling's
attorney, Jim Metcalf, and the Country Club's representative, Jim Agosto,
have indicated they will be pursuing a mutual agreement on an appropriate
assessment split. If this information is available for the public
hearing, the Council may wish to receive their input if the two parties
have agreed to a cost sharing arrangement. If no agreement is made, it
will be up to the Council to indicate to each party what the assessment
will be.
After the close of the public hearing, the Council can adopt the
resolution certifying the assessment roll for the County Auditor to
collect starting in 1990.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to adopt the resolution assessing the
benefiting property owners according to the recommendation of the
City Engineer. Thin would result in the Country Club receiving a
$23,844.09 assessment, with the balance of $38,340 being assessed to
Mr. Markling'a development.
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
2. If the two benefiting property owners are agreeable to some other
type of allocation, the Council could adopt the assessment roll based
on this information.
3. Do not adopt the assessment roll. This does not seem to be a
reasonable alternative in that the City has to adopt some type of
assessment roll if it expects to cover its cost.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
I am somewhat reluctant to prepare an assessment roll regarding benefits
to a property owner without using some form of established assessment
method. By this I mean, the assessment roll should be established on
units or front footage or some formula that coincides with our assessment
ordinance. In this case, I believe the Engineer's recommendation is
based on an average cost per front footage for both water and sewer and
relating this to the number of units being served within the townhouse
development. Although the Country Club at the present time may not be a
major user of sanitary sewer or water, the Council should take into
consideration that the Country Club could expand its facilities,
including additional dining areas and the possibility does exist that
there may be sufficient land for the Country Club in the future to
develop their own townhouse sites on their property. As a result, it
does seem appropriate to assume the Country Club property does benefit
more than only 1/9th of the total project cost. Lacking a better method
of assessing, I am inclined to go along with the City Engineer's
recommended method of assessment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of September 22 letter from OSMI Copy of resolution adopting
assessment roll[ Proposed assessments for each parcel under five
different methods.
-2-
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
----------------------------------------
The Monticello Country Club, Inc.,
Appellant,
VS.
City of Monticello,
Respondent.
----------------------------------------
DISTRICT COURT
TEN1H JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OBJECTION
TO
CITY OF MONTICELLO
TO: CLERK OF THE CITY OF MONTICEl1A; CITY ADMINISTRATOR OF TtIE CITY OF
MONTICE" , MONTICELID, MINNESOTA 55362.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Monticello Country Club, appellant above
named, objects to a proposed assessment by the Monticello City Council
on February 13, 1989, against appellant for improvement of sanitary
sewer and water main extensions find appurtenant work from Golf Course
Road to subject property based on Assessment Roll:
Method # 4 $51,129.14
Method # 5 $23,844.09
APPELLANT objects to inequitable apportionment of assessment costs
between benefited property owners in Methods +4E4 and 0. Further,
appellant objects to assessment exceeding the benefit of the improvement
to the property.
FURTliER, you are hereby requested to provide appellant or his attorney
herein with a certified copy of all objections filed in said assessment
proceedings, the assessment roll, and all papers necessary to present an
appeal to District Court of the Tenth Judicial District.
Dated: February 13, 1989
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLENT:
James P. Agosto
Agosto Itiw Office J �.
142 West Broadway, P.O. Box 896 t,
Monticello, MN 55362 / PT
JnmeI l'. A•o¢to�'245-4004 Atto ney R�gis[ration#632
01
September 22, 1988
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
PO Box 83A
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Floyd Markling Property
Dear Jeff:
Orr
Schelen
1 Maveran&
= L- Assooauxlnc
2021 Fast Mennee'n Avenue
Min neap011S, MN 55413
612.311-SbbO
FAX 331.3806
Engineers
sumevom
Planners
As a follow-up to our telephone conversation regarding the assessable cost of
providing sewer and water services to the Floyd Markling property on West County
Roaa 39 in Monticello, the following are several scenarios that can be used in
arriving at a reasonable assessment.
The estimated project cost including indirect costs for furnishing these
utilities to the property is $62,160. This project would benefit the eight
parcels proposed on the Markling property and also the Monticello Country Club.
We anticipate extending the sewer and watermain through the cul-de-sac to the
co=on property line of the Markling property and the Country Club property.
Method One
This method would be an equal sharing of the assessable cost based solely on a
per parcel basis. That is, eight parcels in the Markling property and one
parcel for the Country Club. Therefore, $62,160 divided by nine equals $6,907
per parcel. Markling's total cost would be $52,253 and the Country Club,
$6,907. An easement would be necessary for the utility extention from the cul-
de -sec to the north property line of Markling's property.
Method Two
Using the analogy that townhouses are similar to multiple dwellings whereby a
multiple dwelling unit receives a 3/4 parcel assessment. Therefore, 3/4 times
eight units equals six units for Markling, Country Club, one unit, for a total
of seven units. Markling's assessable cost is then $62,160 divided by seven,
times six equals $53,280 or $6,660 per parcel, and the Country Club assessment
is $8,880.
Method Threee
What is the additional cost of the total project cost to extend sewer and water
from the cul-de-sac to the north property line? This extension only benefits
the Country Club and the balance of the project benefits both parties.
Estimated cost of this extention is $4,300, including indirect costs. The
assessable cost then is, using the equal parcel basis, $62,160 minus $4,300
equals $57,860 divided by nine equals $6,429 per parcel for the eight townhouses
and $6,429 plus $4.300 equals $10,729 for the Country Club. Next, using the 3/4
cost per parcel rationale for multiple dwellings would then be equated to
149,595 for Markling's property, or $6.200 per parcel and $8,265 plus $4,300
equals $12,565 assessable cost to the Country Club.
c
Method Four
This scenario would be based on water consumption of a residence compared to a
country club usage of its members for sanitary purposes, showers, bar and food
service. A residential unit is usually calculated at 75 gallons per capita per
day, or approximately 225 gallons per household per day. According to the MPCA.
a country club is calculated at 22 gallons per member with no meals, but you
would add 10 to 20 gallons per day per member if showers are available. For
this calculation, we will use 35 gallons per member per day. Average membership
of country clubs is 300 members. We can say that during the course of a day,
there are six tee times per hour for a foursome times 10 hours per day equals
240 members. Using 240 members times 35 gallons per member per day equals 8,400
gallons per day. Equating this to residential units, this will equal 8,400
divided by 225 equals 37 residential units. Therefore, 37 units for the Country
Club plus 8 units for Markling, equals a total of 45 units. Taking the $62,160,
dividing by 45 units equals $1,381 per unit. Markling's assessable cost would
then be eight times $1,381 or $14,648. The balance of $47,512 being the Country
Club assessable cost. This method of calculation, 1 believe, is unreasonable.
Therefore, in summary, you see we can arrive at a wide and varidble range of
assessable costs, from $1,380 per unit to $6,907 per unit for Markling. For the
Country Club, the assessable amount could vary from $6,907 to $8,880 to $10,729
to $12,565 to $47,512 at the maximum.
Based on assessment figures we have developed over the years for Monticello, an
8" lateral sewer assessment averages out to $28.50 per foot. A lateral
residential watermain assessment is $24.75 a foot. Monticello's minimum lot
width is 80'. Therefore, using the figures noted above, the assessable cost
would be 80 times (28.50 + $24.75) equals $53.25 times 80 equals $4,260. For a
100' parcel. this would amount to $5,325 per parcel. Using $4,260 times 8
parcels, this would give an assessable cost to Markling of $34,080 and to the
Country Club $28,080. Using $5,325 times 8 parcels equals $42,600 for Markling
and $19,560 for the Country Club. The average of the two is $38,340 for
Markling or $4,793 for each of the 8 parcels. The Country Club share would be
$23,820.
Jeff, take your pick. i favor the latter split. $23,820 for the Country Club
and $38,340 for Markling.
If you have any questions in this regard, please give me a call.
Very truly yours.
ORR-SCNEIEN-MAYERON
ASSOCIATES, INC. �r
hn P. Badalich, P.E.
ice President
JPB/lmt
�- �,
�4 � �`�
�° � �
RESOLUTION 89—
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council
has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for
the improvement of sanitary sewer and water main extensions and appurtenant
work from Golf Course Road to serve property owned by Floyd Markling and the
Monticello Country Club.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land
therein included and hereby found to be benefited by the proposed
improvements in the amount of the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending
over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on
or before the first Monday in January, 1991, and shall bear interest at
the rate of 9 percent annum from the date of the adoption of this
assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest
on the entire assessment for the date of this resolution until
December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment when due shall be
added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of
the assessment on ouch property, with interest accrued to the date of
payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged
if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this
resolution] and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer
the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest
accrued to December 31 of the next succeeding year.
4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment of the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax liets
of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the
same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the Council this 13th day of February, 1989.
Mayor
City Aomintotrator
v
PROJECT 88-07
(Markling 6 Country Club)
Markling Country Club
Method ;1
$55,274.72
$ 6,909.34
Method ¢2
$53,300.65
$ 8,883.44
Method 03
$49,222.25
$12,961.84
Method ;4
$11,054.95
$51,129.14
Method 05•
$38,340.00
$23,844.09
*Method recommended by City Engineer.
D*
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
Consideration of resolution approving MN/DOT preliminary plans for
improvements to Highway 25 bridge over I-94, including signals and
discussion of eastbound ramp. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Gary Dlrlam and Tony Kempenich of MN/DOT will be present at the
Council meeting to review and present the preliminary plans for
reconstruction of the Highway 25, I-94 bridge widening and signal project
being planned for the summer of 1989. As MN/DOT indicated previously,
plans are to start construction possibly this June for widening the
Highway 25 bridge into five lanes and the installation of signals at both
ramp points to better control the flow of traffic.
When MN/DOT began consideration of upgrading the bridge, they looked at
the possibility of creating a rasp off of southbound Highway 25 for
eastbound traffic on I-94. Their preliminary drawings indicated that a
majority of the commuter parking lot would be needed to construct such a
ramp and problems existed with the location of the off -rasp from
eastbound 94 to Highway 25. Tony Kempenich indicated that they had
submitted this proposal to St. Paul officials who first thought the
problems of right-of-way acquisition may limit the ability to construct
such a ramps and also indicated that even if this type of project was
considered in the future, no construction would or could probably be
started any sooner than 1994. Even in 1994 at the earliest, this project
would have Lo compete wish other areas on a need basis; and there would
he no guarantee that the project would even be funded then. As a result,
St. Paul officials recommended that MN/DOT consider the installation of
traffic signals at both ramp points on either side of the bridge and
widening the bridge, which should take care of the traffic flow for at
least 10-20 years. MN/DOT officials were concerned of widening the
bridge to five lanes without the installation of traffic signals could
cause more problems in traffic trying to cross three lanes of traffic.
Although I believe MN/DOT has not ruled out the possibility of a clover
leaf type design Dome day in the future, this could be 10-20 years away,
depending on the traffic need at that time. As a result, they strongly
indicated their support in the City continuing to use the parcel of land
as a commuter parking lot, as if a ramp is ever constructed, this
right-of-way would be necessary. This is not to say that MN/DOT would
never consider a clover leaf design 20 years or more in the future. If
the commuter lot was developed, it just creates an additional problem
that would have to be rectified by additional purchase of private
property.
At a previous Council meeting, the City approved entering into a
cooperative agreement with MN/DOT for the installation of the traffic
signals at River Street and Highway 251 and it is MN/DOT's intent to bid
those signals with this bridge project and related signals at the name
time in early April 1989. This would result in construction starting the
first or middle of June1 and it to expected that the project would be
completed yet thin fall.
-3-
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. After a review of the preliminary plans for the bridge widening and
signal installation, the Council can adopt the resolution approving
the preliminary plans and thus allowing tot/DOT to proceed with the
bidding.
2. If the Council has a problem with the designs as proposed, they could
delay action on the resolution which may delay any project for an
indefinite period of time.
3. Council could indicate support for the bridge widening portion of the
project but deny support for signal installation and request ramp
construction be part of the project. This alternative seems
inappropriate at this time since it is apparent that the ramp would
not be constructed any sooner than the year 1994 and more than likely
later than that. In the meantime, traffic congestion will only get
worse if the City waits another 5-10 years before any improvements
are made.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the preliminary design layout for widening the
bridge and the installation of traffic signals be approved to allow
MN/DOT to proceed with its bidding procedures. The staff is not
convinced at this point that the City should be considering relocating
its commuter parking lot unless the Council is convinced that at no time
in the future (10-20 years) would the City be interested in a clover leaf
ranp for eastbound I-94. If the Council feels this option should be kept
available, it seems prudent to hang on to the commuter parking lot,
making it easier for MN/DOT to design a clover leaf in the future.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A partial copy of bridge widening plant Copy of resolution approving
preliminary layout design.
-4-
PLANNED CONSTRUCTION
Mo ADT", /7,5,70
t" .tvr . 3L, soo - . In
RAMP E �• \\ •.
