City Council Agenda Packet 03-27-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 27, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Ren Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 13, 1989.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Public Hearing - Streetscape assessment roll and adoption of resolution
certifying to Auditor.
5. Consideration of adopting an ordinance granting franchise rights to
Wright Hennepin Electric Association.
6. Consideration of petition for public improvements and authorizing
preparation of feasibility study.
7. Consideration of resolution entering into a cooperative agreement on
traffic signals at River Street and Highway 25.
B. Consideration of Council recommendation regarding rezoning request within
OAA (Bahanon property) .
9. Consideration of setting a special meeting to discuss EDA for April 3,
1989.
10. Consideration of re -authorization of plans and specifications for the
reconstruction of Mississippi Drive.
11. Consideration of gambling license application renewals - Monticello
Jaycees.
12. Consideration of bills for the month of March.
13. Adjournment.
t
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 13, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: 'Ren Maus, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan
Blonigen
2. Approval of minutes.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and
unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held
February 27, 1989.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
4. Public Bearing - Consideration of ordinance amendment deleting Industrial
Development Commission ano establishing the Economic Development
Authority.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill presented a proposed plan submitted by
the Industrial Development Committee to develop an economic development
revolving loan fund to be entitled the "Greater Monticello Enterprise
Fund" (GMEP). It was proposed that an Economic Development Authority be
established to operate the fund and assure compliance with the GMEP
guidelines. O'Neill went on to review the fund guidelines by reporting
that the purpose of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is to
encourage economic development by supplementing conventional financing
sources available to existing and new businesses. Through this program,
loans are made to manufacturing and industrial businesses to help them
meet a portion of their financing needs. The program is intended to be
used in situations where a financing "gap" exists and is not designed to
compete with lending institutions. O'Neill went on to describe risks
associated with the program, and he also noted five communities that have
successfully created new jobs in the community through utilization of a
revolving loan fund.
After the presentation, Council made inquiries regarding the program.
Shirley Anderson asked why lending institutions could not provide 1008 of
the financing for development projects. O'Neill noted that bank policy
may prohibit full financing of a project if the project does not meet
certain criteria. This program is designed to supplement what the
lending institution is not able to finance. Warren Smith requested
additional information on revolving loan funds now in operation. Staff
was asked by Smith to develop five examples of revolving loan funds that
did not work in addition to the success stories that staff provided.
With this information Council would be able to avoid potential pitfalls
that this program may present.
After discussion, it war; the general consensus of Council that this
program merits further study. Staff was directed to schedule a special
meeting for the purpose of examining the topic further.
9
Council Minutes - 3/13/89
5. Consideration of a rezoning request to rezone R-2 (single and two family
residential) unplatted residential land to R-3 (medium density
residential). Applicant, West Prairie Partners.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the rezoning request and
informed Council of the recommendation to Council as submitted by the
Planning Commission. O'Neill informed Council that the rezoning request
was denied because the applicant failed to satisfy Section 22-)-5 of the
Zoning Ordinance which requires that the need for the rezoning must be
demonstrated. It was the view of the Planning Commission that sufficient
R-3 property is now available in the city for development and that to add
R-3 to the existing stock would not be in the best interest of the
community. The proposal to add additional R-3 land to the existing stock
troubled the Planning Commission in light of the strong shift in recent
years toward construction of multi -family units versus single family
units.
Jim Metcalf commented on the proposal and noted that West Prairie
Partners would not pursue the matter without community support.
Karen Doty cited sections of the City Comprehensive Plan and zoning
Ordinance in voicing opposition to the proposed rezoning. She went on to
request that Council adopt the recommendation made by the Planning
Commission.
Fran Pair thanked the public for information provided on this matter and
went on to note denial of this rezoning request should not be made on the
basis of input from neighbors, as neighborhood opposition is not a legal
grounds on which denial of a rezoning request can be made. It was Fair's
view that denial should be based on the Planning Commission finding that
there is insufficient need to justify the proposed rezoning. Dan
Blonigen concurred by saying that he in no way supporta the rezoning
request.
After discussion, motion made by Fran Pair and seconded by Dan Blonigen
to deny the rezoning request, as applicant failed to satisfy
Section 22-d-5 which requires that a need for the rezoning request be
demonstrated. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Consideration of a conditional use r�uest to allow a daycare-gro
nursery in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. A variance
request to allow no Qarking lot hard surfacing, no concrete curb around
parkin gQ lot perimeter, and no landscaping requlremente. Applicant, Peggy
Hanawalt.
Building Inspector, Gary Anderson, reviewed the plan for development of a
day care center as submitted by Peggy Hanawalt. In the request, Hanawalt
agreed to meet all terms of the conditional use request with one
exception. Hanawalt asked if she could delay installation of the curb
and paved surface for one season. Hanawalt noted that she would like to
C have more money available initially for items that will benefit the
children using the facility. Mr. Catton of Monti Eduplay noted his
9
Council Minutes - 3/13/89
support of development of another day care facility in the community but
went on to suggest that Council treat businesses alike. He noted that he
was required to pave the Monti Eduplay parking surface at the time of
opening of the facility.
Staff noted to Council that if Council desired to grant a delay, the
applicant would be required to supply the City with a financial guarantee
that would assure the City that the parking lot would be completed within
a certain time frame.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to approve the conditional use request and defer hard surfaced
parking and curb requirements until September 1, 1989. Conditions
associated with operation include all those listed by the Planning
Commission with the following additions:
1. Applicant must take measures to assure dust control prior to
installation of hard parking surface.
2. Signs must be posted which indicate that traffic must not back onto
the highway when exiting the facility.
3. A letter of credit or other guarantee must be filed with the City
prior to gaining occupancy of the structure for business purposes.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. Consideration of a rezoning request to rezone R-3 (medium density
residential) residential platted land to R-2 (single and two tamily
residential). Applicant, Dan Frie.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran
Fair to approve the rezoning request, as all requirements have been met
that are associated with a rezoning request as outlined in Section 22-d
of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Consideration of assessment appeal on 88-07 Project by Floyd Markling.
Warren Smith noted that it was his hope that the Country Club and
Markling would get together, and unfortunately this is not the case.
Fran Pair noted that this is a no-win situation for the City and that
further action will not result in bettering the situation. Consensus was
not to have a reassessment hearing on the project.
Consideration of ordinance amendment regulating dogs and other domestic
animals.
City Administrator wolfsteller and Animal Control Officer, Patty
Salzwedel, reviewed the proposed ordinance amendments with Council.
Salzwedel noted that the current ordinance does not adequately protect
dogs or dog owners and that the provisions outlined in the ordinance,
including licensing and vaccination requirements, will benefit dogs and
dog owners. She went on to note that the ordinance does not call for the
licensing of cats and that cats are picked up only on a complaint basis.
101
Council Minutes - 3/13/89
Administrator Wolfsteller noted that a rabies clinic could be offered
with the program which would provide citizens with an inexpensive method
to gain compliance with the new ordinance.
