Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 02-27-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, February 27, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Ren Maus Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. n 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February 13, 1989. p i7 3. Citizens comments/pet itions, requests, and complaints. 4. Discussion of City involvement in Monticello Foodshelf location - Pat Offendahl. 5. Consideration of Karen Hanson litigation update. j6. Consideration of additional payment request by City Engineer - OSM. 7. Consideration of adopting resolutions authorizing the preparation of assessment rolls and setting a public hearing date on the Streetscape Improvement Project. 8. Discussion on City use of official depositories. 9. Consideration of purchasing spare parts for electronic control system at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. 10. Consideration of authorizing hiring of part-time temporary clerical position for assessor's office. 11. Consideration of bills for the month of February. 12. Adjournment. C J MI IJUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONPICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, February 13, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of minutes. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of January 23, 1989, as corrected. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. Mr. Jim Metcalf and Mr. John Sandberg appeared before the Council to voice their objection to some of the comments made by Councilmembers Fran Fair and Warren Smith at the January 23 Council meeting regarding the West Prairie Partners real estate transaction and the Temple Baptist Church's conditional use permit request. 4. Public hearing on adoption of proposed assessment roll for 88-07 ro3ect. AND 6. Consideration of resolution certifying assessment roll for 88-07 pro3ect to County Auditor. The public hearing was opened to receive comments regarding the proposed assessment roll for the improvement project that served Mr. Floyd Markling's townhouse development and the Monticello Country Club with sewer and water extensions off of Golf Course Road. The project totaled $62,184.09, which was proposed to be assessed entirely to the two benefiting property owners. As part of the assessment notice, each property owner had received five possible assessment amounts using various assessment methods. City Engineer, John Badalich, reviewed the five methods and indicated his preference for method 15 which based the assessment for the 8 -unit townhouse development for the sewer and water at an average cost of $53.25 per foot based on an average 90 -foot lot, with the balance being attributable to the Country Club. Mr. Jim Agosto, attorney for the Country Club, indicated the Country Club was opposed to methods 4 6 5 which would result in assessments totaling $510129.14 for method 14 and $23,844.09 under method e5. Mr. Agosto questioned how the Engineer had arrived at his calculations and indicated the Country Club would be agreeable to a lower dollar amount under one of the other mothods. Mr. Agosto also filed an objection to any assessment proposed in the $23,000 to $51,000 category. Mr. Gar Holland, representing the (7m ntry Club, indicated no opposition to the improvements as completed but only questioned the large dollar amount of the assessment proposed under !� method 14 or 15. Ile indicated the Country Club is used very little as far as food service or other facilities and felt the assessment should be in the $12,000 range. Council Minutes - 2/13/89 I Attorney, Jim Metcalf, representing developer Floyd Markling, supported �l the Engineer's recommended assessment formula of approximately 38 percent of the project cost being assessed to the Country Club, with the balance to Mr. Markling's townhouse development. In addition, he also indicated Mr. Markling would reserve his rights of appeal of the assessment to the townhouse development if it was more than 62 percent of the project cost as recommended. Hearing no further comments from the public, the Council discussed the options available to arrive at an agreeable amount between the parties. Council members suggested that the Country Club be treated as two units versus one unit for a townhouse parcel, and also the Country Club should be responsible for the extra cost involved in extending the services to their property line. Under this method, it was determined that the Country Club's assessment would be in the $16,250 range, or approximately 26 percent of the total project. After further discussion, and noting that there were logical reasons for any of the five methods used, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to adopt the assessment roll for Project 88-07 as follows: Monticello Country Club $16,243.31 Markling Townhouse Dev. $45,940.78 This would be based on the total project cost of $62,184.09, less the cost of extension of sewer and water to the Country Club of $4,758.13 being divided by ten units (eight for the townhouse development and two units for the Country Club property), with the additional cost of the extension being added to the Country Club's assessment. SEE RESOLUTION 89-5. 5. Consideration of resolution ap$roving MN/DCT preliminary plans for improvements to Highwayy 25 bridge over I-94, including signals and discussion or eastboun0 ramp. Mr. Cary Dirlam and Mr. Tony Rempenich of MN/DOT were present at the Council meeting to review the proposed improvements to the Highway 25 bridge over I-94 scheduled for this summer. The project would include the widening of the bridge to five lanes from the present three and the Installation of signal lights at both ramp intersections near the bridge. MN/DOT representatives reviewed with the Council their initial consideration of developing a loop exit ramp for southbound traffic on Highway 25 entering eastbound I-94. This design would have required utilizing a majority of the present commuter parking lot for the construction and created problems in alignment of the present eastbound exit rasp off of I-94 to Highway 25. In addition, MN/DOT indicated design and construction of this typo of facility would be five to seven years due to the lengthy process of funding and land acquinition necessary. As o renult, it's MN/DOT's position that in order to properly control traffic at this time, signal lights would be an excellent in -term solution and that a clover leaf or loop ramp design !o always a possibility in the future if the traffic warrants. 0 Council Minutes - 2/13/89 MN/DOT representatives recommended that the City seriously consider L retaining ownership of the commuter parking lot to allow for such a design in the future rather than allowing commercial development to occur on this site. After further review of the design proposal and discussion on the timing of the signal lights, notion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plans as proposed. SEE RESOLUTION 89-6. Consideration of single subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted residential lot into two unplatted lots - West Prairie Partners. West Prairie Partners requested a simple subdivision of the former Temple Baptist Church property near Pinewood Elementary School that would allow the creation of a 12,000 sq ft residential lot for the existing structure, with the balance of the property remaining in one parcel. The property is currently zoned R-2, single and two family residential, and meets all requirements of the City Ordinance for this purpose. As a result, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve lite subdivision request as proposed 8. Consideration of single subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2 (heavy industrial) lot into two I-2 lots - Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership. The Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership requested the simple subdivision to subdivide Block 1, Lot 6, Oakwood Industrial Park, into two parcels. The lots as proposed will meet current zoning regulations in regard to square footage, and it was recommended that the subdivision be approved provided drainage and utility easements are included as part of the subdivision request. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and unanimously carried to approve the simple subdivision provided the drainage and utility easements are included. Consideration of approving final subdivision plat - Charles Ritze. Mr. Charles Ritze presented his final plat for the proposed Ritze Manor Second Addition that would create three lots and an outlot from an existing lot within Ritze Manor. The two newly created lots would have frontage on River Street and one lot on Hilltop Drive. An Outlot A was created to cover land area that is in dispute with Mr. Ritze'a neighbor, Reinhold Yager. It wan noted that it would be the responsibility of the developer of one of the lots to extend and petition for hard surfacing of Hilltop Drive to provide access. C-;),- Council Minutes - 2/13/89 Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the final subdivision plat as presented. 10. Consideration of Sunny Fresh Foods request. Mr. Doug Luthanen of Sunny Fresh Foods was present at the Council meeting to review problems their firm had experienced on January 16, 1989, regarding the quality of water encountered at their plant. Mr. Luthanen noted that particles of iron or manganese were present in the water which caused a loss of product and down time for their employees. To alleviate the problem in the future, Sunny Fresh Foods installed $3,127 worth of filtering equipment, and with installation totaled $3,452, plus an expected expenditure of $28 per week for filter replacements. Because of the additional cost to treat the water within their plant, Mr. Luthanen requested reimbursement for this expenditure in that he felt the City was obligated to provide clean water. Public Works Director, John Simola, noted that Sunny Fresh Foods is the largest consumer of water in Monticello and that the existing water lines on 4th Street are older and either the weather conditions or the age of the pipes may have been the cause for iron particles to be dislodged. It was noted that in order to ensure pure water in the future, a business such as Sunny Fresh would have to install filter equipment within their huilding, as there would he no guarantees this could not happen again. It was also suggested that another remedy in the future could be to install a new service line off of 5-1/2 Street where the City has a relatively new larger water main. The likelihood of scalings being dislodged from the pipe and entering their system would he lessened due to the fact the system is newer from 5-1/2 Street and it also may increase pressure due to the larger pipe size. Councilmember Blonigen favored the idea of researching the installation of a new service line for their facility but questioned whether the City should be liable for final filtering cost if an industry or resident desired such equipment. It was noted that the City provides water but cannot guarantee the absolute purity of any water supply. After further review, it was the general consensus of the Council that the Public Works Director prepare a feasibility study on the inotallation of a new service connection from 5-1/2 Street for Sunny Fresh Foods and recommendations on cost apportionment of this project. The posoibility exists that a credit can be granted to Sunny Fresh Foods for a portion of this replacement water main service. 