\• t '., _ ti ": .=1:. :. � _' moi. _
570SB 1
't .r i- Y �' 7r die 4..Iri-.'': i�i.•n['1 1, I I ��. `570
-'
-W.N 11 t
Fe a-
,0 t ': i.•r7 ;� .,ift. I�j` Aii, b�r.-,, 'yam '� 'C
• .:r. �1' .. �PfQo���,.3�'•.Sso': `��;to.i- _ -,,. •� ter'.-.:..' �•.. ; ;_. '' - • , ,': , , . �. .
MP O. ,• :,'. 1•f•1,: i:.' 1.'i % •r�'
�,t••. , :. J. ': ..' �i.ptot� � ...j.'�•� — 1'}•i.'1 h•�I 1�, 1•, .'•. ''^ • U
34, PLb
'Y� ;. {� �l' ' ,. •-: •L t �.�., •,_ S y/t•�1'1 •., i^h�.d• , '' ��p.'��'tr'..� �?�Qe,.ti!
�• .. , � .� ,, '14' li' Ir"'yt� 6 ,I 14' . ' � 14' •�` �� � •h '�. •',1 • ' , _ �• ::.
�: j�•t" -t-.•TAT �^ I'.. w` r .�Jt�• ,. ... ... r. .� •� 1�:', .,f•,�'��'a"^'Y �.�.: .. i. .._ ;/: •7 i'9�,.;•�a: "' 1 Jl•'J1'f'
. .. •:I"ls. ..a'J.:,��`f�Z�.�`', ,.:, ;r. .rsL 4..A.;k-wig-i-Ito,, 10..A•rj111+f.d ^'�'. ..a.'-.n. ,l2•."• �.. _. ��~�W
l/tO 1• •fir ._.,�_.
R E S O L U T I O N
FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL
At a meeting of the City Council of the City of Monticello,
held on the day of , 1988, the following Resolution me. offered
by
soconded by ,
to alt'
WHEREAS the Comm1941oner of the Department of Transportation hew prepared a
preliminary layout for the Improvement of a part of Trunk Highway Number 792 renumbered
as Trunk Highway No. 94 within the corporate limits of the City of Monticello, at T.H.
23; and seeks the approval thereof, and
WHEREAS said preliminary layouts are on file In the Office of the Department
of Traneportatlon, Saint Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled, and identified an
Layout No. I S.P. 6680-I10 (94-792) at T.N. IS.
NOW, THEM, BE IT RESOLVED that sold preliminary layouts for the Improvement
of aAid Trunk Highway with the corporate limit• be and hereby are approved.
Upon Na call of the roll the following Council Members voted In favor of
the Resolution
The following Council members voted against It■ •doptiont
whereupon the Mayor and/of the preslding officer declared the Resolution adopted.
Dated . 1988
N.Y.,
Attest
City Clark
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
CITY OF MONTICELLO >
I do hereby certify that at told r4tlna (of which due and 149.1 smile*
was given) of the City C.... 11 of Montlrlle. Mlnm.. eta, mm the _ day of
1988, at which a eta Jorlty of the umber of amid
Coupe 11 .4f. present, the I ... got.$ rselullne .as adopted.
Div.. undo, my hand and .-I this day of , 1988.
City L[.,a
RW141de.R1
l./
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
7. Public Rearing - A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
unplatted residential lot into two unplatted residential lots. Applicant,
West prairie Partners. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
West Prairie Partners requests a simple subdivision which calls for
dividing the property previously arced by the Temple Baptist Church
congregation into two lots. The structure that remains will occupy a
property area equal to a standard residential lot (12,000 sq ft). The
area that remains will be developed at some time in the future. Staff
and the BRA will be working with the developer to establish a housing
plan that incorporates the entire area. At this time our focus is on
development of R-2 densities as dictated by the zoning for the area.
At the recent meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission
recommended approval of the simple subdivision, as the request meets all
requirements as identified by the City Ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve simple subdivision request.
7.. Motion to deny simple subdivision request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval is recommended, as the proposed subdivision creates two lots
that both meet minimum requirements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map outlining proposed subdivision.
-5-
CFO
ti
. �,��'• �„'� ,,� J9 ,jl��i 'amu 3"�� \
:AMVE1«O1 o if
•� j rr�.m �,'a s�ivin
C.'
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
8. Consideration of simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2
(heavy industrial) lot into two I-2 lots - Oaxw000 Industrial Park
Partnership. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership is proposing to subdivide
Block 1, Lot 6, Oakwood Industrial Park Addition, in the city of
Monticello. The proposed lot, when split as noted on the enclosed plan
as Parcel B, will contain approximately 2 acres. The minimum lot area
under I-2 zoning is 30,000 sq ft of lot area. Parcel B lot width on the
south side is in excess of the minimum lot width required, which is
100 feet.
As you will note on the enclosed site plan, there are some existing
drainage and utility easements which we would like to have changed and
incorporated as shown on the enclosed site plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the staple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2
(heavy industrial) lot into two industrial lots.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing 1-2
(heavy industrial) lot into two industrial lots.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2
(heavy industrial) lot into two industrial lots with the following
conditions:
1) The drainage and utility legal descriptions be drafted and
recorded as shown on the enclosed drainage and utility easement
plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed lot to be subdivided known as Parcel B and the other
existing part of this lot known as Parcel A do meet or exceed the minimum
lot area and lot width as required under I-2 (heavy industrial) zoning.
The applicants should have legal descriptions prepared for the drainage
and utility easements and have them recorded as shown on the enclosed
drainage and utility easement plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed subdivision requests Copy of the
site plan for the simple subdivision requests Copy of the drainage and
utility casement plan for this simple subdivision request.
-6-
moi: t 7 �•� `1 R;'(�(/47�T7 �:an,'J]t• J' '"'w ......
p �T C
j • , � � .�( �t y` ♦ r. , 'tea `�c �
-17
71,
t //ISN �I .1'..
Wqy �pJ 9 G�
a sexist subdivisi i iyidros �� 7
• o• : an existing I.2 (has trial ! o +t •. r'r�*//
into tvo industrial to I 1 t r
.- akvood Industrial DTV ark
Np 94
J t _ -•��� , ` , Mfrs
�� � a G
. .- .! i �;.3^' .Y:� :iT•. �;tl.r':.=r ��; Qp u�i:.L „"^. L_]t...4 :4: ••' -, i,:,,,�. .. - ,
F / 1 ✓. rites .otter � t\, Q
,�^ f. r, _`A::%w.;; ::•"^' �Id: npt:�i•�p s.`. :r. - - tj i ar :F:+r.:»:_'
� :: ' ) � „1 % " r.:'•i y'`S,•q•' a rr!'rt �"•'•"� .: ♦;; - I • C •.I' "'':y'�:'•- :, �• `�j,: .
6,' t;{�i: ;:=� „� �l �P 'I t__ ^''•.. fiR• } _t,�^.st.:��y';;'.,•,, .,•1.+1.111 i
♦. _.4t+ "y j'1'$.;:' rf 4r• g. -,.r. .�,•-f_t-tw tii;`t �,` - '' I" � '^"-:.i•_�t caw'j•
• r _ `t i:•.a--..:.-i*:* �= : a fi;�a ` .; •.. - • •ao . �','.. :� : ria: .. `v
p. .S.ems:,•.; � .� fel to ,.+.. r'.v :� rr.. r�.ai'`. .- r-♦.-.r._i.:;y�iw "v-r• y t.';^t1 � •;•� 4�:� �• '4�1i:i4 i1'.,• .7: fir• �. I.i/•►IAS � •,�y;' `•71...: '.....'..'..'^.: ..i: a-• 'i:i_ �tt..a._:�'9''. 1... c.,:±.:.:. 'r:-t v� '.
'- t,.,:r^.•s:.\;;. .t� • v-t' i i.- �.{'. _ �."�-"'• ti•z: +r::-t"'=i:.� 2 a..:.i -i,s• _:t �vr_`F''ir:s3- :.5:- r 1 4
a. .-v 'Y...•-+s -w J t"-S ,r -• ,•� {s,3:2:
.y.
.•.''y"it,'.."3.: riaoiaia Pise an.
i -o �•yV /,..1• ;�t,I.•L .Lt;q+i`h:•rr.r.�ii zu, :.1. ti.:7.r'• �•4'- •r•,::.:: iia}.,... .•!. ♦ r'. r.� �,,.F..y .ice 0. •:•fol.
♦ _ "�i•°�- 11 __ d ,.o v;`i.oa •fit^: ahmew o
' y.j;.. -ai-2',�:' atFF;�, x� 'd.;-}, :ct--. « � • v.' 'I 'i ti' +r' ^-�.``� -'�. 'itn.iie=ia
s r :.t•,: y •�r��},,� -#_�� ,c` ��.," e � �-„r•. ,i,•. _� :t'. �, �...�-"' ` �d:rt s, L»+�Cr!t �� f :�w.
.c _dlr%� :i +A77• � .� .,.: _,i`."., l •s_ fet% ¢e
i+ ,ts�i'1:�:�t;. ��f •,3M�`_atry ,1. � .a: e+••••"��.�Y""t'+-it�-` y�+*,�'�. �, Si o' 4ti� r,. sx.-�asv. teg6nd:`r..�-,•':'•
�a. iM: +.• +w• i''t? i.'7t: uvY,t`7wr*MrtT+,�� »; ^.t.','.`•-r.t' ^7:i w a. .IG!•?4rtR• .TJ'�•T..ii la 4ei'fl ahr.
5 s.`Yt.; r.•ei}..r,.,. rjl:•°?: , d': 4�t:!- � •.1,� •' �. � ��"i =.E t. ',�.-.r'a^�, :,.
4 NrY 4V M"+•• a ham. t1Nw'.-, �..{f1b'C- ♦ 6tit anti i[e33t
,t ;lir: .7 ::_.r.., .,�,,.`Sy»,'"'-'�:,...•'z.-. ,.:0�� •�.-L�•:::1. �..:a ..�iaV.�iCr6G,`BT• .3 .t•� 11:7'' 1 -" .:'l /ni Pi1np • t•nc
1 •, - :r.:"S. .,t-�.`�»?u:'�:`i .n:a.. �':„ a t� r.-.:,�ewis... �_ -'� ...:"��ti�: amt.. Qf tet.ot
•u' .. t t• . ± _ 1 1{ Y aanrawi sa `o0nc
I C `' . r I4 siPlmm�p. i nt.
1 yy j gi '••r.cortl. •
'*'•"- '� '` r ti Thaa Pers Qt Lot
' � / tY anw riGerQitl i
j t• tel tQ�al earl
i n{ aV f 1:[.111111t1 1111tn.
•ri t.MY✓IY (+uY I(!I+" Me!
%ul
Ir A \ � f•rt! inincw 4eV
}'a. --(u P0- � � t♦fl lnea .ef :)A..
... !� .. _�C'ySr a�(,•/fidt urr _... �.,.�.:.. 1 i en ♦ e..rinp al f
�. 'w-! .i •t/• t � tart! ansn:♦ taa
�f�y��rn•+r•�1�_�•M ' Ny t �y� Vi} •rntlal Intl+ :1
t � •"'....._..�3. '+"".. ♦ � 1 .eyyryi 4. 3ti ♦�� rUa,.i ♦,rF♦• .
ft
J
TGYLCR LAND SURVEYC
Sit wCrr WOAC�. PO Soy
AMTIC&=. ~93M 3336.
P -ow fell) 1".33810
ft
J
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
Consideration of approving final subdivision plat - Charles Ritze. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Charles Ritze is back before you with his final plat for his proposed
new subdivision plat to be known as Ritze Manor Second Addition. The one
change that you will note on the final plat that is different from the
preliminary plat is that they have created an Outlet A to take care of
the land area in dispute between Mr. Charles Ritze and his neighbor to
the north, Mr. Reinhold Yager. we end up with 25 feet of lot width at
the public right-of-way to come into the property known as Lot 1. This
is a rather unique configuration of this lot without sufficient lot width
at the public right-of-way. The development or the use of this
residential property is rather limited for residential use. The existing
hard surface for Hilltop Drive is extended approximately 10-12 feet into
this 25 feet of lot width at the public right-of-way, Hilltop Drive. The
applicant, or a developer/builder, will be responsible for petitioning to
the City to extend the hard surfacing of Hilltop Drive to the easterly
portion of this 25 feet of lot width. Such costs of the road hard
surfacing extension are to be paid for by the applicant and/or the
builder/developer of this Lot 1 prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for a proposed new house on this lot.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the final plat request for a proposed new subdivision plat.