Fran Fair noted her support for the ordinance. Shirley Anderson asked if
indoor pets need to be vaccinated. Salzwedel responded by saying that it
is probably good policy to have a pet vaccinated even if it is kept
primarily indoors. Anderson also asked if a job is being created by
adopting the new ordinance. Wolfsteller noted that no new job is being
created and that added duties associated with administering the program
will be assigned to Salzwedel and become part of her existing job.
Salzwedel went on to explain that the proposed ordinance allows the
Animal Control Officer to issue fines, whereas the existing ordinance
does not.
Warren Smith noted his support for the ordinance, as it provides the
Animal Control Officer the means by which barking dog problems can be
rectified.
Dan Blonigen noted the benefits of adding teeth to the ordinance and
added that staff should use discretion in administering the ordinance.
Salzwedel was asked by Smith under what conditions would a person be able
to walk a dog without a leash? Salzwedel responded by saying that
leashes should be required when the dog is being walked in an area where
there are people nearby.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran
Fair to approve said ordinance amendments. Motion passed unanimously.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NOS. 169 AND 170.
10. Consideration of adopting an ordinance granting franchise rights to
Wright Hennepin Electric Association.
Administrator Wolfateller informed Council that Wright Hennepin
Cooperative Electric Association provides electrical service to a WMIl
part of the city of Monticello mainly on the east end of the city along
East County Road 39 and within areas recently annexed from Monticello
Township. As a result, as with other utilities serving residents within
the city, Wright Hennepin has requested a franchise right to utilize the
City's public right—of-ways for construction of their distribution system
and transmission lines.
Ren Maus noted the disparity in electric rates between NSP and Wright
Hennepin Electrical Association. Maus suggested that staff determine if
the City can use its authority to encourage expansion of NSP into areas
now operated by Wright Hennepin Electric Association. After discussion,
motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Fran Fair to table the
matter pending collection of additional information. Motion passed
unanimously.
0
Council Minutes - 3/13/89
11. Consideration of commuter parking lot status.
Tom Dolly presented information to Council which outlined the economic
benefit associated with development of the commuter parking lot for
business purposes. He also reviewed the configuration of a replacement
parking lot which is proposed for a location next to the Silver Pox
Motel. Administrator Wolfsteller noted that the current City policy is
to preserve the commuter parking lot because the lot is in a good
location for commuters; and by preserving the lot, the space is available
at such time that a loop access to east I-94 is needed. It was also
noted that this present policy is not cast in stone, as it may be a
number of years before the loop access will be installed. It, therefore,
might make sense to lease the property to a business for a period of
years in anticipation of a future use of the property for highway
purposes. Dolly indicated that a lease agreement would be acceptable to
the businesses looking to locate on the site.
John Simola discussed with the Council that the covenant on the deed
reads such that the City is currently in violation, as not all of the
site is used for a commuter lot at this time. Technically, the County
could at this time require turn back. In addition, we should he allowed
other public activities such as "Junk Amnesty Day" and other "special
events," as well as an information center or other highway purposes.
Tom Dolly also pointed out that his research shows that the City of
Monticello was singled out for this covenant and that other lands had
been turned back to other cities without such language.
Warren Smith noted that the City should keep its options open regarding
the site and work with the county in establishing a plan that is good for
the County and the city. The City should not shut the door on any
proposal to develop the property.
Motion made by Fran Pair and seconded by Warren Smith to request further
clarification of the restrictions associated with the deed submitted to
the City by the County to permit its current and other public uses and
continue to work with the County in the future for other potential uses
of the property as the need arises. Motion passed unanimously.
12. Consideration of aRroving request for proposals on curb -side recycling
and authorization to advertise.
Public Works Director Simola reviewed the request for proposals prepared
by the advisory committee. After his presentation, Ren Maus wondered if
the City would generate sufficient compliance with the program on a
voluntary basis. Maus suggested that the City consider operating the
program on a voluntary basis to start; and if compliance is not what is
expected, then make the participation mandatory.
Council Minutes - 3/13/89
Simola stated that the voluntary programs are more successful with a
volume based garbage system where residents pay for waste pickup by the
number of cans. They then see direct savings by producing less waste.
Simola also stated that the proposed tracking system would be more costly
and troublesome to implement if done after residents have received their
containers. This information came from Jack Shelton and the City of
St. Louis Park.
Simola went on to note that participation will increase significantly if
the program is mandatory, and the cost to monitor compliance will be
offset by the revenue created by penalties. In fact, the penalties, even
if only 10 percent of the residents choose to not recycle, will help
offset waste pickup and disposal costs for the rest of the community, as
well as fund a prize incentive program.
After discussion, motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Pair to
approve said request for approval and authorize advertisement. Motion
carried unanimously.
13. Consideration of approving specifications and authorizing advertisement
for bids for recycling containers.
Motion was made by Warren Smith to approve specifications and authorize
advertisement for bids for recycling containers. Motion was seconded by
Fran Pair and passed unanimously.
14. Consideration of adoption of Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic
develo7nt powers of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment
Author ty, and the Economic Development Authority.
Item tabled per agenda item 14 above.
15. Consideration of adoption of Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines.
Item tabled per agenda item 14 above.
16. Consideration of further action on the Monticello Celebrate Minnesota
Program.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council of the recent decision
by the State of Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development to
deny granting Monticello funds for the Monticello Celebrate Minnesota
Program. O'Neill went on to describe the financial implications of not
gaining the grant funds.
After discussion, it was the general consensus of Council to affirm
participation in the community entrance signage and landscaping and the
Robert Leathers play structure portions of the project. It was suggested
that the City take a second look at development of the Mississippi island
into a passive park area.
9
Council Minutes - 3/13/89
17. Consideration of Change Order #1 for Pump House $3, Project 88-01C.
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to
approve said change order. Motion carried unanimously.
18. Consideration of additional payment request by City Engineer - OSM.
City Engineer, John Badalich, outlined the circumstances leading to the
request for payment in excess of the original quoted amount for work done
on topographic maps. Badalich noted that OSM neglected to inform the
City when the scrape of the project expanded and that additional costs
would be accrued.
Shirley Anderson suggested that maybe OSM will remember to contact the
City and/or provide an accurate quote if their request is turned down.
Fran Fair found it difficult to justify the change in cost. Warren Smith
and Dan Blonigen agreed. Ren Maus noted that we should be firm unless
there are extenuating circumstances; except in this case, no
communication was made regarding the change in circumstances.
Motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to authorize
payment to the extent of the original quote. Motion carried unanimously.
19. Consideration of gambling license application - Ducks Unlimited Banquet.
Council approved issuing license by consensus.
20. Consideration of authorizing final payment on County Road 39 Project,
88-01B, and Dundas Circle Project, 98--02 - LaTour Construction.
Dan Blonigen asked if sufficient funds are held back to assure full
completion of the project. Yes, was John Simola's response. Motion by
Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Pair to approve said payment. Motion
carried unanimously.
21. Consideration of authorizing cost analysis for upgrading streets in
Monticello Industrial Park.