1.1. Consideration of reimburneme.nt for damage on newer backup - Ben Jamas. At the previous Council meeting, Mr. Ben James requested reimbursement for damages he incurred for a sewer backup at his property on January 10, 1989. The Council requested City staff to supply additional informition to the City's insurance carrier for their review and reimbursement if appropriate. v Council Minutes - 2/13/89 j The insurance company again indicated that they would not be honoring l any claim for damages, as they felt the City was not liable or negligent in its operation of the sewer system. As a result, the City Administrator met with Mr. .lames to review his claim for damages to arrive at a dollar amount that could be presented to the City Council for their consideration if they wish to voluntarily provide some compensation to Mr. James. Mr. James had initially claimed damages of more than $6,000; and after meeting with the City staff, he had indicated a willingness to accept a $2,500 reimbursement to cover his expenditures. The Administrator recommended that if any reimbursement was granted, he could support only $1,177 of this amount to cover carpet replacement, motel and lodging expenses incurred, and the actual cleaning of Mr. James' basement. The Administrator also noted that it was the opinion of the City Attorney and also of the insurance agency representing the City that a precedent could be established if the City voluntarily reimbursed a property owner for any damages the insurance company did not feel was the responsibility of the City. Councilmember Blonigen indicated opposition to any taxpayer payment for damages if the City's insurance company did not feel the City was liable. Councilmembers Maus and Fair felt this situation may have enough circumstantial evidence to indicate the sewer line was plugged within the street, and the City could warrant some restitution to cover Mr. James' damages. Cuuncilmembers Smith and Anderson were not convinced the City was at fault and were concerned about the precedent it could establish in the future, especially with the City Attorney and the insurance agency recommending against any payment. As a result, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Warren Smith, to deny reimbursement for any expenditures incurred by Mr. James. voting in favor of the denial: Dan Blonigen, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Fran Fair, Ken Maus. Motion carried. 12. Consideration of authorizing the purchase of fire department equipment. Mr. Willard Farnick, Fire Chief, appeared before the Council requesting authorization to purchase 800 feet of high volume, 5—inch hydrant hose. The estimated cost of the purchase was $4,192, and $5,000 was included in the 1989 budget for this purpose. Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and unanimously carried to approve the purchase of hose in the amount of $4,192. 13. ronsideration of adopting recycling plan and authorization to prepare RFP. Public works Director, John Simola, presented to the Council a recycling plan for the City of Monticello to meet Wright Munty target dates of April 1, 1989, for plan submittal, and July 1, 1989, for operational start of a curb—side recycling program. As part of the plan prulxwoed, the City would request proposals from outside 09- Council Minutes - 2/13/89 contractors to implement the recycling program starting in July 1989. Mr. Simola noted the plan would call for individual residents to recycle initially three items consisting of glass, newspaper, and aluminum or bi-metal cans. In order to facilitate the program, it was recommended that each household be provided with three containers specially marked for each item which the City would purchase at a total cost of approximately $24,295. The three individual containers would total $18.24; and it was recommended that the City require each homeowner to purchase three containers for half price, with half being paid by the City. Larger containers were recommended for apartment buildings that would also be half paid for by the City initially. In order to monitor the recycling program, each home and apartment would receive a bar code that would be attached to each container allowing the contractor to identify individuals who recycle. It was suggested that individuals who choose not to participate in a recycling program could be penalized by requiring the individual to pay for the current garbage cost on their quarterly sewer and water billings. This would amount to $7 per month as an additional charge if an adequate or reasonable amount of recycling was not done. It was recommended by the Council that after the initial three containers are supplied to the residents, the resident would be responsible for the full cost of a replacement container if needed; and the City would try to establish a local distributor for additional containers. As an additional incentive for participating in a recycling program, the City is interested in establishing a prize award on a monthly or quarterly basis to reward those that do participate. In addition, the $9.12 cost for the three cartons to be borne by the resident could be included over two quarters on an individual's sewer and water bill. After further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and unanimously carried to approve the curb -side recycling plan as presented and authorize the preparation of a request for proposals to be submitted to the Council for approval on March 13, 1989. 14. Consideration of authorizing additional clerical staff appointments. At the November 14, 1988, Council meeting, authorization was granted establishing a new clerical position entitled Data Entry Clerk/Secretary. Since that time, the current Utility Billing Clerk, Lynnen Gillham, has indicated she would be retiring in the near future; and as a result, two positions were available. With the basic responsibilities and duties similar for both positions, the staff had received approximately 180 applications for the clerical positions, which were reviewed and interviews conducted for the qualified candidates. The candidates selected for interviews had the general qualifications for data entry clerks, secretarial skills, and also knowledge of city accounting practicer, including computer ` implementation and knowledge. Due to the City's current focus on P?_ Council Minutes - 2/13/89 implementing its accounting system on computer, the Administrator and Assistant Administrator recommended hiring Cathy Shuman of Monticello for the position being vacated by Lynnea Gillham, which will cover general utility billing clerk responsibilities and receptionist, including other secretarial duties. It was also recommended that Vickie Bidwell be hired for the second position to also include general secretarial duties and data processing entry, along with a primary focus on deputy registrar clerical duties. This recommendation was based not only on qualifications of the candidates but also Vickie's current knowledge of word processing and accounting system implementation for the City as a temporary employee for the past eight months. Councilmember Smith and Anderson questioned whether the City was required to advertise separately for this second clerical position created by the resignation of Lynnea Gillham. The Administrator indicated that due to the similarity of the positions and the large number of applicants that had originally applied, he did not feel the need was necessary for a second advertisement, as it seemed reasonable to assume the same individuals would apply for either position. After further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and unanimnusly carried to authorise the appointment of Cathy Shuman and Vickie Bidwell as additional clerical staff members under normal probationary periods with a starting pay of $8.95 per hour. 15. Consideration of authorizing establishment of a Section 125 Plan for employee benefit program. The City's health insurance carrier, Principal Mutual, has made available plan documents that allow the employer to set up a Section 125 Plan approved by the Internal Revenue Service that would allow a non-taxable treatment of employee contributions to group benefit plans. The establishment of the plan allows any contributions on behalf of the employee toward health insurance cost to be considered before tax contributions, and thus save the employee federal, state, and social security taxes on the am)unt contributed, and also the employer saves social security contributions on the contribution amount. The plan is currently being reviewed by the City Attorney, who has initially approved the concept. As a result, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and unanimously carried to authorize the, establishment of a Section 125 Plan for the City of Monticello employees. Rick Wolfstv�Ier City Administrator Da L Council Agenda - 2/27/89 4. Discussion of City involvement in Monticello Foodshelf location - Pat Offendahl. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Pat Offendahl, Monticello Foodshelf Coordinator, recently requested to be on the Council agenda to discuss with the Council members the future of the Monticello Foodshelf should the City of Monticello sell the old fire hall site. Mr. Bruce Langford of St. Michael has previously indicated an interest in acquiring the old fire hall site to be used as a recreational facility for his billiard room, etc.; and although I have not heard from Mr. Langford in the last week or so, he may, along with a partner, still be interested in our building. Mr. Langford has indicated he may be seeking a partner who may actually be the party interested in buying the building and would lease it to Mr. Langford for his billiard room; and as such, if a deal was made, the Monticello Foodshelf may be required to move. In any event, the Foodshelf indicated they were not comfortable with their type of facility being adjacent to a billiard room or amusement center for teenagers in that they like to establish a low profile for the clients they help. Although it appears at this point to be premature, I believe Pat Offendahl is concerned about the future of the Monticello Foodshelf and where it will be located after the building is sold eventually. I indicated to Pat that presently the City does not have any other facilities that would be available for a foodshelf that I am aware of and could not provide any definite assistance the City would be able to provide in the future. It appears that the Foodshelf, if it is to continue, would probably have to find a new home on a minimal or free rent basis. Although I'm not convinced that it is the City of Monticello's responsibility to provide or find a site, I believe at this point Pat is more concerned about receiving input from the Council on ideas and possibly publicizing the fact that the Foodshelf may not be available in the future if community assistance is not provided. One suggestion I had was the Foodshelf should contact area churches for available sites and possibly one that comes to mind is the former Assembly of God Church (Tele Baptist property). It would seem to me to be an ideal location, and presently I do not believe the Baptist organization would need their entire facility for quite a while. Other than receiving the input from the Foodshelf representatives, there does not appear to be any action necessary by the Council at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Background information supplied by the Foodshelf organization. so To - the City Counoll. J 'rmu,ld 4Ike "to ,cane before you, :on Monday,, Feb._ 27' to discuss the ,future of, the-!ronAde'I:'Io "Zili6gdency fioddsheFf. real I ze thdt the old fl-Irehik.11 bu1jdfT(q ha3 not been tio I d At't hT.4 Vflrne but tht' po55','b: I I ty of I to &�Lle _bnb4t�h( up th,e ImpdrViince of our foodsho If haAng a perm3hanent home of Its 6vfh. I f th1_6 sale ot a sale In the future should go theotiijh, we wil'I not hav6 36V place to go. At this point In time, I'm ax fva,ld we would have tc close our doors r and I truly bel leve that would be a tragl"c loss for 1 a lot of our cItIten.5. 11 Each year the nUirmer- of ell-ents {hat we help Increas". In we helped 468 famll"Test,376-9 Indlv1dua_131,., and we gAye ,oU.t ._ pounds. Of food'. in n we he-I.Ped 568(2.118 I-ndl!vLdual_q0,, and wn 9ave, ciLkt 5-1 ,'04,Povnds- Thcie are Ouc !14oulc!rI es I ncJude Ithe C I ty of Mon LA c -el I o and the TzMahTp. of Montle, )'I'm. Moat -of our cUIentS!iddme fro- th,6 df 5f. 'We .are hid I 4P . . � I _m t rot_ 'oat 'help1m the b6crer people of. Our 64;tyi., W6,,help people who are wcr1'1l r.9 jor mlatmum, wages, And re"I'v.6! -no, zfiddl,qa 1: "Pi btbAce, WheA thtsit .people h3_vk,3 aia,lce ma-0idiki, 4xknot they. ha%4 do :hub® 0aV,j gor thele ktwif;aa Jbil us eq, m*hy t-imsw tmey% darfe to Us We help -iferV tybuffo- peool'C lust getung fnmvrfv'af bur Sdritar' cOL r Items. we help, pebv'l & .Lvt I iko VOL. and me-, ffi'at, have oartert Inra a altuat-lon that they did not create for thetnge!%ro%. Some of our cl ienis are people that were worlAng .41,1 time sfifj thf- rompaples. heye placed everyone,, on a parr, Llmr. basla 90 they won' 1, have -k-o Pay **n*(_l.Lz And that can. pay of Cj f 3�-1a. a.:ll,'ht5rba n1w of tid liJi-ld UFLO .I't Ver.' dYf iu4 ,,i, Eb slOppor-t 'cur chf1dren wider these olrcu 1tartcca. I feel that a permanent home for the Foodshelf Is not something to look at down the road. I'm afraid that we are coming ::p on a dead end street. Unfortunately, we do not have the funds or the resuurees to buy or bu.icl something for ourselves. We need someone who is wllling to take the first step. Please, give us your help ano SuPPurt In finding the answer to a very difficult problem. Than': you, Monticello Emergency Foodshei_f of c Council Agenda - 2/27/89 Consideration of Karen Hanson litigation update. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you will recall, the City Council met in a special session February 16, 1988, to review with the City Attorney, Tom Hayes, and Mr. Tracy Eichorn -Hicks, attorney representing the City's insurance carrier, to review the status of the Karen Hanson litigation. City Attorney, Tom Hayes, will be present at the Council meeting to provide an update on the litigation issue and possible recommendations for the Council to consider Monday evening. Any action requested by the Council will be presented by Mr. Hayes during his presentation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. 1 � �I I -2- Council Agenda - 2/27/89 Consideration of additional payment request by City Engineer - OSM. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the City requirements for a preliminary and final plat in the city of Monticello, the developer must prepare a topographic map of the area which would include vertical contours of not more than 2 feet. Individual developers had found it to be very expensive to get topographic information on a piece -meal basis and requested that the City obtain this information and charge the developers for use of the information for their particular properties. As a result, in April of 1987, John Badalich of OSM obtained quotations from firms specializing in topographic mapping by using aerial photography and presented this information to the Council. The City Council approved hiring Horizons, Inc., of Rapid City, South Dakota, to photograph approximately 3,200 acres of the city, including parts of the OAA area, at a cost of $10,570. In addition to this cost, Mr. Badalich indicated in a letter dated April 27, 1987, that there would be an additional cost of $2,000 for ground control work that had to be furnished to Horizons for them to complete the topographic mapping. The project was expected to take one to two months to complete, but the final product was not available until approximately August or September. It is my understanding that OSM encountered delays in providing the ground control information to Horizons in that additional survey work had to be performed by OSM that they did not originally anticipate. On September 21, 1987, the City received a billing for the ground control work from OSM in the amount of $5,856.51 rather than the $2,n00 Mr. Badalich had originally indicated his firm would do the work for. As a result of the bill and the original quote of April 27, I only paid $2,000 per his quote and indicated 1n a separate letter that I assumed the bill would be adjusted accordingly. As you will note in the July 21 letter from OSM, Mr. Badalich is requesting additional compensation above the $2,000 to cover the extra work they had to perform by their under estimating the original cost. Although I cannot dispute that additional cost may have been incurred by OSM in performing this work, I felt the City Council authorized the expenditure of $2,000 for the ground control work based on his letter of April 27, 1987. Until the project was completed and the billing was received in September of 1967, I was not aware that the engineering services were exceeding the $2,000 quote, especially by this large of a sum. As a result, I indicated to Mr. Badalich that a formal request before the City Council would have to be made if their firm expected any payment above the $2,000 quote. I believe Mr. Badalich will he in attendance at the meeting to explain his firm's position regarding this cost overrun and reasons for Lrequesting the additional compensation. i -3- Council Agenda - 2/27/89 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize payment of the additional $3,856.51 requested. 2. Agree to a compromise settlement between the original $2,000 estimate and the actual $5,856 billing. 3. Authorize only the $2,000 payment as quoted originally. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As I indicated, the staff does not dispute that OSM may have incurred additional cost associated with providing the ground control information for the topo maps but questions why the estimate is only one-third of the actual cost. The staff feels that the Council may have relied on the engineer's estimate in deciding to do the topographic mapping project; and had the Council realized the engineering fees would be triple the estimate, the project may have been cut in scale. In addition, the project was delayed beyond the June 1987 estimated time table until September of 1987: and at no time was the City aware that the engineering fees were exceeding the estimate by this large of amount. I believe it would have been appropriate for the engineer to notify the City that problems were being incurred that would cause the cost to exceed the i estimate, thereby allowing the Council to approve any cost overrun before they happened. Although the total cost of the project will be exceeding the estimated cost in April of 1987, the staff is not opposed to additional compensation being made to OSM if the Council feels it is appropriate. The staff is concerned about future quotations being reliable. C D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of OSM letter dated April 27 quoting the $2,000 figure; Copy of September 21, 1987, billing for $5,856; March 31, 1988, letter indicating City payment of $2,n00 per quote; July 21, 1988, letter from OSM providing background information on additional cost associated with ground control work. -4- X ORR•SCNELEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES. INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors L April 27. 1987 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Attn: Mr. Thomas Eidem City Administrator Re: Topographic Mapping for OAA Area Dear Tom: As a follow-up to my recent discussion with John Simola. I have received quo- tations to undertake aerial photography and topographic mapping of a part of the OAA area adjacent to Monticello from three firms. I requested a quotation on two areas; Area A (approximately 3.200 acres) and Area 8 (approximately 2.000 acres). Both of the areas are primarily south of the south city limits of Monticello covering the Boyle property, Monti Hill and further southwest covering the Kjellberg property. I have enclosed a map to show the two respective areas. The three firms contacted and their quotes to do the work are as follows: Martinez Corporation Horizons. Inc. Mark Hurd Aerial Mapping AREA A (3.200 ACRES) $10.465 $10.570 $21.000 AREA B (2.000 ACRES) $ 6,550 S 7.400 $15.000 Added to the above would be the cost of $2,000 for ground control to be furnished by OSM. Horizons. Inc. will be using 1987 aerial photography just flown this past week. Martinez will be also be using 1987 photos to be flown this Tuesday or Wednesday. Mark Hurd will be using the 1984 photography OSM purchased from Mark Hurd in May of 1984. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneapolis. MinnssOte 55413 - 6121331.$660 �;) Page Two City of Monticello April 27. 1987 I would recommend purchasing the mapping for Area A (3.200 acres), the cost being $3.90 per acre including ground control versus $4.28 per acre for Area 8 (2.000 acres) including ground control. I would further recommend the work be given to either Horizon, Inc. or Martinez Corp. which includes or will include 1987 aerial photography and topographic mapping of 3.200 acres. An additional cost of $2.000 is needed for ground control to be furnished by OSM. I have attached copies of the correspondence and telecom received from the firms noted above. Yours very truly. ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON S qSSOCIATES. INC. 9 iL Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors INVOICE ORR•SCNELEN•MAYERON & ASSOCIATES. INC. Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc. September 21, 1987 To City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Comm. No. 068-1748-45 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Doc. No. 0443A Professional Engineering Savice In conjunction with providing photo control for mapping as requested by Horizons Inc. Time and expenses for the months of June, July and August, 1987. DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS 12.44 E. Ames 1.00 hour @ $30.75 per hour P. Jenkins 1.00 hour . @ $12.44 per hour K. Midthun - .50 hour @ $12.44 per hour Factor Two Man Survey Crew 26.50 hours @ $33.50 per hour Three Man Survey Crew 43.00 hours @ $41.50 per hour Factor This Invoice TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS INVOICE IS $5.856.51 • S 30.75 12.44 6.22 x 2.25 $ 111.17 E 887.75 1 784.50 EY 967Z.Z5 x 2.15 5,745.34 %$5;856.51 --- CIAO• TS01, I Z� D 0 0 W pt : nn -la the psnall+r. V' (A.••I:fY 'riot a mu cortetr arta 'het no oar: alit r..0, ntsn c+In swrialuris 2021 East Hennepin Avenue at Suite 238 at Minneapolis. Minnesota 55413 6121331-8660 TELEX: 29-0948 1 (,ifs o� /Y/onficeC�o office or me Pnone 16121 295-2711 Cary Aamm41ratw Metro (612) 333-5739 March 31, 1988 Mr. John Badalich OsM 2021 East Hennepin Ave. Suite 238 Minneapolis, Mil 55413 Dear John: This letter is intended to clarify the status of a few outstanding invoices the City has received. An invoice dated October 21, 1985, in the amount of $504.18 relating to the 85-1 Project is still being withheld pending completion of the as builts for this project. I understand the as built information was included on the 86-1 Interceptor Sewer Project, but the set of as builts needed a number of corrections which your office has not yet completed. Another invoice dated December 23, 1986, in the amount of 5900.16 in conjunction with County Road 39 West is likewise being withheld until completion of as builts for this project. The as builts for West County Road 39 should be minor, but the City has not yet received them. An invoice dated September 21, 1987, in conjunction with providing photo control for mapping of the topo maps by Horizons, Inc., totaled $5,856.51. On the check enclosed with this letter, I have paid $2,000 on this bill, as you had previously quoted on April 27, 1987, that your ground control cost would be $2,000. I have enclosed a copy of your letter quoting the $2,000 amount, and I will assume you will adjust this invoice accordingly. In July 1987, the City overpaid $8,814.71 for construction inspection and survey on the Construction 5 south development project. Because of this overpayment, the City has been deducting invoices from this credit which now has been reduced to $994.98 credit. In regards to the construction inspection and surveying for the Construction 5 project, John Simola has been discussing with Chuck Lepak the cost overrun the City has incurred on that project for inspection fees. Since this project is part of a tax increment finance district, the budget for the project had allowed $27,200 for engineering inspection and survey work; and to date, the City has incurred $31,053.20 for field work expenditures. It appears that a majority of the overruns were due to having an inspector on the job when the contractor was 250 East Broadway • Monticello. MN 55362.9245 U Mr. John Badalich March 31, 1988 Page 2 not actually working on the project. Whether it was a lack of communication or whether your firm was not aware of the schedule by the contractor, it seems inappropriate that an inspector should be on the job incurring costs for the City when no contract work was being performed. Because a tax increment budget had been established with an allowance of only $27,200 for construction inspection, the City has no way of recapturing any of the excess cost. I believe in conversations with Chuck, he indicated that your firm may be willing to split the difference in the cost overrun because of the fact that some of the charges for inspection incurred because the contractor was not performing any work. Enclosed you will find a check covering the current invoices received and also the $2,000 payment on the September 21, 1987, invoice for photo control mapping work. From my calculations, the City still has a $994.98 credit in regards to the overpayment made in July of 1987 on the Construction 5 project inspection. Should you have any questions in regards to this payment, please contact me at your convenience. Rick Wolfer. ler City Administrator RWA d Enclosure cc: RW O Orr sa>e>m r�sor,r—, MaymOn fl Irc 2021 East Hennepin Avenue I Minneapolis. MN 55013 -- 612-331.8660 FAX 331-3806 En!pneets July 21, 1988 surveyors Planners Ci City of Monticello 250 East Broadway P.O. Box 83A Monticello, MN 55362 Attn: Mr. Rick Wolfsteller' City Administrator Re: Status of Outstanding Invoices Dear Rick: This letter is an attempt to clean-up the several outstanding invoices we have with the City that have been hanging around for several months and even years. Reference is made to your letter of March 31, 1988. I have to apologize for our no -excuse delay in completing the as -built drawings on a couple of our projects. proiect _85-t: The portion of the interceptor sewer under T.H. 25, 1 found out was as -built in May, 1986 and never sent to you. This as -built is captioned Sheet 30S. County Ropd 39 West ero,�,jc : The elevations of the various culverts has been shown on the plans. John Simola asked that this be done. As of now, these as- builts are completed. Prosect 86-1 As-builts: These were reviewed by John Simola some time ago with notations made. These have also been completed. Under separate cover, all of this information is being sent to you for your review and filing. Ground Cgntrol far T*q9_crj.phic RaoQinq: An invoice dated September 21. 1987 stated the cost of providing ground control for Horizons, inc., in conjunction with their topographic mapping of a part of the OEA area, has caused great concern to you as well as to us because of the cost incurred in doing this work. We grossly underestimated the number of vertical and horizontal control points needed by Horizons, Inc. to do their mapping. At the time Horizon's. Inc. and others discussed with us the control point requirements, prior to their sub- mitting their quotations to the City, we estimated it would take approximately 1-1/2 days of a three-man survey crew for vertical control, and one day of survey crew for the horizontal control to do this work. This would have amounted to approximately $2,000 with some computer time included. Also, since we had done the control for the original mapping in 1975, we felt that benchmarks and hori- zontal control was also available to the new area to be mapped. 0 Page Two Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Monticello, Minnesota July 21, 1988 Upon receipt of the control requirements from Horizons, Inc., we found that they needed elevations at 39 points for vertical control. All the benchmarks we had or could find were within the present City limits and along highways 94 and 25. The points that were picked by Horizons, Inc. were determined by how the photos and stereo models lined up with the map boundaries. It appeared that most of the points were as far from the City limits as they could get. We used the bench- m?rks we tried to select the most direct rnute through the control paints without losing accuracy, due to the length of run between benchmarks. Locating all the points on the ground took one full day of the survey crew and over 1/2 day of Ed Ames' time, which is not charged to the project. Ed considered his time as administrative. Note: The control points are objects that are definitely identifiable on the photos and can be found on the ground. Examples are center- line to centerline of roads, centerline of road to driveway, centerline of road opposite a power pole, etc. Elevations were taken of these points in the field and the information given to Horizon's, Inc. The survey crew then spent an additional five days running levels to obtain the elevations. The total length of level runs to get these vertical control point elevations was about 10 miles. The required horizontal control for the project requested by Horizons, inc. was 14 horizontal control points. Normally establishing coordinates for the points by traversing from Mn/DOT control and our old control records would have required a lengthy traverse with many intermediate points. In an effort to reduce the number of traverse points, we used the section corner data that we obtained from Wright County. As part of our training program on the computer, we had our people establish coordinates on all the sections and quarter section corners in the area. The field crews then had to tie the horizontal control points into the county corner monuments. Our in-house technicians worked closely with the survey crews in finding the points on the ground and selecting the best method of tying the points together. Because of the topography in the field, it was difficult to find a line between section and qiiarter section corners that was ooen enough for the corners to be intervisible. Horizontal control using Theodolite and elec- tronic distance meter took two days to complete this task. As can be seen from the invoice dated September 21, 1981, the office and ad- ministrative time was nil. All calculations for the horizontal control was done as part of our computer training. The only time charged was for tabulating the vertical control for submittal to Horizons, Inc. The coordinates for horizontal control were submitted to Horzons, Inc. on computer printouts, which greatly assisted them in their tasks. In retrospect, we should have discussed this Increased work effort with you at the outset as soon as we got the request from Horizons, Inc. to