2. Deny the final plat request for a proposed new subdivision plat.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Outlet A was created to minimize the dispute between the two property
owners, Mr. Charles Ritze and Mr. Reinhold Yager, as kind of a
compromise. with the unique configuration of this lot, the developer,
Mr. Ritze, is pretty much limited to the use of this residential
property. The 25 feet of lot width on the public right-of-way will
accommodate ingress and egress to the property line to Lot 1 and still be
within the setbacks needed on either side of the lot line to accommodate
a hard surfaced driveway into Lot 1. Any costs for extension of the
existing Hilltop Drive hard surfaced roadway shall be paid for by the
applicant and/or the developer/builder prior to issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for a proposed new house to be built on Lot 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed final plat request; Copy of the
final plat for the Ritze Manor Second Addition.
-7-
,
'' � 1\ tart plat
Aeviaua°g a°p=OSad
neY subdivislOn
r
plat- tiit"-a.
cjtarlas
t
.....
y�
'
\\ \
rjr v T �.\
xt
7"; "__,:�+�'�k�•••t^�: �• [ ••_ �i� _ _ `� a� � 1 • S' ! ' ji' t��, 1' J,�•.ti,.. `� ' ... �'h\, /
�; ��,''•"ir"1�yr,•. :w.'. �j��f, Ik,yi,,,,,, _ ,t•.'���' '4+.r',�:"�J•��J._-�'i�:tt� r, i f.�•.'."`�+•'"^,•1,,,,,� �`�,•�''v (`�\�
�a , /����4. 114"�� Y!•^ ,; �'��'�• tK:' �'.aiy�"•]t r�•,.�'��� �J •7 . ` J } 1 '•"N" , .
:.Yvve,+++....JJJi ,j r-"�.a^'.-;; {i,"::!,';"'� � V ,�olp, t'}'i',rr•• = '".�
.' r• ',.ter. .., }. +`^S•i.-�.� t K �,.
•;J�w �'r. n!1,,�,r�,��1.� �\r'f.7�.� �i'".��. •t , v�lty 4i�}3'''i
'f'J,�y,+�i'.•{� •. it��l,•/� .i S•�.r. •�1'�• �r•� � .}[ilii+{'?'�".�i � j"''•�`i'
r '
+
roar+ av! Y r..++ rr'YJ
riff
' _,_ r " N9B•i3.7B'E 3/260 - - V
z
A _ wo .I)IO —tee -y '•.' i
OUTLO.T _.�,�1.•!�d Ysrra•_ � �s • �- s;'? l� � .
a[ A r•q�-- MI!'N•rl�d NY 1l MIr'Y! I
y' • '— yd�YD 71� ` ar ISYN
a.r � 'sig � r���', rL J �': ,`c�.; * r.;.., Cij���:�}_�'•; �ii:�•....t.... ta;;��:.. � � ���;,�: \�•:^;•_ir;-' � _
:.c.' - _- f•� ' � � .... "_"... ..� .i .,. �► Y • •• 3' ._. - •... , ..' "tel �i..��„t•ru.
pirzf
BLOCK ONE i ;3
IN
r
INc9\
IN
u
�J a�
council Agenda - 2/13/89
10. Consideration of Sunny Fresh Foods request. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On Monday evening, January 16, 1989, I received a call from the night
shift foreman at Sunny Fresh indicating the presence of some small specks
in the water at Sunny Fresh. The foreman had noticed some tiny specks on
the pure white eggs during their washing or cooling process. Although
the quantity was very small, the eggs had to be pulled, as they were not
marketable with the specks on them. The Water Superintendent checked out
the water at Sunny Fresh that evening and found no additional problems.
The following morning, particles again appeared; and upon further
checking, we found that there were, indeed, some minute particles in the
water coming into the Sunny Fresh building. The particles appeared to be
specks of iron or manganese. The Water Department then proceeded to
flush the mains in the downtown area, which alleviated the problem.
The specks in the water at Sunny Fresh are an extremely rare occurrence.
To my knowledge, there has only been one other time in the last ten years
that this has occurred, and it was during the winter. Although we have
no positive proof as to what caused the specks in the water, the
following gives the most likely cause of the problem. All of the water
mains north of Sunny Fresh in the downtown area are of old vintage. They
are cast iron mains with no cement coating and have been in the ground
since at least the 1940'x, many decades before the City began treating
the water with polyphosphates to hold the iron and manganese in
suspension. These pipes most likely have a build-up of rust and scale,
as well as particles of iron and manganese encrusted to the inside
surface. These materials are firmly embedded to the pipe surface and
generally will not dislodge during normal conditions.
In the wintertime, however, the frost plays an important part in the
bedding of the pipe. As frost moves down, the cast iron mains are
subjected to changes in temperature, as well as possible movement from
the freezing of the soil above. As this occurs, the pipe is sometimes
jarred which causes some of this material to break loose. Exactly where
this occurs is unknown. The problem with this area is that Sunny Fresh
uses approximately 1/3 of all the water being used in the entire city
during the winter months. Therefore, during the wintertime they pull
extremely large amounts of water through the old small diameter pipes in
the downtown area. If some type of shock occurs to loosen some
particles, even several blocks away, the enormous draw from Sunny Fresh
will pull those particles toward their service. This is the moat likely
cause of the specks.
To alleviate this problem from occurring in the future, Sunny Fresh has
installed pre-filtere in the areas where the specks, if they occur, could
present a problem to their products. Although Sunny Fresh has not given
us a written indication as to the cost, previous discussions indicate
they spent in the neighborhood of $4,000 and have some continuing lease
costa associated with the filters.
-8-
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
In researching this problem, I spoke with James Plahn of the Minnesota
Rural Water Association of which the City is a member. Jim indicated it
is almost impossible to guarantee the purest quality of water in
municipal systems. The possibility of some rust particles or iron or
manganese being in the water is possible in most systems throughout
Minnesota. These particles in no way affect the safety of the drinking
water and go unnoticed unless higher qualities of water are needed.
To check into this further, I discussed our problem with Mark Daleider
from Feedrite, the firm that supplies all our drinking water treatment
chemicals. Mark indicated that he felt it was somewhat common that food
processing facilities use some type of filters in areas where water
quality is critical. He gave a case in point such as the Gold'N Plump
processing facility in Cold Spring, Minnesota. Their plant was
experiencing specks of rust, iron, or manganese in the water which was
getting onto the white meat on the chicken; and the meat was being
rejected by the Health Department. in this case, Gold'N Plump installed
final filters just before the washing area and took care of the problem.
What is significant about this case is that GO W N Plump has their own
well and still found it necessary to filter the water in critical areas.
It may not be possible to entirely remedy the situation without filters,
but there are a couple of things that the City could do. We could
undertake a major mechanical cleaning of the old water main lines in the
entire downtown area. In order to do this, it would necessitate shutting
down much of the town to install "pig" launching and retrieval devices at
various locations. A pig is a pneumatic device which is propelled
through the water mains to remove some of the materials which are not
entirely fused to the sides of the pipe. Once this is done, the pipe
should remain free of problems for several years in the future, but there
is no guarantee that something m uldn't still slough off of the side of a
pipe during a frost heave, etc. In addition, this would be extremely
costly and would disrupt water service for much of the community for many
weeks.
Another alternative that we could look at to lessen the possibility of
this reoccurring is to have Sunny Fresh relocate their water service. If
they were to pull their water from the south side of their building, they
would be pulling off of a much newer system. With the exception of
approximately 200+ feet of old city water main, all of the system is new
to the south of their building, and it feeds from much larger cement
coated ductile iron pipe. The likelihood of a disturbance in the old
water mains in the downtown area being drawn into the Sunny Fresh
building from the water main to the south would be significantly less
than their current operation. If this were to become a possibility, the
City should look at replacing that section of water main from
5-1/2 Street north down Locust Street to the Sunny Fresh property. If
Sunny Fresh requoeted replacement of this line, staff considers it a
reasonable request. Since this water main crosses the railroad and
involves replacement of an antique fire hydrant, it to possible that the
replacement could cost $10,000.
-9-
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to reimburse Sunny Fresh Foods for the
cost of installation of final filters at their processing plant.
2. The second alternative would be to obtain quotes on cleaning of the
mains in the entire downtown area and look further into the
possibility of doing it this summer.
3. The third alternative may be to install new water main on Locust
Street to serve the Sunny Fresh facility. This should lessen the
possibility of a reoccurrence of the particles. This alternative
could include the City paying for the water main replacement, or
sharing the cost, or assessing the cost to benefitting property
owners.
4. A fourth alternative could be to continue as we are and indicate that
we are providing the best quality of water possible; and that should
any industries require a higher quality of water, they must do their
own final processing in -plant at their own cost.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the opinion of the Public Works Director and Water Superintendent
that the City of Monticello is providing water to this community that is
first and utmost safe to drink and that is of a substantially high
quality and that is certainly not below the standard of the industry. We
have a very good maintenance program which consists of flushing twice
annually, and only on rare occasions such as this are any problems noted
with the water quality. Even in this instance, the water quality was
such that it affected only Sunny Fresh and for a very short period of
time. :he question that needs to be answered is, "Is the City
responsible to provide water that is 100 percent free of rust scale or
other mineral particles at all times?" It is our opinion that we are not
responsible for that high a quality of water and, therefore, recommend
alternative 14. The City staff, however, would recommend also
alternative 13 should the request come from Sunny Fresh to replace that
section of water main and establish a new water service to lessen the
possibility of this happening again. This alternative, however, does not
100 percent guarantee the water quality that they are looking for, and
the filters may still be needed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the January 18 letter from Sunny Fresh.
-10-
•; Sunny Fresh Foods
- • - Egg Products
206 W. Fourth 5t., Box 428
Monticello, Minnesota 55762
427.7450, 612.295.5666
January 18, 1989
Monticello City Hall
250 E Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Water Quality
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
On Monday night, January 16, 1989, we began to notice flecks of
an unknown substance in our water in the Hard Cook Department.
r To assure product safety and quality for our customers, we ceased
V production. (three hours early)' we assumed that the particles
were coming from our own plumbing. we flushed all of our lines
for several hours until we thought they were clear.
Upon starting our operation on Tuesday, January 17, 1989, we
noticed the particles again and immediately ceased production.
We called Monticello Public works Director, John Simola. He
tested water throughout the city and found problems throughout
the downtown area. John told me that the problem occurred due to
frost heaves disturbing the old water mains in the downtown area.
The long range solution he opined, lies in connecting our plant
into a now water main, which lies south of our building.
Until the city is able to do this, it is necessary for us to
assure ourselves of clear water in our food processing areae. We
have therefore installed five filters (one in Hard Cook, one in
Liquid processing, and three in Further processing). The cost
for these filters, installation, production interruption, product
loss, and other costs duo to this unreliable water supply, are
costs a facility like ours should not expect.
Pleaoe advise us of your plans to provide us with a reliably
clean water supply to assure us of the clear water we need for
our operation.
Yurther, may we ask your consideration in re-imbursing us for
these extraordinary costs necessary because of the unreliable
water quality.
Respectfully, ..
Doug Lut anen
DL/slm
Council Agenda - 2/33/89
11. Consideration of reimbursement for damage on sewer backup - Ben James.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last Council meeting, Mr. Ben James appeared before the Council to
request consideration of payment for damages he incurred for a sewer
backup at his property on January 10, 1989. You may wish to refer to
item p8 in your Council agenda package from January 23 for additional
background. But the Council's decision at that time was to continue
submitting the information on the sewer backup to our insurance company,
League of Minnesota Cities, for their review and consideration.
Mr. Steve Kessler, Supervising Adjuster for GAB Business Services, again
reviewed the additional information and did not feel there was any
negligence on the part of the City of Monticello and continued to deny
any claim. It has been the League of Minnesota Cities' policy that
unless negligence can be proven against the City, these claims have been
denied in the past; and they feel strongly that they would prevail in
court.
Based on the Council's discussion at the last meeting, I met with Mr. Ben
James on Wednesday, February 8, to review his damage claims and to
possibly negotiate an amount he would be willing to accept, if the
Council considered any kind of payment reimbursement. In reviewing the
claims first totaling over $6,000, I explained to Mr. James that many of
the items, including clothing, furniture, etc., even if damage beyond
repair would normally be reimburseable by an insurance company would he
on a depreciated value depending on age and conditions. After reviewing
the list, Mr. James agreed to disregard any claim for inconvenience and
most of the items that were actually stained or damaged, including
clothing, some furniture, and other miscellaneous items. In return, he
requested that the Council consider carpet replacement, the sewer rodding
bill since he felt it wasn't his problem, the motel and meals associated
with having to abandon his Muse for a few days, and the cleaning bill by
Service Master. As you can see from the list attached, these bills would
total $2,177.76; but in addition to this, Mr. James feels the lost wages
incurred by his wife from teaching piano lessons and his own wages for
taking vacation for two days should also be reimbursed by the City. If
this amount for lost wages is added to the previous expenditures, this
would round out to $2,500, which he would be agreeable in accepting in
lieu of further litigation.