Economic Development Director Roropchak reported that the Industrial
Development Committee views the existence of streets in the industrial
park with less than a 10 ton capacity as a detriment to economic
development in the community. From a marketing standpoint and
operational standpoint, it is vital that the streets have the capacity to
handle 10 ton loads.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to conduct a feasibility study outlining the costa associated
with upgrading streets in the Monticello Industrial Park.
Council Minutes - 3/13/89
22. Consideration of authorizing the Industrial Park streets not be posted.
i
Jay Morrell of MSP Transport reported on the Industrial Development
Committee recommendation to not post Industrial Park streets. He noted
that most streets were installed when the standard was 7 tons and
informed Council that the State of Minnesota raised that capacity of some
state highways simply by posting higher weight limits. He went on to
note that posting the roads as having limited capacity will hamper
efforts of the sale and development of industrial lots.
It was noted by Simola that in light of the possibility of upgrading the
roads, it might make sense to continue to post the roads, thereby
providing additional protection from damage which will result in a less
expensive upgrading program.
Motion was made by Fran Pair and seconded by Dan Blonigen to continue to
post industrial park streets. Motion passed unanimously.
23. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned.
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Na
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
Public Hearing - Streetscape assessment roll a adoption of resolution
certifying to Auditor. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is requested to review the proposed Streetscape assessment roll,
conduct a public hearing on the matter, and adopt an assessment roll
accordingly. Following is a wrap-up of the project costs and a proposed
method by which those costs might be assessed to benefiting property
owners. On February 8, 1988, Council adopted a Streetscape budget of
$405,000. On April 27, 1988, the City sold bonds for the Streetscape
project in the amount of $437,775. This amount was higher than the
budget amount because it included an additional 10 percent contingency
cost above the project construction cost of $333,400. The actual
completed project cost amounted to $414,323, which is 2 percent above the
budget amount of $405,000.
Total construction cost for the Streetscape project amounted to $348,617,
which is 5 percent over the budget amount of $333,400. The cost overrun
can be attributed to a claim made by the contractor that the quantity
amounts for concrete in the contract were incorrect; and as a result, an
additional $15,000 worth of extra materials was needed by the contractor
to complete the work. Unfortunately, this information was not provided
to the City prior to the Council decision to take on additional project
activities in September. Please note that the claim by the contractor is
being investigated, and there is some chance that his figures are
incorrect. At this point, the City has not made payment for those
additional costs claimed by the contractor. The total cost that is
provided at this point includes full payment to the contractor as
claimed.
The total indirect costs for the project amounted to $65,706, which
represents 19 percent of the total project cost. This cost includes
$6,781 for legal and bonding fees, $50,805 for engineer and planner fees,
$8,120 for administration and inspection fees, and $27,872 for
preliminary design work completed prior to January 1988.
ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
As you may have noted, the bond sale amount of $437,775 is greater than
the actual project cost which was $414,323. According to the
requirements associated with the general obligation bond issue, the City
must assess at least 20 percent of the actual bond amount. Therefore,
the assessment roll reflects an assessment based on the bond sale and not
on the actual project cost. This results in the property owners paying
slightly more than 20 percent of the actual project costs. It is the
view of the City Administrator that 21 percent of the bond amwnt should
be assessed to provide Council with some leeway in adjusting individual
assessment amounts. In the event that Council would reduce an individual
assessment amount, there would be funds available to guarantee that
20 percent of the bond amount is assessed. Twenty percent (208! of the
bond amount equals $91,933. This amount was assessed to individual
property owners as follows:
IM
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
1. The proposed assessment roll calls for assessing property owners
on a front footage basis. Property located on corners were
assessed based on the total number of feet fronting Broadway.
The cost to develop the sides of corner lots is spread among all
properties fronting on Broadway. According to 011ie Koropchak,
this method of assessing 20 percent of the project cost is
consistent with expectations established prior to the ordering of
the project.
2. Four properties within the assessment roll were singled out as
receiving less benefit than the majority of the properties.
These properties received only sidewalk and some landscaping as
part of their improvement. In calculating the assessment for
these properties, staff applied actual cost plus overhead in
deriving the assessment amount. These properties include Fair
Garden Center owned by Kevin Fair, Red's Mobil owned by Ronald
Michaelis, City Hall, and the structure owned by Keith
Kjellberg. Finally, the terms of payment call for a 15 -year
payment plan at an interest rate of B-3/4 percent.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt assessment roll as presented and adopt proposed terms
for payment.
2. Motion to modify and adopt assessment roll and adopt proposed terms
for payment.
3. Motion to deny adoption of assessment roll and call for a public
hearing for the purpose of reviewing a revised assessment roll.
C. STAFF RECOl49MATION:
Staff recommends alternative /1. Distribution of the Streetscape costs
will likely be controversial. The attached assessment roll represents
staff's beat efforts in assigning costs in a fair and equitable manner.
However, it could be contended that the assessment roll prepared to not
fair to those property owners with lots in the interior of blocks, as
those individuals are paying costs associated with improvements to aide
frontage on corner lots. At the saw time, however, it is and
understanding that the project proceeded with the understanding that the
assessments would be based on front footage only. It might not be fair
to change the rules after the project has been completed. If council
desires to assese corner lots for more than front footage, then a new
public hearing would need to be called and a new assessment roll
prepared.
It might also be contended that those individuals that received only
sidewalk and landscaping should pay a larger portion of the Streetscape
cost. As you will note in the assessment roll, Kevin Fair is paying
15 percent of the total cost per foot for his improvement; and Ronald
Michaelis is paying 17 percent of the cost per foot for improvements in
-2-
C
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
front of his property; City Hall pays 9 percent; and Reith Rjellberg is
paying 4 percent. Council could take the view that these properties are
benefiting from the nearby Streetscape fixtures and Streetscape
environment; and therefore, these properties should pay more than the
cost associated with improvements to their property. If Council takes
this view, then the assessment roll figures would need significant
revision and a new public hearing would be required.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Excerpt from Streetscape bond document; Excerpt from minutes of the
regular meeting of the Council February 8, 1988, at which time a $405,000
budget was established; Revised assessment roll; Resolution for adoption.
-3-
7 �~ City of Monticello, Minnesota
r� r April 27, 1988
1 -
}+.' (D) Dundas Circle - sewer, water, street improvements
Subtotal $ 55.046
Total Construction $ 920,474
Indirect Costs (27%) 248,528
Total Project U88-1 Costs $1,169,002
2. 1188-2 - STREETSCAPE
Project Costs $ 333,400
Contingency (10%) 33,400
Engineering (16%) 58,675
Administration (2%) 7,300
Issuance (1-1/2%) 5.000
Total 1188-2 Project Costs $ 437,775
Subtotal Costs $1,606,777
Add: Bond Discount 24.375
Subtotal $1,631,152
Less: Investment Earnings (6.152)
Net Bond Issue $1.625.000
Of the total project costs approximately $385,000 will be assessed against benefited
property over a term of 15 years with interest rates at 1.50% over the interest rate
on the bonds. We are estimating this will be 8.5%. The assessment income, as
projected, is shown In Appendix 11 of these recommendations.
The structure of the bond issue is shown in Appendix 1 of these recommendations.