proceed with our 0, Page Three Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Monticello, Minnesota July 21, 1988 control point work once they knew the number of vertical and horizontal that would be required for their mapping. However, because of the pressure to get this information to Horizons, Inc. so they could meet their obligation to the City, we neglected to pursue this with you and went on with our work to comple- tion, trusting we could settle this matter in the end. As noted .:n 'cur invo'.ce, .wc have charge; very 'little for the vast amnurt ^f personnel computer time required on this project. We do feel that the costs incurred for our survey crew time should be compensated for. 1ponstrugtion Saurina Lane Pro ec Another matter relates to construction inspection, surveying and staking on the Construction 5/Lauring Lane Development project, City Project 86-7. The question is that the total costs billed for these field services were $31,053.20 as compared to an estimate made before the start of the project of $27,200.00. This $27,200.00 estimate was based on 10% of a very favorable bid received from S 6 L Excavating Company, which was about $73,000 or 28% less than our estimate. I wish we could have adjusted our engineering and field services cost down to the same percentage level but other factors dictate the required services. Our costs for doing this workis based an the experience of the contractor, schedule of time he proposes and generally does not follow, the weather, the number of subcontractors and other factors that we do not have control of. Our job is to see that the City gets the product you paid for and constructed according to the approved plans and specifications. We do not tell the contractor how he does his work, when he can or cannot work other than during inclement weather, and the number of people and time that he is on the job. We have an inspector on the job at all times when we know the contractor is there. If not informed or he changes his schedule, we may be there on the job with no contrartor. . This does not mean that nur inspector is doing nothing. There are notes and reports to update, as -built information to be transposed to the field office plans, phone calls to be made, estimates to be made, punch lists to be prepared, further contact with the client and contractor, and many other minor duties. I wish we could second-guess the contractor at times: it becomes very difficult for our inspectors to be on the job when told by the contractor he will be there and he does not show up or call ahead so that we can then plan for our inspector to go elsewhere. Likewise, if the contractor shows up on the project at a time we are not scheduled to be there, we are then criticized for not having an inspector on the job. We must rely heavily on communication between all parties concerned including the City. The greatest problem of show or not show on the part of the contractor occurs near completion of the project when minor work is being done, clean-up occurs and a punch list is being taken care of. 0 Page Four Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Monticello, Minnesota July 21, 1988 i have discussed this type of situation with John Simola as to the possibility of he or someone else from the City, whom we could train, to look at the project and see what the Contractor may be doing during this closeout period of minor work, clean-up and punch list work, and to inform us whether it would warrant having an inspector on the project during this period of time. This would help in reducing our total inspection costs during these closeout periods. We have taken steps to miniiaize- this clean-up time: and ex-cdit:rg •h^ clo..a3ut of `ths r?jest Sinnin our bid proposals we have put in a bid item of 3 percent to 5 percent of the bid amount which is designated and paid -for as clean-up. This coupled with the retainage amount certainly has made the contractor take notice. This Construction 5 project was bid in March of 1981 and work started in April 1987. Our billings for construction inspection, survey and staking was for the period from April 1987 into September of 1987. The amount of inspection time for September was 18 hours or one-half of the August time of 37 hours, and the August time was less than one-half of the July time of 83 hours. This sequence is very indicative of nearly all construction projects where the intensity is heavy at or near the beginning and lesser as the construction gets into final clean-up, punch list and miscellaneous work. In conclusion, I believe all of the charges for the field work is justified and it is unfortunate that the budget for this work was limited to a certain percentage of a very low and favorable bid with a relatively inexperienced contractor on board who also experienced labor problems on the site. I will be available to discuss and work out this matter with you at your earliest possible convenience. I believe this covers all of the items in your March 31, 1988 letter relative to out.stardinc! invnices to the City. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON ASSOCIATES, INC C W. John P. Badallch, P.E. Jice President JP8:mlj U Council Agenda - 2/27/89 7. Consideration of adopting resolutions authorizing the preparation of assessment rolls and setting a public hearing date on the Streetscape Improvement Project. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the onset of winter, the downtown Streetscape Improvement Project did not get 100 percent complete before the first snowfall; but it has reached the point where it is appropriate to establish an assessment roll and set a public hearing for the adoption of the assessment roll. The project was complete to the point where the staff feels comfortable with estimating the remaining work that has to be completed this spring; and to avoid further delays, it is recommended that a public hearing be held on March 27, 1989, on the adoption of the assessment roll. Except for some minor concrete work and possibly an additional replacement or added bridge railing installation, the project cost should be easily obtainable in time to meet this March 27 date. The staff is in the process of totaling the project cost, including all indirect engineering and planning fees, and calculating an assessment roll that would he mailed to all benefiting property owners based on the 20 percent assessment ratio two weeks ahead of the proposed public hearing date. At the present time, the project appears to be on budget and should be in the neighborhood of $400,000 to $425,000, of which 20 percent or approximately $80,000 to $85,000 will be assessable. A more detailed accounting of the cost and the assessment roll will be presented at a later date; but at this point, all the action that is needed by the Council is to order the preparation of the assessment roll and set a public hearing date for March 27. It was originally anticipated during the bond sale to finance this project that the assessment roll would have been adopted in the fall of 1988; and thus, the staff feels it is necessary to proceed with the assessment roll even though the entire project has not yet been completed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolutions ordering the preparation of the assessment roll and setting the public hearing for March 27. 2. Wait until the entire project costs are determined before ordering the assessment roll, which would probably be the summer of 1989. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since the original bond sale had anticipated the assessment roll was going to be adopted in 1988, and the fact that the amount of work yet to be completed can be easily estimated, the staff feels comfortable in preparing the assessment roll as soon as possible. The final estimated cost will he available within the next two weeks, thus allowing staff sufficient time to prepare the individual property assessments based on the minimum 20 percent assessment ratio previously authorized by the Council. As a result, staff recommends the resolutions be adopted. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of resolutions. -5- RESOLUTION 89 - RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, a contract has been let and the costs determined for the improvement of Broadway, River, and Third Streets between Linn Street on the west to Palm Street on the east with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and other appurtenant work associated with a downtown streetscape improvement, and the contract price for such improvements is and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amount to so that the total cost of the improvement will be NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City is hereby estimated to be and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is estimated to be The City Administrator shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such inprovement against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land within the District affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. Adopted by the Council this 27th day of February, 1989. Rick Woirsteller City Administrator C Ken Maus, Mayor NO RESOLUTION 89 - RESOLUTION SETTING A REARING ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on February 27, 1989, the City Administrator was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of improving Broadway, River, and Third Streets between Linn Street on the west to Palm Street on the east with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and other appurtenant work associated with a downtown streetscape improvement, and WHEREAS, the City Administrator has notified the Council that such proposed assessment shall be complete and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 27th day of March, 1989, in the City Hall at 7:30 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment, and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement. 2. The City Administrator is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. He shall also cause mailed assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Adopted by the Council this 27th day of February, 1989. RICK WOirstelier City Administrator C Ren Maus, Mayor -70 Council Agenda - 2/27/69 B. Discussion on City use of official depositories. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Annually, the City of Monticello appoints official depositories for City funds consisting of the Wright County State Bank, Security Financial, and First National Bank of Monticello. During the past years, the City has utilized all three financial institutions; but for as long as I can remember, the City has always had its checking accounts for both the Liquor Store and the general fund at the Wright County State Bank. I assume the checking account business has been at Wright County State Bank primarily because originally Wright County State Bank was the only financial institution in Monticello, and both Security Financial and First National Bank are newer institutions as far as checking account capabilities. I was recently approached by Tom Pogatchnik of First National Bank inquiring as to whether the City of Monticello would or has considered utilizing their facility for our checking account business. This question has never been asked of the City before; and as far as I know, a policy has rever been established indicating why only Wright County State Bank has the checking account. With most other types of City business, the staff does make an effort to spread our business locally through as many competitors as possible. For example, when we purchase fuel oil and supplies, we make an attest to somewhat equally divide the business amongst the area bulk oil dealers; and when there was more than one hardware store, we tried to again spread our business amongst different suppliers. The main question is, does the Council wish to, on some type of rotating basis, establish a policy or direct the staff to occasionally switch between banking institutions? At first I thought it may be reasonable to take one of the checking accounts, i.e., either the liquor or the general, and have one at Wright County State Bank and the other at First National Bank. Presently, the City does have a large supply of pre-printed checks for our computer system that are coded for the Wright County State Bank in which we have invested approximately $650 for liquor checks and $350 worth of general checks. If either one of these accounts was switched to a different bank, the checks would be worthless. The main supply of general fund checks totaling approximately $350 are for payroll purposes, and the option does exist that the checking account for the general fund could be switched to First National Bank and Wright County still being utilized for payroll only. This would create more of a headache financially for bookkeeping purposes, which would be one reason I am opposed to this Idea. The only option that seems reasonable for record keeping purposes would be to either have one or the other entirely at one institution, including payroll. Basically, both institutions would offer the same type of services and benefits associated with the checking account, although the First a National Bank has indicated a higher daily interest rate earnings on our -6- Council Agenda - 2/27/89 balances at 5-1/2 percent versus presently 5 percent at Wright County State Bank. This would amount only to about $100 per year difference on an average $25,000 balance. First National Bank also indicated they would be willing to pay $50 towards our first check order supply. This again is not a big dollar amount, as we would stand to lose either $300 or $600 in checks, depending on which account was switched. If the Council feels that the City does have an obligation to utilize each financial institution on an equal basis, it may seem appropriate to change one of the checking accounts to First National Bank. It should be pointed out that I am bringing this item up for general discussion to receive the Council's input and have not experienced any problems with our present arrangement at Wright County State Bank. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to take no action and continue present arrangement with checking accounts at Wright County State Bank. 2. The second alternative would be to direct the staff to proceed with switching one or both of the checking accounts to First National Bank. 3. The third alternative would be to consider possible switching of one or both of the checking accounts in the future when it's necessary to order additional check supplies, thus reducing our out-of-pocket expense. C. STAFF RECOFIAIENDATION: As I indicated, the City has not experienced any problems with our present arrangement with both checking accounts at Wright County State Bank, and this item is only being brought up for Council input as to whether the Council feels it's important to occasionally or routinely alternate between financial institutions. It should be remembered that it's not necessarily an easy task to switch checking accounts as if you were switching savings accounts in that new check supplies need to be ordered, and there is always the chance of outstanding checks taking a while to clear from one account to another. If the Council should decide that it would be a good policy to alternate or rotate amongst local financial institutions, it should be done on a longer term basis, like five years, etc., to avoid bookkeeping and record keeping nightmares. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Letter from First National Bank. 14 -7- FIRST NATIONAL BANK 4` January 26, 1989 Rick Holfsteller City Administrator City of Monticello 250 E Broadway Monticello, MN. 55362 Dear Rick: Thank you for meeting with Tom and I on expanding the City depository relationship with our bank. Presently, the typo of transaction account you would need, we are paying 5.0% from $.00 to $5,000.00 and 5.5% on every dollar in the account when the balance exceeds #5,000.00. Based on what you stated, the account would earn 5.5x with no service charges. To expedite the opening of the account, the bank will pay $50.00 towards the first order of checks. Currently the City has on deposit $240,000.00. We have room for $340,000.00 in respect to the FDIC Insurance and pledged securities. Another account we offer that could be used is a limited transaction money market account. This pays interest based on the 91 day T Bill rate. Currently the account is paying 7.63% and is adjusted weekly based on the T Bill action. This account would serve the cities needs in terms of a short term alternative to certificates with complete Liquidity. I hope to hoar from you soon on the above. As always if I can further help in explaining our bank services to you, please lot me know. Sincerely. Thomas A. Pogatchnik Exec. Vice President TAP/cjc I I Dale Pogettn407 PINE STnEET n,w themes Paaaltnn,M Q »...�.�., MCtNTtC;ElLO.MINNESOTA 55302 Phone(012)295.2290 momoer General Deaomt insurance CoroaRsron Council Agenda - 2/27/89 9. Consideration of purchasing spare parts for electronic control system at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello has been informed that Edison Controls, Inc., the company that manufactured one-half of the electronic controls at the Waste Water Treatment Plant, has declared the control system at our Waste Water Treatment Plant obsolete. What this means is that they will no longer manufacture or stock parts for this control system. The parts, specifically printed circuit board plug-in units, will be extremely difficult to get and will have to be custom manufactured upon order. If a custom order can be put together at all, the minimum waiting period will be 12 weeks. The control system at the Waste Water Treatment Plant, which was a joint venture between Edison Controls and Bentec Engineering, was installed with the construction of the Waste Water Treatment Plant under a contract with the Paul A. Laurence Company. The system is now eight years old; and while we had hoped it would not be obsolete for a major portion of the design life of the plant, we are not surprised that due to the changes in technology, parts will no longer be available. Edison Controls does have an existing stock of some of the printed circuit boards utilized in our system. They have suggested that we purchase spares for critical portions of the system. The upare units, as recommended by Edison Controls and confirmed by myself and PSG, would amount to a purchase cost of $4,794. In addition, Edison Controls has suggested that the City of Monticello purchase an IMP test set, which would enable the City and PSG to diagnose problems in the older system. They have indicated that if we would purchase the printed circuit cards, they would drop the price of the test set from $1,950 down to $1,700, thereby making the total recommended purchases for spare equipment of $6,294. Since we fully expect to be able to operate and maintain this control system for several years, it seems imperative that we have a supply of parts that will enable us to do so. To shut down the main control system at the Waste water Treatment Plant for a period of oven a few days, let alone 12 weeks, seems incomprehensible. The possibility of replacing a $60,000 to $100,000 control system also seems incomprehensible at this time. It, therefore, appears that we do not have a whole lot of choices in this situation. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to purchase the recommended printed circuit cards and test act from Edison Controls, Inc., in the amount of $6.294. 1 2. The second alternative would be not to purchase the teat set or the printed circuit boards but to take our chances with being able to repair the existing circuit boards as they develop problems. -B- Council Agenda - 2/27/89 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Council authorize an expenditure of $6,294 as outlined in alternative $1. It is recommended that the hookup fund, which was set aside for such unplanned and unbudgeted items at the Waste Water Treatment Plant, be used to cover the expenditure. We are currently in the process of checking another source* for some of the cards needed. We will present additional information at Monday evening's meeting if this source develops. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the letters from Edison Controls. *Note: A company which was formed from a breakoff of Edison Controls has a few new old stock cards which they may sell. n iy -9- ,V SMDinc 1714 Gemats Avenue, NOM SL Paul, Minnesota 55109 (812) 770.5122 MONTICELLO WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1401 HART BLVD. GALES/MARhFT;Nli MONTICELLO, MN 55362 J• 1/I.b �Q ATTN: KELSEY McGUIRE -I RE: MONTICELLO - ECI JOB N 1433 - 8-81 DECEMBER 20, 1988 KELSEY, PLEASE FIND IN THIS LETTER, A LIST OF THE CARDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY BEING USED IN YOUR CONTROL SYSTEM. ECI HAS BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING OUR P.C. CARDS. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT REPLENISHING OUR INVENTORY IN ECI-S OLDER SYSTEM P.C. BOARDS AND ONCE OUR INVENTORY IS ZERO - THESE CARDS WILL BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT IF AT ALL TO GET AND THE PRICES WILL REFLECT THIS. PLUS THE TIME TO GET THESE CARDS WILL BE AT LEAST 12 WEEKS IF ECI HAS TO OBTAIN THEM. DESCRIPTION OTY. PRICE 1. IMP 16C/400 M 1920 1 f 2000.00 2. IMP I/O N 1193 2 S 247.00 3. IMP LOGIC N 1734 1 E 296.00 4. 