I believe most of these expenditures were definitely cash outlays that
Mr. James had to incur, except for the lost wages. Although Mr. James
was required to take vacation for two days, I believe he was actually
paid wages; and I cannot support any payment for this claim of $322.24.
Regardless, it to Mr. James' opinion that $2,500 is the lowest amount he
will accept based on our discussions. He hopes that this is agreeable
with the City Council to got the matter over with; but he has also not
indicated that he would pursue other litigation it a ditterent offer was
made by the City Council.
-11-
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
Now that you are aware of a dollar amount that would be acceptable to
Mr. James, the question becomes whether or not the City should set a
precedent by reimbursing any homeowner for damages from providing utility
services when the claim has originally been denied by our insurance
carrier. Although Mr. Kessler, the adjuster, did not have a problem with
the City reimbursing an individual for some of his losses, our insurance
agent, Jon Franzen, did not recommend the City Council do this strictly
because of the precedent that it will set in the future. -his may seem
like a small dollar amount to settle this natter, but it could lead to
many more claims in the future. I also contacted the City Attorney, Tom
Hayes, who also in his opinion did not feel it was a wise decision to
reimburse for any damages.
Although I know I certainly would be upset if it was my home that was
damaged, there are pro's and con's to offering any kind of payment in
lieu of an insurance company settlement. I also have concerns over
setting a precedent whereas this Council or future Councils may be faced
with similar requests because of this action. If the City is really
negligent or liable, and even if a court of law would determine such, our
insurance company would have to defend us in a lawsuit and if they lost
would have to pay the claim. Looking at it from this point, if the claim
was denied entirely, the worst that could happen is, I believe, the
insurance company would incur costs for defending the lawsuit and also
would be responsible for the payment if the lawsuit was lost. On the
other hand, after reviewing the damages and claims submitted, if the
Council wanted to make a reimbursement without admitting any liability or
guilt, I could support approximately $2,175 of the amount requested.
Again, this would cover the carpeting that we know was destroyed, along
with the actual bills incurred for lodging and food and the cleaning of
Mr. James' house.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Offer a reimbursement to Mr. .lames in the amount of $2,175 or $2,500
as requested by Mr. James.
2. Negotiate further with Mr. James and offer to reimburse a lesser
amount of his damage claim.
3. Deny any reimbursement or liability based on insurance company's
rejection of the claim.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
T believe the staff overall does not feel the City was negligent in the
way it responded to this problem, nor did we cause additional damage.
Although we question why the insurance company does not offer some type
of settlement, we are also concerned over a precedent that may be set for
any payment at all. If the Council feels there were unusual
circumstances in this case, I can support an amount around $2,175
` provided Mr. .lames agrees to signing a waiver accepting this dmount ds
-12-
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
full payment for damages and the statement indicates the City is not
admitting any guilt or negligence and is making the payment out of
sympathy or as a goodwill gesture. And additionally, the release form
should note that Mr. James would not pursue any further legal action as a
result of this payment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of items negotiated for payment between Administrator and Mr. James;
Second copy of letter from insurance adjuster denying claim.
-13-
(LAB S,*,W s4, ".s the
eo0 25th Arena! 9 Smte 107
PO awl 1251
St Cloud uunneton 56102
TONNOOM 612.2514=
6rMo 4,otdgi
January 27, 1989
Sam James
412 East 3rd Street
Monticello, MN 55362
GAB FiLe: 56539-34155
Insured: City of Monticello
D1CLaim: 1-10-89
Type: Sewer backup
rys.... Dear Mr. James:
The City of MonticeLLo forwarded to me your 5 page statement
along with the Letter from Eugene FyLe and your various bills.
I reviewed the matter again and still do not feel there is
any negLigence on the Dart of the City of Monticetto. Since
I feel there is no Liability, I am maintaining a denial of
.your claim.
L
SK:mas -
cc: City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
MonticaLLo, MN 55362
Attn: Rick WoLfstaLLer
Yours very truly,
Steve Kesster
'Supervising Adjuster
I
I P I 1. A .. I . I I A , I ov ' - �•
.�r 'r,.1n•.••w _• Mconl.cl '.:V ]421
,
of ?f'.C:aiC+.2o - °uifaio ,a• r..1 c:.- ,•e �.n.
'
RDufa Z, Scm 19 ^n� s- 3Pn� Bim; . /-/9 - �: 1— _ i_ jr—T.•tl
.+^�� V.1 Flr[I 1n111.1
l'•s110, iL'in a-3C2-cIloco. s—IstlYNo.Stlr.YnO.I3tl•K. Str1Y UN
ba/.O 5.1n.t Aq,
wyr
-iTtl.;' T• r9` �/, T"'ar. �.: I I+OeeC1. I I1+••1K1.'Pa Y IYn1
$t.rAdtto". n, nor ulutlalrto It, Sun /•� Lo ,
nor 4spop SI S Ws I+1•rA•GI cOmnn•O OO 3••un[A[1an[ VN CL.
ut .raR+ sw to• co.n.Ct . Al, r�•,c�, r�7. <y7v : ew... Icop
TYPE OF SERVICES A4l t1M ro anon GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LOSS.
By CODE NO. '
W I L.1 p.t t.lYn1M iByPnb. Aaa[...
Sot Pu t`CIYn1M
w•wcAA• oww
Soo st•ucwo•nn. �Glr 51.1• LO
.lo 51.a.•Oa[In•
.t 1900Aeeen•
SI3 CtlY1 s•n111.a.
131 W.e A C.1en9 CIM. Aa1u.1.•'. "+.In• j
Sas -_ M.Int•n.nt.
.33 0S—.c- Pnon. ow
oro auntl e..1w•uo" c• �oao•nr ��•
.673 nou[►w1a• P..n1M m.11r.n
•ll t1.•mnvsr.M _
i.•a.m
O.[. at Lon _ D.n of S.I+•w Swwr By
-,nr 31.1• _ LO - ' �� .
ACCT. NO •
NO: 8-840421 "1, "'"• TYPE OF . SOOT L M N ATE L Ala>
-n• r i.n, "• DAMAGE DOOR L M N SSAOKE L M N
BUILDING c-` OP
— �SVSTlM TneCosa140. :,SUMMARY
_ av moa No.
..AOOY +•• cAAPtT _ CO'.`+r OL C[ t`1 as -rlLt - .-oras,
,[..�......�.
so" .ol so FTreo. soFT�.t. so FT .36 so Fr �1901CPf:CW.•' � p�q/%77,P[� =
All 'T X In :I1 - 802 FURN.CLN.
C, f? x iii .1b t/ !sem -.aJ.'��rr.�'7..ii11�1sS�tra'�.!'' '�:'°p!`'R•iir•:
�ir /p { 7� "I^'r •� -' - ��� BOi000RCONTHOI �•y
Dn 17r 93
•.•.. .FIN. 710•
r, w /n r in I I f In . 11 ''+utur+t
on.aR ..1•�N...A:,..tl.n.rlw
7nn�=OTHER
. wALL a
825 CaIuND CLN. ...,�
eae FLR. MAI�NT..
lyI
TOTAL SROUGN7
cnPWAFO I i I I TAX
rOr.t.30 PT I 1 •- I I I BUILDING _
•OrAl uYi r'+ I I I I MCONTENTS
+SUB•CONTRACTING
•R!
TOTAL
L114
• i 1 ` i .: 1 ; >\1 . , .•'. _ bu Ly Tu TOTAL SALU
L1
:.4C3 It •-[Ni -+ ' 1- u. vi• moi_ wi�
•I1�rF•:A
P6.47A.zpav .
• .r•r•11n
coo . 70 s!S Y 3. 3 S'"
x 3
0. 03
Z 9S'- y7oo
MONTI MOTEL-- an AZlC�!
LOON.$ •11N ""7 71—Mr N2 um -oft M-44ou 5132
5122M �m—*W W W i +iww, w
y
LARSEN
Furniture & Carpet
PHO NE245.21M -
MON `CEt10, MILAN. 53362
dd—
C 50109, 1 Q*10 I con. Io"+cs`c» I WAIL I..pOUTI )
IOTA{ J`
AU oo— owe ,«iernsa go", mvT IN a wms.r m ,..
4682 bcdbv
FYLFS EXCAVATING & HONEY WAGON
Route 2 Box 76
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 55362
(612) 245-2511
O,ja=RIPTION II ( palca f AMOUNT
i
1
R
t
i
I
1 SIMPRJ Clrq� at 1N% DM mantle On I TAXI I
I TOTAL ! 1
• 16 6 8 Ct yank� .
1 v t
II
.,
_�--- �.
i
\,
,�
i
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
12. Consideration of authorizing the purchase of fire department equipment.
(R.W. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of the 1989 budget, the fire department included $5,000 for the
purchase of 800 feet of high volume 5 -inch hydrant hose. Pire Chief,
Willie Parnick, has been researching the best price available for this
item and has determined that the fire department can purchase this
quantity through the City of St. Paul Joint Consortium that the City
belongs to at a price of $4,192. Mr. Parnick will also be in attendance
at the Council meeting to answer any questions you may have regarding
this purchase.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize the fire department to proceed with the purchase of the
hose at a price of $4,192.
2. Deny the request.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the information supplied by the Fire Chief, the staff sees no
reason to oppose this purchase since it was included in the 1989 budget
if the item is necessary.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
O
-14-
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
13. Consideration of adopting recycling plan and authorization to prepare
RFP. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The recycling committee has been moving ahead developing a recycling plan
by which to meet the Wright County target dates of April 1, 1989, for
plan submittal and July 1, 1989, for operational start of a curb side
recycling program in the city of Monticello. The plan submitted with
this agenda item has been in the works for the past 18 months, first with
the assistance of Oouncilmember Bill Fair, and now with 0ouncilmember Dan
Blonigen's assistance and input. We have developed a plan that we hope
will be acceptable to the City Council. Please review the enclosed plan
prior to reading the remaining agenda information. The following is a
proposed schedule for plan implementation.
Plan approval by City Council
February 13, 1989
Approval of RFP by City Council
March 13, 1989
Plan submittal to Wright County
Solid Waste Task Force
April 1, 1989
Proposal due date
April 5, 1989
Council review of proposals 6 award
April 10, 1989
Begin media campaign 6 first nail out
with water and sewer billing
April 15, 1989
First voluntary recycling day
July 6, 1989
First mandatory recycling day
October 5, 1989
The City of Monticello's curb aide recycling plan does involve some
significant costs to the City of Monticello. If one looks merely at the
surface, these costa appear to be significant] and one has to ask why
recycle) If you look at the broad spectrum of the environmental issues
such as protecting our ground water and preserving natural resources, one
can get a better picture of the overall cost of not recycling and
continuing to waste in the future. As time goes on, the cost for garbage
disposal is expected to rise significantly, as well as the cost of
cleaning up our environmental problems from past dumping or landfilling.
The following are anticipated current costs for various sections of the
plan.
1. Contractor Costs.
The coats of contractor curb aide recycling does vary from community
to community and location to location. My best guess currently to
that we can expect to pay somewhere between $.50 and $.75 per
household per month. we have in the city of Monticello, based upon a
1989 estimate, 1,837 living units. If we use the $.75 per household
figure per month, this would cost us $1,378 per month, or $16,536
annually. If we were able to have a very vigorous recycling program
and pull out 15 percent by volume, we would abate 870 cubic yards per
year. The current landfill charges (not total landfilling cost) are
$9 per cubic yard, which would equate to a $7,830 annual savings.
Thio would mean an increaso in garbage services to the City of
Monticello of $8,706 annually.
-15-
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
2. Recycling Containers.
Individual pickups Container costs
single tamiiy
906
mobile homes
185
individual apts
32
duplex, tri-plex,
s 4-plex units
137
townhouse units
72
TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
PICKUPS
1,332 X 3 per household -
3,996 containers X $6.08 $24,295.68
Apartment Buildings
2-6 unit (12)
4-8 unit (32)
7-12 unit (84)
2-16 unit (32)
1-18 unit (18)
16 bldgs. (178 units) X 3 0 48 X $48.90 $ 2,347.20
(3-90 lb. roll around
containers/bldg.) D
5-24 unit (120)
1-26 unit l 26)
1-30 unit l 30)
1-31 unit 1 31)
2-36 unit 1 72)
1-48 unit 1 48)
11 bldgs (327 units) X 6 . 66 X $48.90 $ 3,227.40
(6-90 lb. roll around
containers/bldg.)
TOTAL CORMINER COST - $29,870.28
X 50% (city or homeowner cost) $14,935.14
As can be seen by the above, there is a significant cost for
container purchase. It has been demonstrated in the past that the
containers are an integral part of a recycling system. There are
soros communities, however, that are using a single container at
households which holds three paper bags. There is generally a higher
success rate using the three individual, stackable containers. It is
anticipated that approximately $2,400 coming from Wright County as a
grant would be applied toward the City's portion of the containers.