The first levy for the bonds will be made in 1988 for collection in 1989. The first
principal on the bonds will fall due on February I, 1990 and annually thereafter
through 2004. The Interest rates shown in Column 5 represent current market rates
as of April 19 and may vary somewhat from the rates actually received at the time of
sale. Any adjustments up or down will alter the net required levy for the City. The
total debt service on the bonds is shown in Column 6, and Column 7 reflects the
mandatory 5% overlevy that Minnesota Statutes require in order to protect the City
and the bondholders in the event all of the taxes are not paid as scheduled. Column 8
is the projected income as developed in Appendix 11. Column 9 is the annual tax levy
required to support the bond issue.
We have been advised that the City wil l assess 10096 of the Dundas Circle costs which
amount to $69,900, and $226,200 against the remaining utilities in project 1188-1. Not
included in these numbers is $91,000 of assessments which will also be filed at this
time, however, it is anticipated that those assessments will qualify for Green Acres
and therefore have not been anticipated in the cash flow for repayment of the bonds.
CTo the extent that these properties,lose their Green Acres status, additional income
will be available to reduce future tax levies for these bonds. The streetscape project
04
Page 2'
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELL40 CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 8, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
%
'Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan Blonigen,
Warren Smith
■
Members Absent: None.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 25,
1988.
a.
4. Consideration of Request by U.S. Cycling Federation to Hold a Time Trial
Event in Monticello.
Mr. Pete Zarembo, District Representative of the U.S. Cycling Federation,
appeared before the Council to request permission for the Association to
hold a State Time Trial Bicycle Championship in Monticello on June 11,
1988. The event would start at the Pinewood School at approximately
6:00 a.m. and consist of up to 300 bikers who would proceed along a
course from Pinewood on County Road 75 to Clearwater a distance of 12.4
miles and return. Mr. Zarembo noted that the school has agreed to rent
their facility to the Association, and the Association would provide
$1 million worth of liability insurance for the event.
Before the event can proceed, the Wright County Sheriff's Department and
Highway Department are required to issue a permit for the use of the
county road, and a number of concerns were raised by the Sheriff's
Department regarding traffic control and assignment of a deputy to
monitor the event. The Sheriff's Department suggested that at least one
deputy be assigned for the event that would be paid for by the
Association. Councilmember Fran Fair also recommended that as a
condition of the permit, the Association consider the posting of notices
along the route and within Monticello ahead of time that would indicate
when the event would take place.
After further discussions, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill
Fair, and unanimoualy carried to grant approval to the issuance of the
permit for the event provided that 1) insurance coverage in provided in
the amount of $1 million with the City of Monticello as an additional
insured; 2) the Association pays for all coots associated with one deputy
to monitor the event; 3) the Association provide and post notices of the
event throughout the community and along the route.
5. Consideration of Recolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans
and Specifications on Streetucape Project.
At the January 11 Council meeting, a public hearing was held on the
proposed Downtown Streetacape Improvement Project; and it wan the
Council's action at that meeting to table any action on the project
1
Council Minutes - 218188
and directed the Downtown Rehabilitation Committee and City staff to work
1:1 with the Planner in an effort to reduce the cost by approximately
one-third.
Mr. Geoff Martin of Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban, Inc., the City's
Consulting Planner, presented to the Council the revised streetscape
proposal that had been reduced from an estimated cost of $640,000 down to
approximately $405,000, a 37 percent reduction. Mr. Martin noted that
the revised project included the elimination of Blocks 50 and 37 from the
project (Post Office block and pump -n -Munch block) on the west and
replacing of sidewalks only where needed in Blocks B and D on the east
end. Major reductions in the public parking lots were also recommended
in Block 35, 34, and Block 52 by eliminating medians, some curbing, and
landscaping, etc. The revised plan also will be using exposed aggregate
along the sidewalks in areas that were previously planned to use
interlocking pavers in an effort to reduce the cost substantially.
After Mr. Martin's presentation, 011ie Koropchak, Economic Development
Director, reviewed with the Council the new project cost of $405,000 and
the proposed assessments to the benefiting property owners based on a
20 percent assessment ratio. The project would result in a typical
residential home valued at $62,000 having an increase in taxes of $1.80
per year.
Mayor Grimsmo noted that the two questions that the Council had to
consider were whether to proceed with the project, and if so, what the
assessment formula would be for benefiting property owners. The Council
did open up the meeting for public comment and questions, but asked that
it be limited to new information and not a rehash of the public hearing
comments January 11. Mayor Grimsmo noted that no improvements have taken
place in the downtown area in the past 15 years except for public parking
lot improvements and feels that all of Monticello will benefit from a
project such as this. Councilmember Blonigen felt that if the project
did proceed, a 20 percent assessment ratio was not high enough for the
sidewalk and landscaping improvements. Mr. Blonigen noted that the
City's ordinances currently require property owners to maintain and
replace sidewalks in front of their property and felt that if only
20 percent of the project is assessed to benefiting property owners in
the downtown area, the Council should seriously consider changing its
ordinance for the rest of the city. Based on the proposed assessment,
Mr. Blonigen was opposed to the project as presented. Councilmember Bill
Fair felt the image of the downtown area needed to be upgraded to prevent
further erosion of retail businesses. He noted that the main focus of a
community is normally its downtown LCea and that the facelift of the
streetscape project should encourage more private development to occur.
Councilmember Fran Fair also felt tke project was much needed for
Monticello and that the project has been discussed and considered for a
number of years. Councilmember Warren Smith noted that he had received a
number of comments from the public toth pro and con to the project, but
overall felt the project will improve the image of the City of Monticello
and therefore make all residents proud of the city. Mr. Smith noted that
the City has and always will use ad valorrm taxes to pay for projects and
(4)
Council Minutes - 2/8/88
services for the public and that not all people will benefit from each
tax dollar spent. Projects supported by taxes include such facilities as
softball fields, senior citizens centers, and other items that actually
.' benefit only a few people and that this project should be considered
': likewise, a project that should be supported by all the citizens of
yy� Monticello.
After the Council deliberations were completed, motion was made by Fran
Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, to adopt a resolution ordering the
improvement and preparation of plans and specifications on the revised
streetscape project and to propose that a 20 percent assessment formula
-: be used for benefiting property. voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran
Fair, Bill Fair, and Warren Smith. Opposed was Dan Blonigen.
See Resolution 88-4.
6. Consideration of Change Order Al on 88-1A Deep Well Project.
At the previous Council meeting, a contract was awarded to E.H. Renner
and Sons of Elk River, Minnesota, in the amount of $40,510 for the
construction of a new 14 -inch deep well. Because of the City's desire to
obtain at least 1,000 gallons per minute from the new well, the Public
Works Department had scheduled a gamma scan test of the well site which
would better determine whether the soil conditions could provide this
capacity. Based on the test completed by Minnesota Geophysical, it
appeared that the new well could produce in excess of 1,000 gallons per
minute with a 14 -inch high tech screen, but the currently designed
14 -inch casing would limit the size of the pump that could be installed
in the well. As a result, it was recommended by E.H. Renner, the low
bidder, that the City consider changing to an 18 -inch well with an outer
24 -inch casing that would allow a larger size well pump to be installed.