16 PT. DIGITAL INPUT M 1690 13 3 271.00 3. HOLDING REGISTER W/DRIVER 0 15310 13 S 261.00 6. DISPLAY DRIVER 3 DIGIT M 1074 30 9 2t0.00 7. DISPLAY DRIVER 2 DIGIT M 1074.1 5 9 210.00 0. 12 FT. A/D CONVERTER M 1361 3 t 739.00 9. ANALOG INPUT ADAPTER N 14HO V 111o.00 10. ANALOG INPUT ADAPTER 0 1664 3 1(30.00 11. REAL TIME CLOCK # 1682 1 $ 150.00 12. REGULATOR - 12 VOLT M 1781 1 S 91S.00 13. COMPONENT CONNECTOR BOARD 8 1760 2:. f 1:,0.00 KFLSEY, SHOULD YOIJ HAVF ANY OIIESTIONS WITH THIS LETTER. PLEASE CALL. SIN =ELY, 9 1 lE:i ED I5 N, I GALES/MARhFT;Nli EDISON CnNTROLS, TNC. J• 1/I.b �Q -I SOLID STATE CONTROLS FOR UTILITIES AND INDUSTRY (ado 00nit&Uo inc 1714 Gsn'W A~ut, NOM SL Paul. Mnn"Ct* $510 (5121770-5122 PROFESSIONALS SERVICE GROUP 1401 HART BLVD MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 5SZ62 ATTN: KELSIE McGUIRE MAY 259 1988 RE: MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ECI JOB # 1435 KELSIE , PLEASE FIND IN THIS LETTER, THE INFORMATION YOU HAD REQUESTED ON THE CONTROL SYSTEM IN MONTICELLO. I HAVE ALSO SENT COPIES OF RAM LOCATIONS AND RAM PARAMETERS. PRICING: IMP 16C TEST CONSOLD * 1950.00 PCCARD14 IMP 16C MICROPROCESSOR S 2100.00 IMP I/O 0119 * 217.00 16 -POINT DIGITAL INPUT CARD 0 169 - 0 236.00 16 -POINT DIGITAL OUTPUT CARD 0 155 - 1 180.00 DISPLAY DRIVER CARD - 1 156.00 12 PT. AD CONVERTER - 4 739.00 ANALOG INPUT ADAPTER 0 148 s 119.00 ANALOG OUTPUT ADAPTER 0 166 1 119.00 REAL TIME CLOCK S I52.00 REGULATOR BOARD s 52.00 CONNECTOR BOARD i 32.00 sawo STATE CONTROLS POR UrIL/rIeS AND INDUSTRY KELSIE, THESE PRICES ARE FOR NEW CARDS. THE PRICE TO REPAIR ANY BOARD IS S 100.00 PLUS MATERIALS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE IMP WHICH COSTS * 230.00 PLUS MATERIALS. ECI'S COST FOR SERVICE IS S 73.00 PER HOUR WITH A FOUR HOUR MINIMUM. KELSIE, IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT ECI'S EQUIPMENT PERTAINS ONLY TO THE MASTER PANEL. I'M QUITE SURE THAT WE CAN OUT SERVICE BENTED BECAUSE ECI IS A MANUFACTURER AND NOT A PRODUCT REPRESENATIVE. WE HAVE ENGINEERS AND SERVICE PEOPLE THAT HAVE DEGREES AND FIELD EXPERIENCE. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS LETTER, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL. BI EREL A ES EDI ON, J ` S CS AR . ISON CONTROLS, INC. JEJ/KB fne s Council Agenda - 2/27/89 10. Consideration of authorizing hiring of part-time temporary clerical position for assessor's office. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the past several months, the City has been utilizing a part-time high school student through a vocational work program for clerical duties in the assessor's office working with Gary Anderson. The hours have been very limited, and the assessment books are being required by the Wright County Assessor's office to be updated as soon as possible for the 1988 assessment. My understanding is there is a lot of clerical figures that have to be transferred from a computer printout supplied by the County to the actual assessment books on approximately 1,600 parcels in the city of Monticello. This is a very time consuming duty which the present City staff has not had the ability to help with. Since Mr. Anderson has been busy with building inspection activities, he has not had the time to devote to the clerical portion of the assessment duties; and as a result, we are requesting authorization to advertise for a temporary, 2-7 month position. Mr. Anderson will be able to provide additional information on the exact duties that the individual would have to perform and the amount of work that has to be accomplished in the near future. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize the hiring of a temporary clerical position for the assessor's office. 2. Do not authorize the position. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since the City of Monticello has decided to have its own assessor (Gary Anderson), the County Assessor requires the City Assessor complete all the clerical entries required within the assessment books. With the amount of new construction taking place in Monticello and the continual updating of the books that is necessary, the present staff has not had enough time to accomplish what the County is requiring. Mr. Gruber, the County Assessor, has been in contact with Gary Anderson requesting that the books be updated as soon as possible, and even if the Council authorizes the hiring of an additional temporary person, it may still take a few months to complete the book work. If additional help is not authorized, I'm not sure what the consequences would be other than informing the County we're not able to complete the assessment books as required. As a result, it's my recommendation we advertise for a temporary position to start as soon as possible. D. SUPPORTING DATA: 011 [k None. GENERAL FIND - FEBRUARY - 1989 AMOUNT CHECK NO. U. S. Dept. of Interior - Filing fee for Brown's Island 100.00 26425 American National Bank 6 Trust - Bond payments 155,291.25 26426 Norwest Bank MN. - Bond payments 633,527.50 26427 First Trust Bank Mpla. - Bond payments 340,095.01 26428 DMDI - Software support 1989 6,132.00 26429 PLY. U. C. Fund - Unemployment benefits for Stromberg 6 Swift 679.44 26430 Citizens State Bank of Big Lake - Tax increment payment 4,284.33 26431 Northwest MN. Chapter - Membership dues - Gary Anderson 15.00 26432 Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment 7.715.40 26433 Dep. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 1,167.00 26434 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 227.50 26435 Patty Salzwedel - Animal control d adoptions 549.00 26436 Holidav Store - Gas 48.18 26437 Unocal'- Gas 41.22 26438 Holmes S Graven - Professional fees 4,012.20 26439 J. M. Oil Co. - Gas - Fire Dept. 8.62 26440 Nelson Oil - Gas - City - St. Dept. 1,666.03 26441 ' Wright County Highway Dept. - Sand/salt 490.00 26442 Mobil Oil - Gas 71.90 26443 Phillips 66 - Gas 49.00 26444 Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control expense 155.00 26445 Richmar Const. - Payment 95 - Pumphouse d3 103,469.25 26446 Water Products Co. - Water Dept. supplies 333.25 26447 Feedrite Controls - Water Dept. supplies 1,546.01 26448 Road Rescue. Inc. - Pager cases for Fire Dept. 54.00 26449 Shorline - Fetch pole - Animal control expense 69.00 26450 Monticello Floral - Misc. expense 40.60 26451 MN. Pollution Contiol Agency - WWTP annual permit fee 240.00 26452 Communication Auditors - Pager repairs - Fire Dept. 136.53 26453 Continental Safety Equip. - Fire Dept, supplies 104.59 26454 VOID -0- 26455 • Foster Franzen Ins. - Ins. bond for David Kranz 50.00 26456 Govt. Finance Officers Assoc. - Membership dues - R. Wolfstel or 75.00 26457 Al Nelson - Sub. 13.75 26458 Marco Business Products - Mtce. agreement b paper 114.95 26459 Monticello Rotary - Membership dues for 0. Koropchok 200.00 26460 Milbank Ins. - Ins. premium - city house by WWTP 388.00 26461 Pitney Bowes - Postage machine rental 77.25 26462 MN. Park Supervisors Assoc. - Dues for Roger Mack 15.00 ;6463 U. of ". - Reg. fee for Shade Tree Sem. - R. Mack 6 R. Cline 60.00 26464 Bowman Barnes Dist. - Supplies for Public Works Dept. 93.19 26465 General Rental Center - Blades rental 41.70 26466 Local U49 - Union dues 115.00 26467 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded. 210.16 26468 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad. 90.04 26469 ICMA Ret. Trust - Payroll dad. 618.88 26470 PERA - Pern W/H 1.432.70 26471 Wright County Stare Bonk - Fica, Fwt 6 Mod. W/H 5,041.84 26472 Monticello Township - OAA payment - 2nd half tax settlement 13.500.00 26473 Davie Water Equip. - Supplies for pump house project 1.639.46 26474 Automatic Garage Door - Repaira - Fire Hall 428.34 26475 National Bushing - Supplies - Public Works Dept. 370.95 26476 Big Lake Machine - Repairs 8.00 26477 J. `1. 0!1 Co. - Gas 174.90 26478 t` Nelson 011 - Gas 1,057.30 26479 OSM - Eng. fees 4.408.31 26480 Audio Communications - Radio repair 32.00 26481 Dyna Systems - Supplies - P. W. Dept. 195.26 26482 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Chessell Corp. - Supplies 62.76 26483 Monticello Ford - Fire Dept. repairs 368.49 26484 Jim Hatch Sales - Supplies 162.44 26485 R. E. Mooney 6 Assoc. - Repair Kit 306.65 26486 MacQueen Equip. - Parts 3.98 26487 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 261.00 26488 Sunwood Inn - Reg. fee for 0. Koropchak 188.00 26489 YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 625.00 26490 Preusse Cleaning - Monthly contract payment 450.00 26491 Foster Franzen - Ins. premium - Liability ins. 5,166.60 26492 ' Dept. of Nat. Res. - Water permit fee 149.75 26493 Norwest Investment Services - Computer contract payment 2,407.61 26494 Professional Services Group - WWTP contract payment 22,083.35 26495 Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities 2,196.26 26496 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone charges 988.88 26497 Henning 6 Assoc. - Professional fees for new logo 1,337.20 26498 LaTour Const. - Final payment on Project 88-04B 4,776.25 26499 Northern States Power - Utilities 8,742.30 26500 VOID -0- 26501 Int. Conf. of Bldg. Officials - Dues for G. Anderson 20.00 26502 MN. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 215.00 26503 Principal Mutual Life - Ins. premium 6,589.03 26504 Corrow Sanitation - Add'1. landfill charges 1 2,425.20 26505 PERA - Ins. premium •! 27.00 26506 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad., 90.04 26507 ICMA Ret. Assoc. - Payroll dad. , J 618.88 26508 Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage allowance for deb. 300.00 26509 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at library 227.50 26510 Patty Salzwedel - Animal control and adoptions 497.00 26511 Wright County State Bank - Fica, Fwt. 6 Mad. W/H 4,971.91 26512 PERA - Pera W/H 1,450.29 26513 Commissioner of Revenue - FWT 1.655.56 26514 Gruys. Johnson - Computer charges for Dec. 290.00 26515 Unitog Rental - Uniform rental 130.00 26516 Local 149 - Union dues for March 115.00 26517 Snyder Drug - Films for Water Dept. 9.99 26518 Sentry Systems - Lease charges for Fire Dept. 126.00 26519 Monticello Printing - Misc. supplies and printing 340.95 26520 First Trust Canter - Adm. fees for bonds 1,298.00 26521 Northern Oxygen Service - Fire Dept, supplies 12.30 26522 Martie's Farm Service - Straw for Parka Dept. 20.00 26523 Coast to Coast - Supplies far all Depts. 446.71 26524 Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depts. 