The committee recommends, hwover, that additional containers be
purchased to allow for the city's growth over the next 36 months. It
in anticipated that the $2,400 would just about cover those costs.
Again, as outlined in the plan, the residential portion or share of
-16-
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
the containers would be billed over a period of one year to the
homeowners. This would be a total of $9.12 or a little over $2 per
quarter. The smaller apartment buildings would be paying about
$73.35 for their share of the containers; and the larger apartment
buildings needing a double set of containers would be paying $146.70
for their share of the containers. Again, this would be billed to
them over a period of four quarters on the sewer and water bill.
3. Signs, Promotions, and Advertisement.
For the first year, we estimate that promotional and educational
activities could cost $2,000. The second year should drop to less
than half and probably remain at or near $1,000 annually.
4. Administrative Costs.
The committee is proposing to the City that we purchase a hand held
scanning system for recording the individuals who recycle. In order
to determine who does not recycle, we must record who does recycle
and calculate by process of elimination who is not recycling.
without a hand scanning method, it is our understanding that it
generally requires the contractor to have another man along to record
the address of the person who is recycling and the item that is being
recycled. This individual would then take it back and prepare a hand
written or typed list which could be submitted to the City. The City
then must go through this list, compare it to a master list, and
break out those people who are not recycling, and then prepare
billings for same. This is a labor intensive operation, and we feel
that the contractor would add a significant amount of money for this
additional man, as has been demonstrated in other communities. In
addition, there is a possibility of errors due to the wrong address
being written down for where the container is picked up, or just
errors in transposing addresses from thought to paper or from paper
to paper. The credibility of this system is poor. In addition,
significant amounts of time would be needed at City Hall to prepare
separate billings.
With the hand held scanning system, the City would purchase two
scanners to be used by the recycling contractor and computer software
to integrate individual bar codes with master file lists. we would
then receive a simple list of who is not recycling, and the list
could be coded alphabetically or by water and sewer account ID number
and could easily be transposed into our utility billing system. The
bill would then be automatically printed and sent out with the water
and sewer bill. The drawback of this system is its cost. It will
cost $10,000 to $12,000 to implement this system.
The City of St. Louie Park system, which is very similar, took two
years to amortize based upon their cost estimates. I would estimate
that labor saving -viae, our system would take significantly longer to
-17-
14
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
amortize if, indeed, it would. The overriding factor here is the
credibility of such a system. The recycling committee felt that if
the plan was to have a penalty for not recycling, then this accurate
type of checks and balances should be used.
5. Revenues.
The above items have discussed the possible costs to the City. Now
let's take a look at the possible revenues from such a system.
If 10 percent of the individual pickups would not recycle, we would
receive $11,172 in revenue for the first year. If three of the
apartment buildings did not meet the recycling quota for a year, with
an average number of 18.7 units per building, we would receive
another $3,366 in revenue, for a total of $14,538 annual revenue.
This would quickly make up the difference in cost for recycling and
in the future would enable us to lower our overall refuse collection
levy in the general fund. I have used the 10 percent estimate for
not recycling, as our questionnaire indicated that 90 percent of the
people in the city of Monticello would recycle if given the
opportunity to do so. The only other revenue expected at this time
is the approximately $2,400 coming from Wright County, which as I
stated earlier would be used to buy spare containers for future
growth in the city.
In summary, the City's cost for 1989 for startup and operation for the
last six months would be as follows:
Increased collection 6 disposal cost
for the last 6 mos, of 1989
$ 4,353.00
Container purchase
29,870.28
signs, promotion, 6 advertisement
2,000.00
Administrative scanning system cost
12,000.00
TOTAL STARTUP COST
$48,223.28
Revenues
F68 o�P09 of the homeowners share, 2 qtrs.
$ 7,467.57
Last quarter of 1989, 10t penalties
3,634.50
TOTAL REVENUE
$11,102.07
'DOTAL FUNDS NPFDED PROM THE REFUSE,
COLLECTION BUDGET FOR 1989
$37,121.21
The City of Monticello has budgeted $20,000 for startup for the recycling
program. This leaves us short in 1989 of approximately $17,000, of which
$7,467.57 will be coming in during the first two quarters of 1990 for
containers.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the curb side recycling plan as
presented to the City Council from the recycling committee and
authorize preparation of a request for proposals to be submitted to
the Council for approval on March 13, 1989.
-me-
C
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
2. The second alternative would be to modify the plan by changing the
amount of penalty and/or the type of checks and balances for the
system. This must be known prior to development of an RPP, as it
will have an influence on the contractor cost. Based upon these
modifications, the plan could be changed and the RPP drafted
accordingly and still be returned to the Council on March 13.
3. A third alternative would be to completely reject the curb side
recycling plan as proposed and develop a new plan with major
modifications as recommended by the City Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the recycling committee that the City Council
adopt the plan as outlined in alternative Al and allow the recycling
committee to begin work on the RPP. we feel that this plan will enable
the City to have a very efficient, well run curb side recycling program.
It is possible to recycle in this community cheaper; but convenience of
recycling and credibility are extremely important and should not be
overlooked. We feel that this project needs 100 percent support of the
City Council; and therefore, if any members of the Council are
uncomfortable with portions of it, we'd rather go back to the drawing
board than not have that support. We feel the citizens of Monticello are
ready for a recycling program, and they should have one that the total
Council supports.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the 1988/1989 budget for refuse collection under general fund;
Copy of the recycling plan; Copy of the containers and price sheets. The
containers that are recommended to be used with our program will be on
display at Monday evening's Council meeting. The individual homeowner
containers are anticipated to have the City logo as well as three
different colors in the final delivery.
-19-
C
GENrOar FOND
REFUSE COLLEC_ION
1988 BUDGE^-
Personal Seriices
6912 Salaries,Overtime S 800
6915 P_W?ension 50
6919 Social Secirity 50 $ 900
Supplies
6923 General Ope:acing Supplies S 600 $ 600
Other Services and Charges
6936 Professional Services $ 96,450 S 96,450
Capital OuC1ay
6959 Improvements Other Than Bldgs. $ 20,000 S 20,000
TOTAL REPOSE OOLLEC.RON $117,950
REFUSE COLLECTION
Professional Services - Additional landfill costs above basic
refuse contract.
Capital Outlay -
Imp. other than bldga. - Rocycling program $20,000
-47-
/3
0
REPOSE COLLECTION
1989 BUDGET
1989
Personal Services
6912 Salaries, overtime S 800
6915 PERA/Pension 50
6919 Social Security S 50
900
Supplies
6923 General Operating Supplies S 600
other Services and Charges
6936 Professional Services $108,000
Capital Outlay
6959 Improvements other Than Bldgs. -0-
TOTAL REFUSE COLLECTION
Sio9,5OO
CURB SIDE RECYCLING PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF MO11TICELL0
The City of Monticello will establish a curb side recycling program to comply
with Wright County's mandate for recycling, to reduce the City's dependency
upon landfilling, and recover valuable resources from the solid waste produced
in the ca munity - It is the intent to contract curb side pickup of recyclable
materials an every other Thursday throughout the year beginning on July 6,
1989. As part of our plan, City staff will draft a request for proposals for
curb side recycling to be reviewed by the City Council at the March 13
meeting. Following the Council's approval, the request for proposals will be
released for advertisement. Proposals are expected to be returnable on
April 5, with Council action to follow on April 10, 1989.
The City of Monticello's curb side recycling plan will consist of the
following:
1. A curb side recycling contractor shall be responsible for pickup of at
least three materials on every other Thursday. If Thursday is a holiday,
Friday shall becora recycling day for that pickup only. The contractor
shall pick up glass, aluminum and bi-metal cans, and newspaper. The
contractor shall be responsible for the pickup, storage, and marketing of
all recyclable materials. As an option in the proposal, the City will
request costs for the pickup of recycled office paper at selected
locations throughout the city. The plan shall remain flexible to allow
for changing markets.
2. The City shall provide three containers with the City logo to each
resident who lives in a 4-plex or less. The estimated cost of the three
containers is approximately $18 per set. The City will pay for 50
percent of the container cost; the homeowner shall pay for the other 50
percent, which will be billed to them on a quarterly basis for a period
of one year. Should any homeowner lose his container or have it stolen,
he shall be able to purchase a new container for a charge of $5.
The City will provide roll -around containers for apartment complexes.
Three containers shall be provided per apartment building between 4 and
18 units. Six containers shall be furnished to apartment buildings above
18 units. The City will pay one-half of the initial cost of the
container for apartments also. The remaining 50 percent shall be billed
to the apartment owners over a period of one year through the quarterly
water and sewer billing. Once the price of these containera are known, a
standard fee will be established for additional containers for apartments
also.
The City will establish a longevity date for containers, at which time
the City would again cover half the cost of new containers.
In order to reward those people who recycle, the City will establish a
penalty fee based upon the cost of garbage services for those residents
who choose not to recycle. This estimated initial coat is $7 per month,
billable on a quarterly basis at $21 per quarter. Apartment buildings
are slightly less. They will he billed at $5.00 per month/per unit, for
a total of $15.00 per quarter/per unit.
/3
Curb Side Recycling Plan
City of Monticello
Page 2
The fees shall be revised annually as the cost of waste disposal
increases.
In order to determine who is recycling and who is not recycling, the City
will establish a system of checks and balances with a high degree of
reliability. The possibility of using hand scanners with a computer
printout is currently being investigated at length.
The following definition will be used to determine whether an individual
is recycling or not: "A person or resident shall be deemed to recycle if
on three of the available opportunities to recycle per quarter, the
resident recycles a reasonable amount of two products (aluminum or
bi-metal cans, newspaper, or glass), and follows pre -determined
guidelines as to the placement of containers for pickup, the sorting,
cleanliness, and condition of the materials to be recycled."
The first quarter from July 1989 through the end of September 1989 will.
be deemed a learning or training period for the city residents, and no
charges shall be billed to those residents who choose not to recycle
during this period of time. However, for the last quarter of 1989, the
individuals not recycling will be billed the appropriate amounts for that
quarter due in January of 1990.
4. The City will also recycle at each of its facilities in the city and
`- encourage other governmental institutions to do the same. The City will
continue to work toward having recycling opportunities available to
industrial and commercial establishments in the city. They will be
encouraged to contract individually with recyclers. If feasible, the
office paper pickup could be expanded to include cwssnercial and
industrial establishments in the city.
5. The City will continue with its existing contract for garbage pickup with
Corrow until its completion on July 31, 1989. Approximately 60-90 days
prior to the end of this contract, the City will either renegotiate a new
contract with Corrow or advertise for bids for this service.
6. It is anticipated that the City will receive approximately $2,400 from
Wright County to assist with the recycling program. This amount will be
applied toward the City's share of the container cost.
7. The City of Monticello will allow Monticello Township to piggy back its
curb side recycling program by purchasing containers with us and/or
submitting their proposal for curb aide recycling along with ours so that
we may both obtain better prices.
8. The City of Monticello will begin an advertising campaign* after award of
a contract to a curb aide recycler. In addition, the City will purchase
approximately 50 signs indicating Thursday as recycling day. These signs
will be distributed to 50 interested citizens for placement, on various
properties throughout the city the day prior to recycling pickup.
0 D3
Curb Side Recycling Plan
City of Monticello
Page 3
This plan is submitted to the City Council for approval on February 13, 1969,
by Recycling Committee Members Dan Blonigen, Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill,
John Simola, and Gary Anderson.
*Note: Consisting of news articles, radio announcement, government access on
cable tv, and one or more mailouts, as well as handouts at City Rall
and posters on local bulletin boards.
RECYCLING
CREDIT/PENALTY SCHEDULE
Recycling opportunities per quarter e 7
Product opportunities per quarter a 21
QUARTERLY TABULATION
Percent
Recycling Percent Products of Product
Opportunities of Recycling Recycled Opportunities Credit
Used Opportunities Each Opportunity Used Given
3 438 2 29% Pull
6 86% 1 29% Pull
4 578 1 19% 2 months
2 296 2 19% 2 months
2 296 1 106 1 month
1 146 2 106 1 month
C
PA WN E E ROTATIONAL DIOL UI NG, I NC.
February B, 1989
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Corrow Sanitation
15520 Lawndale Lane
Dayton, MN 55327
Pawnee Rotational Molding is pleased to
submit the
following prices for refuse containers:
Versa Kart 90 90 gallon container
948.90 each
Versa Kart 60 60 gallon container
942.56 each
15 gallon hand dump container
915.50 each
Quantities of 50 or more
30 gallon hand dump container
620.80 each
Quantities of 50 or more
All prices FOB Maple Plain, Minnesota.
Reapec tfu l lysubmitted,
y�
//1/4-
Bruce Pladson
Sales Representative
c
1170 %, 14 WIIW A1TWHN 1. • r J R17AI.7 • AI APLI rI. AI\, AIV 11114.0147 In 1!1174.11 e0
♦ All R4111119 1' JI PA4-V I In IHb T R II :• I W. /�
-specifications - versask®rt 90
CURBSIDE. WASTECOt1FMON SYSTEM
COLOR — Standard: green or
black in any wntbumoon (lid bad±
or both the same color). Custom
colors available.