The additional cost would amount to $7,865 and would require a change
order on the project. The new bid total would amount to $48,375, still
lower than the second bidder on the project.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve Change Order Al in the amount of $7,865 with E.H.
Renner and Sons enlarging the 14 -inch casing to an 18 -inch well.
M
? 7. Consideration of Policy Approval on Survey Requirements.
i
L R Section 3-2-C of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to platted and unplatted
property currently states that any person desiring to improve property
i shall submit to the Building Inspector a survey of the property and
information on the location and dimensions of existing and proposed
buildings, location of easements crossing the property, encroachments,
and other information that may be necessary to ensure conformance to city
ordinances. In an effort to clarify for all individuals obtaining a
building permit, the City staff has researched requirements of other
communities and prepared a policy that outlines the requirements that
each certificate of survey must provide.
3
B
L
0
C
K
NAME LINEAR 8 PAID OF NEW "ASSESS
FRONT BASE PER ASSESS NOTICE
FOOTAGE FOOT RATE TOTAL AMOUNT
51 MONT. MRA
107
100%
$4,738
$4.762
51 O'CONNOR. JOE
31
100%
$1.379
$1.386
51 STELTON, ERVIN
28
100%
$1,223
$1,230
51 TOPEL, DOROTHY
66
100%
$2,936
$2,951
51 TAYLOR SURV
33
1008
$1.468
$1,476
51 SCOTT, OCUGLAS
33
100%
$1,468
$1,476
51 SANDBURG, JCHN
33
100%
$1,468
$1,476
52 DOUGLAS. STAN
59
100%
$2.625
$2.638
52 MICHEAL. WOODWARD
20
1008
$890
$894
52 JOHNSON. STEVEN
68
100%
$3.021
$3.036
52 BLOOMDALH, CARROL
51
1008
$2.273
$2.285
52 FLUTH. BARRY
50
100%
$2.202
$2.213
52 JOHNSON. STEVEN
17
100%
$734
$738
52 JOHNSON, STEVEN
66
100%
$2,936
$2,951
53 WRIGHT CT STATE BANK
33
100%
$1,468
$1,476
53 STOKES, I.EO
65
1008
$2,936
$2,951
53 WRIGHT CTY STATE BANK
33
100%
$1,468
$1.476
53 MULLER PROPERTIES
67
100%
$2,990
$3.005
53 HOLKER, PAULA
65
100%
$2,883
$2.898
53 HOLKER, PAULA
33
100%
$1,468
$1,476
53 HOLKER. PAULA
33
1008
$1,468
$1.476
34 HAMMER, TOHMAS
42
1008
$1,868
$1,878
34 RASMISSEN, ROBERT
24
1008
$1,068
$1,073
34 CITY OF MONT.
66
1008
$2.936
$2.951
34 MONT LIOUOR
75
1008
$3,337
$3,354
34 LINDBERG 6 SONS
24
1008
$1.068
$1,073
34 NOVAK, JOHN
33
1008
$1.468
$1,476
34 HILDEBRANDT, MARLAND
33
1008
$1,468
$1,476
34 HILDEBRANDT, MARLAND
33
1008
$1,468
$1,476
35 CITY OF MONT.
33
1008
$1,468
$1,476
35 HATFIELD, LEE
36
1008
$1.602
$1,610
35 BOUT. VICTOR
39
1008
$1,735
$1.744
35 KLIMMEK. ALLEN
40
1008
$1,780
$1,789
35 WRIC44T COUNTY STATE BANK
43
1008
$1,913
$1.923
35 LARSON. BRAD
23
1008
$1.023
$1.028
35 SCHNEIDER. THOMAS
20
1008
$890
$894
35 LOCH. ALAN
22
1008
$979
$984
35 LOCH. ALAN
21
1008
$912
$917
35 MCN TI LODGE
29
1008
$1,290
$1.297
35 KRUSE.FLOYD
25
1008
$1,090
$1,096
36 FOSSTER. JIM
83
1008
$3.693
$3,711
36 GOSSEN. JOHN
22
1008
$965
$970
36 CITY MCNT.
27
1008
$1,215
$1,221
36 KOPPY, JOHN
33
1008
$1,468
$1,476
36 BCA4ER, ROBERT
27
1008
$1.201
$1.207
36 LARSON, KENNEIH
39
1008
$1,735
$1,144
36 BJORKLUND. PAULS
33
1008
$1,458
$1,476
36 8JORKLUND, PAULS
66
1008
$2,936
$2.951
8 • FAIR. KEVIN
297
158
$1,982
$2,231
D • MICHAELIS. RONALD
116
178
$858
$955
• CITY HALL
215
98
$842
$952
• KJELLBERG.KE•ITH
100
48
$165
$184
-__-RAW TOTAL --_--------- -------$2
708
$91.933
•• CALCULATICN OF REVISED ASSMNT ROLL BASED ON
BOND COST
OF $437,775.
INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS ARE SLIGHTLY LESS THAN ORIGINAL NOTICE.
-o
STREETSCAPE PROJECT RECAP AND ASSESSMENT ROLL
MARCH 24. 1989
TOTAL COST $414,323
' CONSTRUCTION (Budget - $333,400) $348,617 105%
INDIRECT (19% of total) $65.706
ASSESSED COST PER LINEAL FOOT $44
AFTER ADJUSTMENTS
'
Project over budget duo to dispute with contractor, ovor quantity amounts.
Contractor claims concrete quantity amounts required as calculated in original
bid worn inaccurato. Contractor is claiming an additional $15,000 for cxtra
materials noedod. This information not providod to City until the end of
the Project.
21% OF BOND AMOUNT - ASSESSMENT AMOUNT $91.933
ASSESSMENT METHOD
1. Assossmont basod on front iootago Per original diccussion with property ownora.
Property locatod an corners acsoncmnnt biced on front footage only.
2. Pr000rtios notod with an • whoro assosaod based an actual coat of imorovarrnnta
plus ovorhoad. Reduced rate is cuggestod becauao affoctod proportion
recoivod less bonofit from tho improvermont. ny
BUDGET PERCENT
AMOUNT OF BUDGET
1/11/88
ORIGINAL PROJECT COST:
$640.000
2/8/88
ADOPTED BUDGET:
$405.000
4/27/88
BOND SALE (Included contingency):
$437.775
3/22/89
` ACTUAL PROJECT COST:
$414,323 102%
PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN
CONST.
ARRIGONI BRO - GEN CONST.
$208.176
NORTHERN ELECTRIC
$55.159
MJ VALLEY - LANDSCAPING
$34,973
MJ IRON WORKS - RAILING
$23,006
IRONSMITH - GRATES/TREE GAURDS
$22.468
FLANNIGENS - TRASH CONTAINERS
$2,691
OTHER MISC
$2.145
INDIRECT
LEGAL
$6,781
ENGR/PLANNER
$50,805
ADMIN 6 INSPECTION FEES (2`b)
$8.120
i
PRELIMINARY DESIG" WORK
$27,872
TOTAL COST $414,323
' CONSTRUCTION (Budget - $333,400) $348,617 105%
INDIRECT (19% of total) $65.706
ASSESSED COST PER LINEAL FOOT $44
AFTER ADJUSTMENTS
'
Project over budget duo to dispute with contractor, ovor quantity amounts.