122.34 26525 Taylor Land Surveyors - Blue prints for Planning 6 Zoning Dept 12.25 26526 Lindberg Decorating - Warming house repairs 111.32 26527 Adam's Pest Control - Contract payment for City Hell 47.50 26528 Feedrice Controls - Water Dept. chemicals 1.251.07 26529 Systems Service Co. - Water Dept. mtce. 282.15 26530 Harry's Auto Supply - Mtce. Dept. supplies 195.27 26531 MN. Mayors Assoc. - Membership dues for K. Maus 10.00 26532 Vickie Bidwell - Mileage expense 13.75 26533 Central McGowan - Supplies 38.93 26534 Flicker's T. V. - Fire Dept. tools 51.79 26535 Flexible Pipe Tool - Rubber hose with fittings 110.20 26536 Shirley Anderson - Mileage expense to seminar 27.00 26537 Smith 6 Hayes - Legal fees 2,041.60 26538 League of MN. Cities - Rog. fee for Shirley Anderson seminar 50.00 26539 -2- GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. AT&T Inf. Systems - Fire phone charges 3.96 26540 Monticello Office Products - Supplies 480.30 26541 Wright County Treasurer - Sheriff's contract - FEb. 12,737.50 26542 Copy Duplicating Products - Copy machine mtce. at library 36.00 26543 Monticello Times - Legal publications 1,121.71 26544 MN. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 184.00 26545 GRDA Publications - Sub. - 1988 Uniform Building Code 45.50 26546 Communication Auditors - Radio repairs 385.86 26547 Phillips 66 - Gas 72.35. 26548 Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repairs and parts 1,050.32 26549 Monticello Fire Dept. - Firemen's wages 2,452.20 26550 Richmar Const. - Payment N6 on Pump 6 pumphouse project 5,305.75 26551 Northland Electric Co. - Streetscape project payment 1,076.40 26552 Karen Doty - Re imb. for ins. paid during 6 wk. disability 258.45 26553 Mobil 011 Credit Corp. - Gas 248.87 26554 Safety Kleen Corp. - Equip. mtce. 55.10 26555 011ie Koropchak - Mileage and travel expense 56.75 26556 Holmes & Graven - Prof. services for Broadway Sq. Project 528.00 26557 Nova Environmental Sevices - Asbestos analysis - Stelton prop. 75.00 26558 Monticello Chamber of Commerce - Chamber dues & Rick's ticket 275.00 26559 Customer Service Division - Mtce. on computer printer 251.70 26560 Gould Bros. - Repairs 9.84 26561 EPL/MSL - Environmental Protections Lab. - Professional serv. 202.75 26562 Feedrite Controls - Poly for Water Dept. 1,810.00 26563 Audio Communications - Repair radio at City Hall 219.20 26564 Little Mountain Flowers - Misc. expense 37.75 26565 Gary Andersen - Mileage 54.02 26566 MN. Dept. of Nat. Rea. - Dep. Reg. fees 125.00 26567 Payroll for January, 40,561.32 TOTAL GENERAL DISBURSEMENTS - FEB. 31,439,009.44 C I LIQUOR FUND LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR FEBRUARY - 1989 AMOUNT CYrCK NO. Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 1,028.66 14247 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 2,778.54 14248 Quality Wine - Liquor 231.08 14249 Ed Phillips - Liquor 2,582.79 14250 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 2,797.60 14251 Johnson Bros. - Liquor 2,502.83 14252 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 250.00 14253 Wright County State Bank - Fica, Fwt S Med. W/H 609.59 14254 PERA - Pera W/H 204.29 14255 Quality Wine - Liquor 1,227.43 14256 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 3,283.07 14257 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 805.37 14258 Gruys, Johnson - Computer charges for Dec. 110.00 14259 Dahlheimer Dist. - Beer 15,626.49 14260 Dick Beverage - Beer 1,487.80 14261 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone charges 56.66 14262 Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse. 377.15 14263 Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities 225.61 14264 Northern States Power - Utilities 580.40 14.265 Commissioner of revenue - Sales tax for Jan. 5,969.44 14266 Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer 11,306.00 14267 Coast to Coast - Store expense 85.64 14268 Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse. 218.50 14269 Monticello OfficeProducts - Store supplies 38.50 14270 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 296.86 14271 Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdse. 32.00 14272 City of Monticello - Sever/Water - 4th qtr. 41.62 14273 Monticello Times - Adv. 119.40 14274 Quality Wine - Liquor 812.76 14275 TOW Dist. Co. - Wine 25.95 14276 Kolles Sanitation - Garbage contract payment 137.00 14277 Minnesota Bar Supply Co. - Store expense 131.81 14278 Day Dist. Co. - Beer, etc. 748.55 14279 Liefort Trucking - Freight 292.21 14280 T. V. Fan Fare Publications - Adv. 156.00 14281 Flaherty's Happy Tyme Co. - Misc. mdso. 186.00 14282 Maus Foods - Store expense 47.5R 14283 KRWC - Adv. 127.50 14284 NCR Corp. - Ribbons for cash registers 56.77 14285 McDowall Co. - Repairs 104.40 14286 Gronseth Directory - Adv. 54.60 14287 Zee Medical Service - Medical supplies 38.30 14289 Grosslein Beverage Co.- Beer 11,728.85 14289 Service Sales Corp. - Tape 63.53 14290 MN. Dept. of Public Snfety - Liquor license fee 12.00 14291 J,)hnsnn Wholesale Liquor - Liquor 365.06 14292 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 716.87 14293 MN. Municipal Beverage Assoc. - Reg. fee for J. Hartman 40.00 14294 Eagle Wine - Liquor 15.87 14295 Principal Mutual Ina. - Group ins. 72R,18 14296 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 1,192.65 14297 PERA - ins. premium 9.00 14298 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad. 250.00 14299 LIQUOR FUND Payroll for January 5,250.58 TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - FEBRUARY $87,245.56 1 AMOUNT MCK NO. Johnson Bros. - Liquor 830.10 14300 Wright County State Bank - Fica, Pvt & Med. Taxes 586.50 14301 PERA - Pere W/H 201.05 14302 Coosaissioner of Revenue - Payroll W/H 184.43 14303 Hollister Carpet Cleaning Service - Clean carpet at Store 325.50 14304 Ed Phillipe - Liquor 1,355.88 14305 The Glass Hut - Repairs 107.40 14306 Eagle Wine - Liquor 843.00 14307 Quality Wine Co. - Liquor 759.10 14308 TOW Dist. Co. - Wine 372.95 14309 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 3,514.31 14310 Payroll for January 5,250.58 TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - FEBRUARY $87,245.56 1 COUNCIL UPDATE l February 23, 1989 (R.W.) Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter the City received from the Minnesota Council American Youth Hostels, Inc., concerning the Minnesota Ironman bike ride that will pass through the city of Monticelln Sunday, April 30, 1989. This event has been sponsored by this Association for over 23 years and has normally utilized parts of Wright County for the 100 mile bike event; but this year the Association is looking at holding the entire event within Wright County. The 62 and 100 mile event will encompass the cities of Monticello, Albertville, St. Michael, Buffalo, Hanover, Rockford, Delano, Watertown, Waverly, and Maple Lake. I contacted Lieutenant Don Hozempa of the Wright County Sheriff's Department concerning this event and any problems the Sheriff's Department had encountered during the past years. Mr. Hozempa indicated that at this point, the Sheriff's Department will be adding five additional deputies throughout the county Sunday, April 30, for traffic control, etc., that will be paid for by the Minnesota Ironman Bike Ride Association. Since this is the first year the bike ride will encompass the entire county, it is hard to tell whether problems will be major or minor with this type of an event. The County has issued a permit for this bike event and will be closely monitoring the effects and will make a determination as far as future years are concerned. There is no action necessary by the Council other than making you aware of the date of the event. t MINNESOTA COUNCIL l AMERICAN YOUTH HOSTELS, INC. AYH Room 203.(612137YMCA 330 Soutn 9th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 PhoneI; ;� ,, •y 904 MEMBER OF INTERNATIONAL YOUTH HOSTEL FEDERATION February 18. 1989 Rick Wolfsteller City Adminstrator City of Monticello 250 E. Broadway Monticello., NN 55362 Dear Mr. Wolfsteller On Sunday.,April 30, 1989. The MINNESOTA IRONMAN bike ride will pass through your community on the beautiful back roads hest of the Twin City metro area. This has been an annual event for 23 years and has grown to be the largest bicycle ride in Minnesota. Over 3000 riders will participate In the all -day event. We would like to enlist your community's cooperation and support of the ride. I have enclosed a route map to show the roads that are being taken. This year the ride will start in Buffalo. Minnesota and proceed in a 'large circle to the South. Riders taking the 62 mile metric century option will return to Buffalo. There is a Northern Circle route for riders wishing to ride a full 100 miles. We take many measures to ensure safety on the roads. There will be over 15 members of the Minnesota Wings. a motorcycle touring club that will constantly ride the route with CB radios to provide a presence for the riders to obey traffic laws. There will be 40-50 trained AYH leaders who will be on the route as ride marshals providing emergency roadside assistance and encouraging safe bike riding behavoir. There will be three major rest and refreshment stops on the route. We will have Deputy Sheriff Traffic control at high traffic Intersections. We have met with the Wright County Sheriff's office and have already secured their support and cooperation to help make this a safe ride for the participants. The major portion of the ride occurs in Wright County. We are also notifying the proper Hennepin and Carver County authorities. to advise them of the route the ride takes in their respective counties. Riders are encouraged to ride in a safe manner through a comprehensive rider update they receive before the ride. Prior to the ride we hope to leaflet the entire route to make property owners aware of the event. 1 believe this event has the potential to benefit your community. The riders participating will provide a good market for refreshment sales the Cg day of the ride. and a positive exposure to your city Could bring them back for further recreation in the future. The. purpose of AYH is to hems all, especialiy ymm people. On a greater unt entano g Of Ifr world and Its people. tnrough outAOor actmoes. edlratorwl and reCreatronal tram and "ted program: to develop nt sell reliant will-intorrned OWMs: to protade youth hostels — siRlple accormlodallms in stem tustorrc and cultural areas —swth supervrwrg nouseparents aro local spot Page 2 y - In additon we provide a packet for each rider in which it is possible to contain promotional material that your community may want to include. You merely provide the material and we will see It gets into the packet We appreciate your cooperation and should you like to get your community involved In a volunteer way, we would certainly enjoy that kind of support. Please contact me if you desire any furthur information at 612 944 2800 days. 612 473 7110 evenings. Sincerely. Jer omis Com nit, Relations Coordinator