LID SND MGE — Contex.
shape& snap -6t lid, 44' x :30", kef
out fact wild snow• doP and of
curious
animals — even rli ts. No
odor ... no flies! Lid so'Afmgs up at
hangs down the back of the cut
out of the way. so residents can
dump trash easih• without spilling
_ — For serni-automated s%stems h4
tension rubber uirtcilatch kart be
--fastened pennittin5mer-padcht)
_RAUNDLE -.11=7
loaded handle snos
i
and colds securely.
—COi MUNER BODY — Stroal
smooth fightweighL easy to host
out. and retauts cora for lifetime,
- .tatiora➢v_ molded from hidt-
le ular. U.V.-stabilized p#ed
—e: Al
yienso atailabk: m cross -.mkt
pilycthyleue for sk�r dtuabdn
—and the correct ua11 thickness to
meet your requin mens
CAPACITYNOLLDIE & LO,
— 90+ gallons. Wheels and axk
support load of 2D0. pounds.
WIIEELS & AXLE —I
assemble. Axle is AV sol
__12 " -diameter wheels of h
impact polyolefin come ui
_pneumatic tires. Rotation
molded wheels also a% -.d -
RECESSED FROM FI.
—7Tte base is formed w
-scn•e ns abrasim-resiSMn
leafing (t{xm spice (m the
for easy h(nmg of floor tat
FOR SHM I- AND FULLY
AIJTI IJIATED-rRIJCK
LIF I*ING SYSTEMS—The
Versa -Kart has features allouing
a change of truck systems from
semi- to fullv automated witluut
hating to change containers. It's
ready for now — and the future!
SERIAL \ INMERS At
\IAHKINGS — Idemificatixu
Serial tnrnh,!rsare pemtmently
lint -stamped in unite into Ute
b dy. Each i -(log t mother is I'
hi13t lite city or anganty come
and state ;ere cmbcsstd mm
amt.•mtcr lid.
versa
•kart 90
CURBS IM. WAS fC COLISCl ION SYS rEM
Pawnee Praducts
Uitasi, m of I'nunee Misti s. Inc. t 4M In(hisuial Recd i Co ddar(l, Kanvts f i o5i o n CIIII) 791.2121:3
/..3
-S ' 'cations -vers®•k®rt 90 --
—_— -_ _-_ - _ __ - - - CURBSIDE WASTE COUEMON SYSTEM _—
__You're ready for the future with the Versa -Kart 90!
It allows you to change from semi- to luny automated
—truck lifting systems without having to change con- --.
tamers. It's one more advancement in efficiency from
--the innovators in waste systems technology. Helping
your business become more predictable, more
manageable, and more profitable. - -
Saves labor, fuel, time. Collection will
- take fewer trucks, each operating more quickly with
less idling time. You can reduce the number of employe_(
- - - and the number of hours each spends on a route. - - -
Reduces back injuries. Lowers workers comp
rates. Versa-Kart's hydraulic collection method reduce
strain on the collectors' backs and increases sanitation.
You'll see employee downtime reduced and probably
—can merit lower workers compensation nice
Attracts more dependable workers. By omitting
-. .back -breaking chores and inTroving work conditions, -
crews feel better on the job and feel better about the I I I
—job—.. taking more pride in their work: Helps reduce
lemployee turnover.
Increases resident satisfaction. -V.., .
i I Kart usually holds a full week's trash ... dumping is I I
easy without spilling -and with semi --automated -
ii systems, the Versa -Karl's high-tension latch allows
over-paclmn- g. rh-e snap -fit Gd keeps outiain and snow — -
�as well as animals. And there's no odor.. '. no (lies! So, I _
f they can park their container right next to the House,
then mll it easily_to the Lwb on collection day. Your
I workers won't have to enter thea private property, or I j
confront fenced -in dogs)—! ' ! L '
Residents prefer Versa -Karts. saying they would
never go back to noisy, dented steel stns and costly.—I �-
jtrash bags. I I I j i I
Warranty: Five years, -pro -rated - -• —•— -----
Municipal managers: YkwU lower collection costs
Viand help create a cleaner, healthier, more attractive city. -
Private houlent: Here's your immediate, marketable
edge over competition and a source for increased monthly
_
per -resident profit. A quick return on a wise investment!
i PolyLift - - — - - - - -
---At the heart of the Versa- Kan 90 system is the -
hydraulic Pkdy-Lift, the strongest, most durable and
retable in the industry. Models available for rear or side
loading, plus a model that folds unMr the truck Less
time (B• 10 seconds), less risk of injury, and less fatitvc.
-- Call or write for further information on the
Versa -Kart system ... how to introduce it on
your route" ... and how to use it to attract
new kuustomert.
Pawnee Products
1)visnm.d l'axtx e l Lastps Itx:. /4331ndustri,d R,udI C.4dard, Iuutsast IKZ m hilt;) 794-2213
C
SHAMROCK INDUSTRIES
MARK SMILER
332-2100
6.08 per unit - 4200 total units - lettering and City LOGO
6.03 per unit - 4200 total units - no lettering or LOGO
1400 units - one color
4200 total units
Total order - 5 to 6 days - $6.08 per unit
Total order - 5 to 6 days - $6.03 per unit
Order anytime, but would be subject to any price increase.
If ordered before any price increase, containers would be delivered at City's
discretion.
New 22.5 gallon container 5.97 lbs.
17.84" H X 23.28" w X 13.66" D. Cover optional.
Curbside Recycling Containers
increasing solid waste and decreasing landfill space has resulted in a
growing need for curbside recycling. The high cost of waste disposal along with
environmental concerns has hastened the need for sound recycling programs.
As more communities become involved in recycling. it is obvious that not all
recyding needs are the same. Some prefer stockabla containers. -others
require a multi•-matenal, 3 hag -in -1 container. That's why Shamrock offers a
choice of recycling containers, all in durable. strong, injection molded plastic,
built to last for years.
Shamrock has a nat+onally proven track record in quality injection molded
products for over 40 years, Our recycling containers are now being used
across the country in industry as well as residential programs, We take our
recycling concept even one step farther... our containers themselves are
largely recycled plastic. look to Shamrock... your partner in progress.
All Shomrocit Curbside Recycling Containers Aro:
❑ Strong, durable iniection molded,
high-density polyethylene plastic
O Rib reinforced for extra strength
❑ Suited for extremes of
temperature
❑ guilt with solid wall construction
to minimize consequences of wind,
moisture anJ ground problems
❑ guaranteed against any
workmanship or materials dafacte
under normal recycling use
O Available in two styles for unique
needs
CC Available in s wide variety of colors
n printed as you designate: recycling
logo, contents, city
lin Molded with a high percentage of
recycled plastic
SiVamr�oc�
INOfJ!lTRilS, INC. L/3)
wew.a en��.mr uw,w
Stackable Recycling Container
Our stackable containers are designed to be aesthetically
pleasing while maintaining the recycling container identity. They
stack easily and securely with the traditional cut-out for quick
iosit of recyclable materials. Solid wall construction minimizes
ise littering problems, spills and ground moisture problems.
(11
Three -Bag Recycling Container
The Three -Bagger is specifically designed to hold 3 expanded
grocery bags in one direction for a multi -material container. its
height is designed to better protect bags from wind, moisture.
dirt and the elements. Refuse stays where it belongs—in the
contain
e
r)
5TI
(av Wp Ua.A. e5atn7:ee
0 Solid wall construction and feet
minimize consequences of wind,
moisture and ground problems
C3 Strong double reinforced
handles make carrying easy
O Units stack securely with
interlocking feet
❑ Large 11.37 gallon capacity
each
❑ Ribs provide extra strength and
stability
O Four drainage holes in bottom
keep containers cleaner at
don't tet broken items fats out
O Available in a variety of colors
Specifications
Model 7413
Galion Capacity: 11.37
Battom Inside Dimensions:
11 "h x 17.50"w x 13.63"d
Sattom Outside Dimensions:
12.63"h x 20.63"w x 14.94"d
Specify color.
O Solid wall construction
throughout keeps bags drier,
better protected from elements
O Designed specifically to hall 3
expended grocery bogs in one
direction Aar multiple uses
O Rounded off top lip acts as a
comfortable and convenient
handle
O Built tatter than conventional
3 -beg units to keep refuse inside
bogs ... not on the ground
O Available In a variety of colors
H Specifications
Model BBS
Gallon capacity: 20.95
Top Inside Dimensions:
13 719"h x 24"w x 17 114"d
Bottom Inside Dimensions:
13 716"h x 21 114"w x 14 114"d
'Specify color.
Shamrock'' Industries, Inc.
Shamrock curbside Recycling...
Your partners in Progress.
a34 No" . Stmt 13
834 0S39An t-a3fia.U3d.
r6, 2 332.2,40: , 8001122.2342 (Too Fee)
19oD 822.2343 (In mrmsetai
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
14. Consideration of authorizing additional clerical staff appointments.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the November 14, 1988, Council meeting, Council authorized the
establishment of a new clerical position entitled Data Entry
Clerk/Secretary. Background information presented at that time outlined
the growth in the general clerical/secreterial and deputy registrar needs
of the City, along with the computer implementation that has brought us
to the point of needing additional staff personnel at City Hall. As a
result of the Council's action, an advertisement for a Data
Processing/Secretary position was made, and over 180 applicants applied
for the position.
About this same time, Lynnea Gillham, the current utility billing clerk
and receptionist, indicated she would be retiring in the near future.
Her original plans were to retire December 31, but she has willingly
extended the retirement date to February 28, which I now believe will be
the final extension. This created an additional opening that needed to
be filled, with again the same type of similar qualifications necessary
for the position. With the large amount of applicants for the first
advertisement, I felt comfortable in being able to find two qualified
individuals for these positions. The process was somewhat delayed by the
idea of job reassignments among the present clerical staff. After
further consideration of shifting duties, I felt it would be better to
conduct interviews of a half dozen applicants to see what type of
qualifications the individuals would have and how they would fit in with
the City's needs.
Using the assumption we had two positions to be filled, I selected
applicants that had the basic qualifications for data entry clerks,
secretarial skills, and also knowledge of city accounting practices. In
addition, I focused on applicants that had computer implenentation
background and was successful in finding one applicant who had an
extremely good background in this area. Both Jeff and myself feel this
individual, with her background as a customer support representative and
her background in government as a data processing coordinator and Chief
Deputy County Treasurer, should provide excellent background for the
needs of the City. With this in mind, we felt we had a good candidate
for one of the clerical positions which would include utility billing
clerk and various functions yet to be established by the job
description. We look to this person filling a much needed role in
training and implementing the balance of our computer system, along with
a good understanding of city accounting practices, which should be
beneficial to both the clerical staff and myself.
As far as the initial data processing/secretarial position, it became
Increasingly important to focus the primary duties of this position in
the deputy registrar function where the needs currently are the most
critical. Although the original advertisement included duties for deputy
r
-20-
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
registrar as part of the position, it is anticipated that approximately
50 percent of this individual's time would have to be devoted to deputy
registrar activities, and especially with Diane Jacobson planning on a
maternity leave in the near future, this would entail a full-time need
for the next four to six months. As you all know, Vickie Bidwell has
been working for the City for the past eight months as a temporary
employee originally hired to fill in for word processing duties due to
Karen Doty's maternity leave. Recently, she has become heavily involved
in data entry on our accounting system to bring this system on line. Her
performance and experience in operating the payroll system, word
processing, and her recent involvement in the financial accounting system
creates good background for the new data entry clerk/secretary position.
She understands and has agreed to the change in the original position to
emphasize deputy registrar activities as the main function; and as a
result, it is recommended that Vickie Bidwell be hired for this second
position.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to ratify the appointment of Cathy
Shuman and Vickie Bidwell as additional clerical staff. With Cathy
recommended for Lynnea's former utility billing clerk and
receptionist position and Vickie for the data entry clerk/secretary
position, now job descriptions will be prepared for each position to
fit the needs of the City.
2. Authorize the appointment of only one position. This does not seem
feasible, as with Lynnea retiring February 28, one position would
still leave a vacancy in the deputy registrar and general data
processing areas. Under this alternative, the City would still at a
minimum have to seek a part-time deputy registrar person and for the
next four to six months would require a full-time individual with
Diane absent for maternity.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As I indicated, this has been a long process trying to determine what's
best for the City in the long run and to still meet our current needs
within the deputy registrar department and to fill Lynnea's resignation.