Contractor claims concrete quantity amounts required as calculated in original
bid worn inaccurato. Contractor is claiming an additional $15,000 for cxtra
materials noedod. This information not providod to City until the end of
the Project.
21% OF BOND AMOUNT - ASSESSMENT AMOUNT $91.933
ASSESSMENT METHOD
1. Assossmont basod on front iootago Per original diccussion with property ownora.
Property locatod an corners acsoncmnnt biced on front footage only.
2. Pr000rtios notod with an • whoro assosaod based an actual coat of imorovarrnnta
plus ovorhoad. Reduced rate is cuggestod becauao affoctod proportion
recoivod less bonofit from tho improvermont. ny
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
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.
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 8.75 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 such 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 his
resolutions 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 year in which such payment is made. Such
payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged
through 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 lists
of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the
same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the Council this 27th day of March, 1989.
Ken Maus, Mayor
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
n.1
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
5. Consideration of adopting an ordinance granting franchise rights to
Wright Hennepin Electric Association. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association provides electrical
service to a small part of the city of Monticello mainly on the east end
of the city along East County Road 39 and within areas recently annexed
from Monticello Township. As a result, as with other utilities serving
residents within the city, Wright Hennepin has requested a franchise
right to utilize the City's public right-of-ways for construction of
their distribution system and transmission lines.
At the previous Council meeting, this item was tabled to allow the staff
to find out whether the City Council has any authority in determining
boundaries served by utility companies such as NSP or Wright Hennepin.
Wright Hennepin Electric has had a history of higher electrical cost for
its customers, and the Council requested additional input as to whether
the City Council by not adopting this franchise ordinance for Wright
Hennepin could allow NSP to serve all of the customers within the city
limits.
I consulted with City Attorney, Tom Hayes, and also with Mr. Jerry
Zimmer, Public Relations Regional Manager for NSP, concerning what
authority the city governments have in establishing boundaries for
utility companies. Both individuals indicated that the territory
boundaries are established by the Public Utilities Commission which has
sole authority in establishing utility boundaries. Both an individual
customer and/or a city government can petition to the PUC to have the
boundaries altered; but it is a very rare occurrence where this has
happened. In all likelihood, Wright Hennepin would oppose the shifting
of the boundaries; and it does not seem beneficial at this point for the
City to even pursue such an idea. If the City did not adopt the
franchise ordinance, Wright Hennepin Electric would still have the right
to use public right-of-ways for constructing their power lines, etc. If
the City denied access to Wright Hennepin for this purpose, in all
likelihood Wright Hennepin would seek court action to force the City to
allow use of its right-of-way.
The City of Monticello currently has franchise ordinances governing the
cable TV distribution system, one with North Central Public Service for
natural gas distribution, and naturally, one with NSP for electrical
distribution. The ordinance franchise proposal submitted by Wright
Hennepin has been reviewed by the City staff, and a few modifications
were requested which are incorporated into this new franchise. The
franchise agreement appears to be consistent with other utility
franchises that have been granted by the City and appears to adequately
protect the City of Monticello. Some of the modifications requested by
the City included a provision requiring the company to provide annual
updated as builts of all their transmission lines and equipment located
within our right-of-way, rewording of provisions which allow the City of
Monticello to require relocation at no cost of transmission lines and
-4-
Council Agenda - 3/21/89
equipment when required for any utility construction on our part. This
franchise ordinance is actually more descriptive in this nature than any
of our existing franchise agreements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the ordinance amendment granting a franchise right to Wright
Hennepin Electric Association.
2. Do not adopt the franchise agreement.
C. STAFF REOOMMENDATION:
After reviewal by the City staff and comparisons to the existing
franchise agreements from other utility companies, the staff feels
comfortable with the Council adopting this franchise agreement covering a
20 -year period of time. As I indicated, modifications were made to the
initial agreement presented which the staff feels adequately protects the
City of Monticello. It is certainly in the City's beat interest to adopt
a franchise agreement since Wright Hennepin has and will in the future
have more utility extensions as the City grows within the annexed areas.
As noted in the franchise agreement, Wright Hennepin will pay for all
publication cost of this ordinance upon approval.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of franchise agreement.
-5-
ORDINANCE NO.
City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO WRIGHT-HENNEPIN
COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, A MINNESOTA
CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN IN THE
CITY OF ' MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, AN ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES,
INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, POLE LINES AND FIXTURES
AND APPURTENANCES, FOR THE FURBISHING OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY TO THE CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS, AND OTHERS,
AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF
SAID CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Definitions
Subd. 1. In this Ordinance "City" means the City of Monticello,
County of Wright, State of Minnesota•
Subd. 2. "City Utility System" refers to the facilities used
for providing any public utility service owned or operated by City of
agency thereof, including sewer and water service.
i Subd. 3• "Company" means Wright -Hennepin Cooperative Electric
Association, a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns.
Subd. 4. "Notice" means a writing served by any party or
parties on any other party or parties. Notice to Company shall be
mailed to the General Manager thereof at P.O. Box 330, Maple Lake, MN
55358-0330. Notice to city shall be mailed to the CITY CLERK.
Subd. 5• "Public grounds" means city parks and squares se well
as land held by the City for the purposes of open space•
Subd. 6. "Public ways" means streets, avenues, alleys,
parkways, walkways, and other public rights of way within the City.
SECTION 2. Grant of Franchiae
City hereby grants Company. for a period of 20 years from the date
hereof, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light,
heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and
through the limits of city as its boundaries now exist or as they may
be extended in the future• For these purposes, Company may construct,
operate, repair and maintain electric distribution system and electric
transmission lines, including poles, pole lines, duct lines, fixtures,
and any other necessary appurtenances in, on, over, under and across
the public ways and public grounds of City. Company may do all
f -eaeonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes,
ubject, however, to the further provisions of this franchise.
C
SECTION 3. Restrictions
Subd. 1. Company facilities included in such electric
distribution system, transmission lines and appurtenances thereto,
shall be located and constructed so as not to interfere with the
safety and convenience of ordinary travel along and over said public
ways. Company's constructionr operation, repair, maintenance and
location of such facilities shall be subject to such regulations as
may be imposed by City pursuant to charter, ordinance or statute.
Subd. 2. Company shall not construct any new installations
within or upon any public grounds without receiving the prior written
consent of an authorized representative of City for each such
installation.
Subd. 3. Company shall provide field locations for all its
underground facilities when requested by City within a reasonable
period of time. The period of time will be considered reasonable if
it compares favorably with the average time required by the cities in
the County to locate municipal underground facilities for Company.
("County" refers to the County in which City is located.)
Subd. 4. Company shall provide annual updated as builts of all
electrical transmission lines and other equipment located in, on,
over, and under the public right-of-ways and public grounds of city
when requested by the City.
SECTION 4. Tree Trimming
Company is also granted the permission and authority to trim all
trees and shrubs, including spraying the same with herbicides approved
by the Environmental Protection Agency, in the public ways and public
grounds of City interfering with the proper construction, operation,
repair and maintenance of any poles, pole lines, and fixtures or
appurtenances installed in pursuance of the authority hereby granted,
provided that Company shall save City harmless from any liability in
the premises.
SECTION 5. Service Rates
The Company will provide adequate, efficient, and reasonable
electric service and at rates which fairly reflect the costs of doing
business on its utility system.
SECTION 6. Relocating
Subd. 1. Whenever City shall grade, regrade or change the line
of any public way, or construct or reconstruct any City utility system
therein and shall, in the proper exercise of its police power, and
with due regard to seasonable working conditions, when necessary order
Company to relocate permanently its lines, services and other property
located in said public way, Company -shall relocate its facilities at
its own expense. City shall give Company reasonable notice of plans
to grade, regrade or change the line of any public way or to construct
or reconstruct any city utility system therein. However, after
c -3Z;127 kaz EG r..GC3L5l, If 8 Cil 'y.=tiF ry ff%��%s'�r,f P.f
shall be ordered within ten years from and after the first relocation,
the City shall reimburse company for such non -betterment relocation
/ expense which company may incur on a time and material basis, provided
if subsequent relocations are required because of the extension of
city utilities to a previously unserved area, or for the upgrading,
reconstruction, or maintenance of existing utilities and streets,
company shall be required to relocate at its own expense at any time.
Subd. 2. Nothing contained in this franchise shall require
Company to relocate, remove, replace or reconnect at its own expense
its facilities where such relocation, removal, replacement or
reconnection is for convenience and not of necessity in the
construction of reconstruction of a City utility system or extension
thereof. Provided, however, relocation shall be considered a
necessity and not a convenience if the City determines that it will
incur additional cost or time delays for construction or
reconstruction of a city utility system or extension without
relocation, removal, replacement, or reconnection of company
facilities.
Subd. 3. Any relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any
Company facilities made necessary because of the extension into or
through City of a federally aided highway project shall be governed by
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 161.46 as supplemental or
amended; and further, it is expressly understood that the right herein
granted to Company is a valuable property right and City shall not
order Company to remove or relocate its facilities without
compensation when a public way is vacated, improved or re -aligned
1 because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially
subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency
thereof, unless the reasonable non -betterment costs of such relocation
and the loss and expense resulting therefrom are first paid to
Company.
Subd. 4. Nothing contained herein shall relieve any person,
persons or corporations from liability arising out of the failure to
exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring Company's facilities while
performing any work connected with grading, regrading, or changing the
line of any public way, or with the construction or reconstruction of
any City utility system.
SECTION 7. Indemnification
Company shall indemnify, keep and hold City free and harmless from
any and all liability on account of injury to persons or damage to
property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair or
operation of Company's electric facilities located in, on, over,
under, or across the public ways and public grounds of City, unless
ouch injury or damage grows out of the negligence of City, its
employees, or agents, or results from the performance in a proper
manner of acts reasonably doomed hazardous by Company, but such
performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by City after notice
of Company's determination. In the event a suit shall be brought
against City under circumstances where the above agreement to
indemnify applies, Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend
City in such suit if written notice thereof is promptly given to
!� Company within a period wherein Company is not prejudiced by lack of
such notice. If such notice is not reasonably given as hereinbefore
provided, Company shall have no duty to indemnify nor defend. If
company is required to indemnify and defend, it will thereafter have
complete control of such litigation, but Company may not settle ouch
litigation without the consent of City, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a
waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to City; and
Company, in defending any action on behalf of City shall be entitled
to assert in any action every defense or immunity that City could
assert in its own behalf.
SECTION 8. Vacation of Public Ways
The City shall give the Company at least two weeks' prior written
notice of a proposed vacation of a public way. Except where required
solely for a City improvement project, the vacation of any public way,
after the installation' of electric facilities, shall not operate to
deprive Company of its rights to operate and maintain such electrical
facilities, until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the
loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to
Company. In no case, however, shall City be liable to the Company for
failure to specifically preserve a right—of—wap, under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 160.29
(Y SECTION 9. Written Acceptance
Company shall, if it accepts this ordinance and the rights and
obligations hereby granted, file a written acceptance of the rights
hereby granted with the City Clerk within ninety (90) days after the
final passage and any required publication of this ordinance.
SECTION 10. Provisions of ordinance
Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared
separate from every other section, provision or part; and if any
section. provision or part shall be held invalid, it shall not affect
any other section, provision or part. Where a provision of any other
City ordinance conflicts with the provisions of this ordinance, the
provisions of this ordinance shall prevail.
SECTION 11. Publication Expense
The expense of any publication of this franchise ordinance
required by law shall be paid by Company.
SECTION 12. Effective Date
This ordinance is effective as provided by statute or charter, and
upon acceptance by Company as provided in Section 9.
Passed and approved: , 1989.
Attest:
City Clerk
Mayor
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
6. Consideration of petition for public improvements and authorizing
preparation of feasibility study. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, Dan Frie has received preliminary approval of the replat of
the Meadows and has had the property rezoned in anticipation of
installation of utilities and development of the property. Frie is asking
the City to participate in the development of phase I by installing the
portion of Marvin Elwood Road that provides the outlet from the
neighborhood to River street. Frie further asks that the cost of the
improvement be assessed to the benefiting property owners, which are Dan
Frie and Edgar Rlucas.
Phase I calls for the development of 10 lots. According to the quotes
received by Frie, the per lot cost to develop the property without City
participation as requested is approximately $17,930 per lot.
Frie proposes the following level of City participation in the process.
1. The City develops feasibility study and plans and specifications
utilizing his engineer's base information. A public hearing regarding
the proposed improvements would also be scheduled for April 10, 1989.
2. After the public hearing has been held and after plans have been
approved, Council would then authorize staff to solicit quotes for the
completion of Marvin Elwood Road. A formal bidding process will not
be necessary because the value of the work being done will be less
than $15,000. It is expected that the quotes to the City to do the
work will be identical to quotes received by Frie. Frie received a
quote of $10,700 for construction of the Marvin Elwood Road portion of
phase I.
3. If the quotes come in as expected, the City orders project (Marvin
Elwood Road development) which will be completed simultaneous to
completion of the remainder of phase I.
This request is somewhat controversial because it calls for the mixing of
methods by which subdivision development is financed. Following are
reasons why the proposal might be denied and reasons that could justify
approval of City participation in the plan.
REASONS SUPPORTING DENIAL
This proposal may contribute toward setting an undesirable precedent. If
this proposal is approved, the City can expect that developers will
structure projects as Prie has done when it appears that the project will
benefit an adjoining land owner. At the same time, the City may be able
to soften the precedent by pointing to special circumstances associated
with this situation that justified combining City with a privately
N" financed project.
-6-
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
Given the relatively small size of the project, Oouncil could take the
view that the efforts associated with administering the project are not
offset by suggested gains.