I believe Cathy Shuman will be an excellent addition to the City Hall
clerical staff, bringing with her the knowledge of past computer
implementation, problem solving, and general government background. Her
initial role as utility billing clerk along with other various functions
could easily expand into other areas, including much needed financial
assistance help for myself. With Vickie being with the city for eight
months, she has become familiar with the word processing system, payroll
system, accounts payable data entry, and has been agreeable to devoting
more of her time to the much needed deputy registrar functions. Based on
the comparable worth study, the starting salary for both individuaYs will
be $8.95 per hour, with both individuals subject to a six-month
probationary period in their new job assignments.
&M
f
Camcil Agenda - 2/13/89
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A summary of the work load division within City Hall showing the need for
approximately five full-time personnel; Resumes of the two individuals
recommended.
-22-
l
IDIVISION OF WORK—LOAD
PERCENT OF
I
ILYNNEA MARLENE DIANE
KAREN
VICKIE
FULL TIME
I
PERSON
IUB
FINANCE DEP
WORD
DATA
ICLERK
I
REG
PROCESS
ENTRY
RECEPTIONIST
23;
I
I 56
514
5%
2;
5°;
OFFICE HOUSEKEEPING
15;
I
I ,
E,,
0<
4-,
3;
COORO INTERDEPT. COMM.
.3
i
I
,
1;
t;
ANSWER TELEPHONES
44Pa
I
I 2;
15%
A
15%
10;
UTILITY BILLING
77%
I
I 71%
t;
1%
it
3%
FINANCE/BOOKKEEPING
55;
I
I 10;
43%
0%
2%
0%
FINANCE/ENTRY
17%
I
I 0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
FINANCE/EDIT CHECKING
17%
I
I 0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
FINANCE/COOING
18%
I
I 0%
0%
0%
0%
18%
DEPUTY REGISTRAR REPORT
49%
I
I 0%
13%
35%
1%
0%
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
93%
'
I 0%
18%
65%
5%
5%
WORD PROCESSING/TYPING
79%
I
'I 5%
, 0%
0%
64%
10%
FILING/CLERICAL
6%
I
I 0%
0%
0%
5%
1%
PAYROLL PROCESSING
15%
I
I 0%
5%
0%
0%
10%
NUMBER OF PEOPLE NEEDED
5.2
I
I 100%
106% 110%
100%
100%
C
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
15. Consideration of authorizing establishment of a Section 125 Plan for
employee benefit program. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Effective January 1989, all City employees receiving group health
insurance benefits through the City who have coverage for dependents are
required to contribute $30 per month toward the cost of the premium. Our
insurance company, Principal mutual, has made available plan documents
that coincide with Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code that allows
nontaxable treatment of employee contributions to group benefit plans.
This program, referred to as FLEX 1, if adopted by the Council, allows
the employees to treat their monthly insurance contributions in before
tax dollars, thus lowering their annual gross salary. The treatment of
the contribution in before tax dollars versus after tax dollars will save
the employee social security, federal and state income tax liabilities on
their contributions. By adoption of a Section 125 Program, the employer
will also save its share of the contributions required for social
security.
This cafeteria style benefit program is not new and has been available
for a number of years. But the program being offered by our insurance
carrier would at this time only affect the premiums being paid by the
employee. In order for the program to be started, all that is really
necessary is for the City to adopt a plan document to meet the legal
requirements of the IRS. A copy of the proposed plan document is
enclosed with the agenda and has been submitted to our City Attorney for
his review and comments. The document was developed from a sample
provided by our insurance carrier, which should meet all of the
requirements and regulations of the IRS. If the plan is adopted, each
employee has the option of participating; and once an election is made to
participate, no changes can be made until the anniversary date one year
later. It is anticipated if the plan is approved to start the program
effective March 1, 1989, so that the employees can receive the benefits
as soon as possible.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve and adopt the written plan document as required by the IRS
creating a Section 125 cafeteria plan arrangement for employee health
insurance contributions.
2. Do not adopt the plan. This would require employees to treat their
contributions as non -tax deductible contributions.
C. STAFF RECOm91F:NDATION:
Cafeteria plan arrangements have been available for a number of years and
have become popular with employers as a way of providing benefits that
lower an employee's tax liability. In addition, the employer also will
save social security taxes since the employer'u social security tax
-23-
Council Agenda - 2/13/89
liability is based on gross income. It is anticipated that all of the
employees would participate in this program since the advantages of lower
state and federal taxes are the result. The only administrative
responsibility for participating in this plan is to file a 2 -page annual
report with the IRS once a year. As I indicated, the plan document is
currently being reviewed by the City Attorney; and if there are any
problems with the document, I would bring the matter back to the Council
for their consideration if adopted tonight.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed plan document required by the City; Information from
insurance company outlining the program and its benefits.
-24-
i
SUPPORTING PLAN DOCUMENT
SECTION 125 CAPeITRIA PLAN ARRANGEMENT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN
This Supporting Plan Document sets out the provisions of the Cafeteria Plan
Arrangement for the City of Monticello Employee Health and Welfare Benefit
Plan, as effective March 1, 1989.
The purpose of this Cafeteria Plan Arrangement is to provide the Planholder and
eligible employees a method of choice between cash compensation or additional
premium payments by Planholder for benefits under the Welfare Plan.
This Cafeteria Plan Arrangement is intended to qualify as a Cafeteria Plan
under Internal Revenue Code Section 125, as amended, and is to be interpreted
in accordance with the requirements of that provision.
Neither the Administrator nor the Planholder makes any guarantee that amounts
paid for the benefit of any Participating Employee are excludable from the
Participating Employee's income for federal or state income tax purposes, or
from wages for PICA purposes.
Upon adoption of this Supporting Plan Document for the Cafeteria Plan
Arrangement, Planholder will promptly notify all employees of its existing and
eligibility requirements, and of the terms of the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement.
The Planholder specifically reserves the right and authority to amend the
provisions of this Supporting Document for the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement to
the extent and in the manner that the Planholder deems advisable, by written
amendment signed by the City Administrator. In addition, the Planholder
specifically reserves the right and authority to terminate this Cafeteria Plan
Arrangement. Participating Employees mist be given 30 days advance notice in
the event of such termination.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
A. WELFARE PLAN: The City of Monticello Employee Health and Welfare
Benefit Plan.
B. CAFETERIA PIAN ARRANGEMENT: The Section 125 Cafeteria Plan
Arrangement established by this Supporting Plan Document.
C. PLANMOLDER: City of Monticello, the employer establishing this
Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement.
D. PLANHOLDER'S BUSINESS ADDRESS: 250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
E. PLAN YEAR: The date that the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement begins up to
the date of the next following year.
0
Supporting Plan Document
Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement
Page 2
F. PLAN ANNIVERSARY: The date that the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement
begins in any calendar year.
G. DESCRIPTION OF WELFARE PLAN BENEFITS AND COVERAGE PERIODS: See
attached policy Res)/Welfare Plan Document(s).
A. INSURED BENEFITS UNDERWRITTEN BY: Principal Mutual Life Insurance
Company.
I. ADMINISTRATOR: The Planholder or any other person or committee which
may be appointed by the Planholder to supervise the administration of
the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement.
J. PARTICIPATING EMPLOYEE ELIGIBILITY: All permanent employees
regularly scheduled to work 32 hours or more per week.
II. EFFECTIVE DATE:
A. The effective date of this Supporting Document for those employees
eligible on that date= or
B. The date following eligibility, but coinciding with satisfaction of
eligibility requirements under the Welfare Plan for those employees
` who become eligible subsequent to the effective date of this
Supporting Document Cafeteria Plan Arr.ngement.
III. TERMINATION DATE: Termination of participation in the Cafeteria Plan
Arrangement shall be the earlier of:
A. The date.the Participating Employee (an employee participating in the
Cafeteria Plan Arrangement) terminates employment; or
B. The date the Participating Employee no longer meets the eligibility
reyuiremental or
C. The date the Participating Employee is placed on layoff or an
approved leave of absence, or
D. The date the Participating Employee retires! or
E. The date this Cafeteria Plan Arrangement is terminated.
IV. ADMINISTRATION
The Administrator shall supervise the administration of the Cafeteria Plan
Arrangement to see that it is carried out, in accordance with its term, for
the exclusive benefit of employees eligible to participate, without
discrimination. The Administrator has the power and authority to administer
the Cafeteria plan Arrangement, subject to its terms and to the requirements of
applicable laws. The powers of the Administrator include, but are not limited
to, the following:
Supporting Plan Document
Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement
l_ Page 3
A. To establish and enforce such procedures and regulations necessary
for the administration of the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement, or as may
be required by law;
B. To interpret and determine questions concerning the Cafeteria Plan
Arrangement, including the eligibility of any employee to
participate;
C. To delegate responsibility under the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement, and
to designate such other persons as may benecessaryto carry out
these responsibilities, with any delegation or designation set out in
writing;
D. To establish and maintain such records as are necessary to properly
administer the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement and as may be necessary to
meet the requirements of law;
E. To make available to each Participating Employee his or her records
maintained under the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement, for examination at
reasonable times during normal business hours.
The Administrator shall at all times exercise and act under the power and
authority granted by the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement in a manner that is
nondiscriminatory.
V. FUNDING
A. Prior to the beginning of each plan year, the Planholder shall
determine that portion of the monthly Welfare Plan premium
contribution to make on behalf of each employee participating in the
Welfare Plan. Such contributions shall be considered non -elective
contributions. Any such contribution made by the Planholder is fixed
in amount, irrespective of what election is made by a Participating
Enployee in item V.B. below.
B. The excess of the monthly Welfare Plan premium over the amount
contributed on behalf of each employee by the Planholder will be made
by each employee participating in the plan. Participating Employees
may elect, prior to March 1 of each year, to have their portion of
the monthly Welfare Plan contribution:
1. Contributed to the Welfare Plan on a pre-tax basis, through the
Cafeteria Plan Arrangement, from a cor:esponding reduction in
salary (contributions made in this fashion are considered
employer, non -elective contributions), or
2. Contributed to the Welfare Plan by payroll deduction on an
after-tax basis. If this method of funding is elected by
(� Participating Employees, an amount equal to the excess of the
monthly welfare Plan premium over the amount contributed by the
Planholdor on behalf of each participating Employee (as set out
In A and a above) will be included in the employee's taxable
grass pay. O
Supporting Plan Document
Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement
Page 4
C. All contributions by the Planholder (as set out in A. and B.1.) will
be available to Participating Employees solely to purchase benefits
under the Welfare Plan. The contribution by the Planholder will not
exceed the cost of such benefits for any Participating Employees.
D. If a Participating Employee terminates as set out in Section III
above, the employee shall forfeit all unused contributions made up to
the date of termination.
VI. BENEFIT ELECTIONS
A. Participating Employees make benefit elections prior to the beginning
of each Plan Year. These elections remain in effect until the end of
that Plan Year. Employees may change elections prior to the
beginning of each subsequent plan year.
B. Employees may change benefit elections during the plan year only as a
result of a change in the employee's family status. Changes in
family status include: birth, adoption, divorce, marriage, death, or
termination of spouse's employment.
C. Elections under the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement are made on the
form(s) provided by the Administrator for making said elections,
which shall be distributed within 15 days prior to the beginning of
each plan year to all current participants and to employees expected
to be eligible to participate at the beginning of each plan year.
D. Said elections are to be made in the maruier described on the form(s)
so provided, which must be completed and returned to the
Administrator prior to the beginning of each plan year.
E. Elections under the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement for employees who
become eligible to participate during any plan year shall be made in
the manner described on the form(s) provided for making said
elections by the Administrator, and shall be made prior to the start
of the firSL payroll period for which salary reduction elections are
effective.
P. Elections made under this Cafeteria Plan Arrangement will terminate
upon the date on which an employee ceases to be a Participating
Employee or eligible to participate, even though coverage or benefits
under the Welfare Plan may continue to the extent provided in the
Welfare Benefit Plan and/or by law.
Participating Employees are required to provide to the Planholder and/or the
Administrator any information, and to sign such documents, as may reasonably be
required for the proper administration of the Cafeteria Plan Arrangement.
0
Supporting Plan Document
Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Arrangement
l Page 5
This Cafeteria Plan Arrangement will be construed, administered, and enforced
according to the laws of the State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Planholder has caused this Cafeteria Plan Arrangement
to be executed in its name and behalf on this day of ,
19 , by its duly authorized officer.
Nave
Signature
Title
L
L
0
Fie
Supporting Plan Document for
Section 115 Cafeteria Plan Arrangements
The law requires that you establish a written Plan Document specifying the provisions of
any Cafeteria plan you may establish.
The attached Sample Plan Document is provided for your review. Your individual plan
would reflect the information and choices appropriate to your plan. The law requires that
certain information be included in the written Plan Document. Other provisions, though
not required, are very helpful in the continuing administration of the plan
It is very important that this information be reviewed by your legal counsel, so that the
Plan Document accurately reflects yottr decisions regarding the design of your plan
C
G► 170, r amp0.'a/ w.,pi Mail l/. wrrr. Gr.nr 0
Fie
FLEX I
Premium Only Arrangements
What is FLEX? FLEX is a product of current tax laws (Section 125 of the Internal
Revenue Code) which enables employees as well as employers to
save tax dollars.
About FLEX 1 FLEX I (Premium Only Arrangement) allows before tax treatment
of employee contributions to group benefit plan premium. Using
before -tax dollars for contributions reduces taxes and increases
take-home pay. Employees save Federal, State, and FICA taxes;
and Employers save the matching FICA on those contribution
dollars.
What We Do For You For our group life and health clients, we provide the following
materials or samples:
• Sample plan document
• Discrimination testing guidelines
• Samples of required year-end tax filing (Forth 5500)
Employee Communication We offer communication and sign-up materials to help your
employees understand and enroll in FLEX 1.
t+'1 ex
Increase Your Take -Home Pay with
Our FLEX Premium Only Arrangement
0
'N, you pay part of the health
.remium for wur personal or
family coverage under youk' group
benefit program? U the answer is
yrs, you qualify for an easy way to
increase your take-home pay.
Whv? Your employer exercised an
option under the federal tax laws.
FISC 1 lets you receive tax savings
and change the way you buy group
coverage — with before -tax dollars
from your earnings. You lower
your taxable income — and that
means more money in your check
A
C
What is FLEX 1?
A few years ago Congress revised
the U.S. tax code. Section 125 of
the code allows employers to offer
benefit choices. Your employer
chose F1E( I to let you take
advantage of Section 125. FLEX 1
lets you pay your share of henefit
costs on a before -tax basis.
Can You Give Me an Example?
By subtracting your share of the
monthly costs from your earnings
before taxes, you figure your
percentage of federal taxes, Social
Security rues (and in most states,
state taxes) on less money.
Suppose you're married and cam
31,500 a month. That means about
25% of your salary is withheld for
federal taxes and Social Security.
Suppose you also pay $100 a
month for family health coverage.
Your employer deducts your
contribution from your wages or
salarv. Currentiv, this monev comes
from your after-tax earnings.
W1lh0U� FQ yX 229
49
M�t1dY f��j1 tax 41
uy s5% sem" <ws ��NdN is
j% Sock
1,65
(tom �9��
�e
Yovi�om0onuo°d� eo'er9� `p0
WO
Vo"t -C, paY
uyce'
4ow do I Take Advantage
of FLEX 1?
It's simple. Just rill out and sign the
enclosed enrollment form. Your
employer takes rare of the rest.
Are There any Disadvantages To
Paying for Coverage This Way?
Yes. Since you contribute less to
Social Security (your Social Securin•
tax applies to a smaller portion of
your earnings), you could receive
smaller retirement or disability
benefits.
You need to weigh this fact when
you make your choice. However,
many experts think the tax
advantages far outweigh the minor
impact on Social Security benefits.
What it I Enroll for FLEX 1 and
Change My Mind?
Once you sign up, your decision
holds for the next plan year,
unless your family status changes.
Examples include birth, adoption,
divorce, marriage, death or
termination of your spouses
employment. Next year, you have
a chance to reenroll or drop your
participation in the plan.
Enjoy Your Savings
FLEX Your savings muscle. Sign
up now and tvgin enjoying imir
tax savings.
I
cO�r
c', 1/,300
Cit /
—4010
)S/�y? Gx tax 1/'400
tax (! s4
(est). .210
Yh�cet (aCr Secy ry 42
Z
a/
A/� Y sa n \s
toe srat 1?6
a
and
.Gj nom}'/t�R4 N �ocome
'ate -ICFUr/un�,r) Aernt�r��ersc',
i4cy no
• �`r'u/ �,ti !'bn,�' /rs. State
a�/ sayer sire to
'ncp"9u `
�c !4 }fir
QX11e
0
M
FLEX 1 Section 125/Premium Only
Arrangements Save S
atIf...
a method existed to enhance your
group benefit program and save
taxes at the same time?
What if that method also gave your
employees a tax break?
Good News
That method is here! Section 125
of the internal Revenue Gide
allows non-taxable treatment of
employee contributions to group
benefit plans. FIE{ i helps you
save tax dollars and enhance your
benefit plan.
Under your group plan, your
employees who choose personal
or family coverage may have to
contribute toward the monthly cost
of those benefits. If so, they pay
that premium with after-tax dollars
deducted from their checks.
IL ling FLEX 1 to your plan allows
employees to pay their share of the
premium with before -tax dollars.
Why FLEX t?
You and your employees both
benefit when before -tax dollars buy
group coverages:
• Your Social Security payment
decreases. since you pay FIO1
tax on lower before -tax
earnings.-
• Your employees pay less Social
Security, federal, and state"
taxes on their reduced before -tax
earnings. (This means your
employes Social Security
benefits accumulate at a slightly
slower pace.)
'Puhlic employers need to consult
their tax advisors regarding Social
Security savings,
'*Except a few• ,tate,
Get the Most
From Your Savings
Use money saved with FLEK I in
these ways:
• Enhance your group insurance
plan. Increased Life Insurance.
Long and Short Term Disability,
Dental, or Prescription Drug
plans make good additions.
• Add individual coverages for
employees. Auto/4ome insurance
and universal life produce offer
tow cost ways to enrich your
package.
• Boost employees' pensions (and
offset lower Social Security
benefits) with a 401(k) defined
contribution plan.
• Offset increases in medical or
dental plan costs.
� S%46i' tot Oe", she of thetried
matt'
�yCl► C�� 0L< O1CSxvd''�+e titer of �mPtov�
N�SPtume Z5 eto\ rlun' u
CO
Sam \9l1\W
ZS
Montt\� Pt
ad f
MonttvtY vwe wen'+ 7a
tk
m= up
Com\ sc,urvn 01%
Urti1v %3
Socv C'n'o Wray\y gm4loYe`
Moats
RE
ow Do You Start?
Count on us — the benefits
experts from The Principal
Financial Groupi'. Our ready -to -go
program can easily become your
complete FLEX 1 plan.
We offer communication and
sign-up materials to help your
employees understand and enroll
in FISC 1.
We also help you meet your plan's
legal requirements. But we feel it
is important that you consult your
own legal counsel and tax advisors.
Your plat must meet these
requirements:
.i out per.
del Y
Ptemlums�"t xsayln § .
'iau
I y
i
�ploYee' p�5t
mut
due 5� 4
S
• IRS regulations require current
employees to sign up prior to
your plan year. Only new
employees may sign up during
the plan year.
• Employees cannon change their
election during due plan year
unless their family status changes
(marriage, divorce, death, birth.
adoption, or termination of
spouse's employment). This
change must be consistent with
the change in family status.
• Your group must pass the
discrimination test prior to each
plan year. You must also ensure
that employees hired or
terminated during the plan year
do not change the discrimination
balance of your plan.
• You must establish the legal
existence of your plan by
creating a plan document.
• At the end of each plan year,
you must file IRS Form 5500
(for groups of 100 or more
employees) or 5500.0 (for
groups under 100 employees).
• Many plans use salary as a basis
to determine Group Life
Insurance, Lang Term Disability,
Pension Plan or other benefits. If
your plans work on that basis,
you need to amend them. Your
amendments need to state that
"salary;" for purposes of
determining benefit levels, is
based upon salary prior to any
voluntary salary reductions under
Section 125 of the Internal
Revenue Code.
Ongoing Help
We keep you up to date on Section
125 requirements. The new tax
laws make life more complex for
everyone. We stay on top of the
situation to help you keep your
plan up to date. However, we also
recommend that you consult with
your own legal counsel and tax
advisors.
Put FLEX i to work for you today.
Our local representatives can
answer your questions. They'll
work with you to put a Section
125/Premium Only Arrangement in
place. The sooner you begin, the
sooner you and your employees
benefit from 1`11;_X 1 tax savings.
L
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
February 10, 1989
1989 Board of Review. (R.W.)
The Wright County Assessor's office has scheduled Monday, May 15, 1989, at
7:00 p.m., as the date for the annual Board of Review. As in the past, the
purpose of this Board of Review is to hear and answer any complaints property
owners have regarding valuations on their property for taxes payable in the
year 1990. If this date is not for some reason suitable, we have to notify the
County by February 28 to reschedule. If we are not aware of any major
conflicts with this date, I will inform Mr. Gruber at the Assessor's office
that this date is suitable.
OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR DOUGLAS M. GRUBER,
WRIGHT COUNTY COURTHOUSE
COUNTY ASSESSOR
BUFFALO, MINNESOTA 55313
Telephone: 682.3900 (Ext. 100) Duane Swenson, Appraiser
Metro: 339.688I
rx
February 8, 1989 Randa! . Count Assessor
Asst. County Assessor
Kenneth V. Yager, Appraiser
TO: Rick Wolfateller, Monticello City Administrator
Rt. 4. Boa 83—A. 250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Please be advised that your 1989 Board of Review has been tentatively
set for Monday, May 15, 1989
at 7:00 P.M.
If we do not hear from you by February 28, 1989, we will assume this
is satisfactory.
Thank you.
Sincerely../.
f/�
(�" '�J ' 1.
.!'y�
Douglas M. Gruber
Wright County Assessor
R
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Monthly Building Department Report
Month of JANUARY
PMIIITS MID USES
PERMiis ISSUED Leat This Some Month Lest Year 'This Yea[
Non at Decamber Month January. Leat Year To Data To Data
RESIDENTIAL
1 1
Nusbe[ < 5
vel uetlon 9 115,700.00 0 187,800.00 1 5,000.00 9 5,000.00 8 187,800.050
Fans 994.75 1,.17.11 50.00 50.00 1,417.11
eurcne rgae 57.85 91.90 7.50 7.50 91.90
COMMERCIAL
Number 5 1 1
value tion 28,000.00 775,000.00 775,000.00
Peas 786.50 1,077.00 1,077.00
Surcharges 17.25 112.50 117.50
INDUSTRIAL
NWber
1] ve
at
Man
Fee.
Surcharges
PLUJIM
Number 7 7 7 7 7
Faaa 46.00 71.00 40.00 40.00 71.00
Surcharges 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50
OTIIPJIS
Number i
Veluatlon
roes 10.00
Surcharges .50
TOTAL NO. PERMITS 17 a 4 4 B
TOTAL VALUATION 147,700.00 187,800.00 770,000.00 770,000.00 181,800.00
TOTAL rERS 1,776.65 1,488.11 1,167.00 1,167.00 1,468.11
TOTAL SURCHARGES 77,60 97.40 116.00 116.00 97.40
CURRENT MONTH
Number to Data
PERMIT NATURE Number PERMIT SURCHARGE Valuatton This ya srer Iwst year
Singla Family 7 8 1,147.11 1 80.40 S 176,000.00 1 0
Du plea 0 0
Multi-family 0 0
Commar�lel 0 0
Indwtrlel O O
Ras. Ga regee 0 0
Signs 0 0
Public Buildings O 0
ALTERATION OR REPAIR
Dwelling. 2 70.00 1.50 7,000.00 7 1
C-.rol.l 0 1
Induetrlel I 0 0
PWMRING
All Types 7 71.00 1.50 1 7
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Swimming Pool. 0 0
Deo. 0 0
TSMPORARY PERMIT O 0
+ DRMOLITION 0 0
TOTALS S 1.4a6 ll 97.40 111.900.00 a 4
TOTAL ANEMUE {1,401.31
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of JANUARY 19 B9
9I1MIT
F1MER
DESCRIPTIOP
TYPE
NAME/IACATION
VALUATION
PCC
PERMIT6URCBMGE
PLUMBING
SURCHARGE I
J
99.1102
Cle[e Porch Remodel
AD
Mary Re..et/406 K. 3r0 B[.
3 5,000.00
3 40.00
$22 .40
09-f 3307
91np10 lamtly D. ]ling
6P
OW Builder✓2837 Oakviw Lam
43,400.00
787.10
6.24
23.00
.50
09.1304
01np1• rally Ore111%
SP
Lenners CUR tom Home./104 Kenneth Lane
76,000.00
478.74
]8.00
21.00
.40
09•:3305
Upstalre RnGm Finish
AD
Kevin fair/2u East Br --.y
3,000.00
30.00
1.00
09-1)06
Bingle Family Dwelling
6P
Darthel Conetruotlou/200 Mississippi Dr.
..,]..:.n
]6].11
24.14
23.00
.90
TOTALS
3103,800.00
$1.294.64
991.90
971.00
31.50
..
PLAN RNIEN
09.1303
Blnple Partly Dwelling
SP'
BLl D' lidsr./2022 Oakvler One
338.32
:9•:)04
01nDle Taa11y Dro111np
Or
Lannera Custom Nome./104 Kenneth Lane
47.84
09.1306
Blnp1• raml3y Well lnp
SP
Berth.l Conatruttion/200 Mississippi Dr.
36.)1
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW
0:23.47
TOTAL ANEMUE {1,401.31