Council could deny the request for the feasibility study in hopes of the
developer completing the street on his own and could provide further
leverage to encourage private development of the road by withholding plat
approval without an agreement that the developer will complete Marvin
Elwood Road without City participation.
REASONS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL
The particular section of roadway is important to the neighborhood and
provides a proper outlet for traffic. Participation as suggested will
guarantee development of the outlet on a timely basis and will add value
to the development in general.
Dan Frie, as owner of 1/2 of the property abutting the improvement area,
has every right to petition for the improvement regardless of the fact
that he is providing the financing for the installation of the remainder
of phase I.
The cost to complete this section of Marvin Elwood Road will not likely
get any cheaper than what it will cost when completed with phase I of the
development. The $10,700 quote expected reflects the fact that the
contractor is mobilized and on the site doing other work associated with
phase I. It is likely that the quoted amount to conduct the work will
greatly increase if the Marvin Elwood portion of the project is done at
some time in the future apart from the development of Phase I.
The establishment of development of the road and assessments created will
result in a benefit to the Klucas property. Since the Klucas property is
protected by "green acres," payment of principal would be deferred.
However, interest on the principal would be allowed to accumulate, which
could act to encourage development in the area.
OTHER RELATED ISSUES
It is my understanding that a sewer and water project installed in recent
years which benefited the Klucas property has never been formally
assessed. The project I am speaking of involved the extension of sewer
and water facilities to the NSP training center. The level of benefit to
the Klucas property resulting from this project Is substantial and should
be formally recognized and dealt with at some time in the near future.
Council may wish to give staff direction on this matter as well.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to order a feasibility study, preparo plane and specifications,
and call for a public hearing on said improvement project for
April 10, 1989.
-7-
C
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
2. Motion to deny petition for feasibility study.
3. Motion to table the matter.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
It is the view of staff that the positive reasons for accepting the
petition and ordering the feasibility study outweigh the negative
inplications. Reasons for support of this particular proposal may be
specific enough to soften the precedent that is set. ODuncil may take the
position, however, that it is not good policy to "force" payment of an
inprovement on a benefiting lard owner and that the total cost of the
project should be paid by the developer.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of portion of feasibility study completed by Prie'a engineer.
-a-
41
1-2 A ' \ ' MWIC9114 Rod 9 Gun Cl b
- '4- �`"`'"' ATTACHMENT 1
-PROJECT LOCATION
PO
PHASE I
G{
OT
Rout. I, Oo 391 b''t`�,}� w4' "• ldJ *n,�, j�`
R-3 45
THE MEADOWS " r i `c �tk4~• 4`+►! oP y �rl�
a a" ¢.; y 7 t i 2. a �`.f,.K• `' .. a"/,.t9
to
Via, ac`s N'i`. ��'• • fr a q4. a
ti� ♦ r r,
+t 1 1I's 'd = 3 3
ryrGo
'
1 .= 'zP � � .fir ��.}• ��r� {� t � ' ..
tFix.
c r-..�`�•�, t.y�PHASE\i!;
2S ND `'ADb111ON
' 1 n +
78 � t s0 .H,Mhf6 W..rts.0 t4pa w..0
_� ,:+ R-+� y,i. rr Owx+M•••s 4e�a t,.w�. y
i�� �
Niyi {•_.�rw i.. rR � . S - 7 `rM1Y ,1 '
r'r - - -- .rm.,. is °•w.r.. i ., s w..xw..+ Hun.w
fir.. a.pr •+In.r. �t � 1
ti rest I ot.aCK i 7t±Fi � Afr �}tusr, •; , -
C
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
7. Consideration of resolution entering into a cooperative agreement on
traffic signals at River Street and Highway 25. (O.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As we discussed at previous meetings, the City of Monticello agreed to
cover 12 percent of the $80,000 estimated cost of this signal project or
a maximum of $9,600. Enclosed you will find a copy of MN/DOT's proposed
agreement outlining the project, its cost, maintenance, and operation.
The agreement provides for a maximum payment of the City of $9,600. A
copy of the proposed resolution is included.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the resolution to enter into the
enclosed agreement with MN/DOT at a total estimated cost of $9,600.
2. The second alternative is not to enter into the agreement as set
forth but to modify it. This does not appear to be applicable, as
this is Mi/DOT's standard agreement similar to the other signals in
the city of Monticello.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It isthe recommendation of the Public works Director and the City
Administrator that the Council approve the resolution and enter into the
agreement as outlined in alternative @1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the agreement and resolution.
-9-
A
0,AN14
n� y° Minnesota Department of Transportation
r
��r 5� District 3
OF Tad'
301 Laurel St., P.O. Box 978
March 16, 1989 Brainerd. Minnesota 56401
Ouality Service Through Individual Commitment
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
Box 83A
Monticello, M11 55362
In reply refer to:
S.P. 8605-34 (T.H. 25)
Traffic Control Signal
Agreement No. 65628
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
;218) 828.2460
Attached are three copies of an agreement between the State of Minnesota,
Department of Transportation, and the City of Monticello covering the cost,
maintenance, and operation of a traffic control signal on T.H. 25 (Pine Street)
at West River Street/Feet River Street in Monticello.
Please review and, if approved, arrange to have it presented to the proper
officials for execution on behalf of the City. Be sure to sign all copies
of the agreement and resolution, and affix the corporate seal to all copies
thereof.
Return the signed agreements to me for further processing. A copy of the
fully executed agreement will be returned to you for your files.
Sincerely,
E. W. McCulloch
District Traffic Engineer
Attachments:
Agreements (3)
EWM:mc
An Eo—Onpa,f.n,ry Employer
0
m
CITY OF MotiT1C.ELI-0
MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
AGREEMENT NO. 65628
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
TO
Install a new Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights and
Signing on Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) at west River
Street - East River Street in Monticello, Wright County,
Minnesota.
S.P. 8605-34
F.P. F 089-1 (38)
Prepared by Traffic Engineering
ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
City of Monticello $9.549.94 pone
Otherwise Covered
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the
State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter
referred to as the "State", and the City of Monticello,
hereinafter referred to as the "City", WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, 'the State found a sight distance design error
upon final construction of the new Trunk Highway No. 25
Mississippi River Bridge (Bridge No. 71012); and
WHEREAS, the State determined that closing the
intersection of Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) at West River
Road -East River Road would eliminate the sight distance problem;
and
WHEREAS, the City feels that it is necessary to keep
the intersection open; and
WHEREAS, the City and State mutually agree that the
installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection will
alleviate the safety problem caused by the reduced sight
distance; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to participate in the
construction of the traffic control signal not to exceed
$9,600.00; and
WHEREAS, the State has determined that there is
justification and it is in the public's best interest to install
a new traffic control signal with street lights and signing on
Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine Street) at Went River Street - East
( River Street; and
65628
-1 0 ��
-
C
WHEREAS, it is considered in the public's best interest
for the State to provide a new cabinet and control equipment to
operate said traffic control signal; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the traffic control
signal with street lights and signing work is eligible for 76.75
percent Federal -aid Primary Funds; and
WHEREAS, the City and State will participate in the
cost, maintenance and operation of the traffic control signal
with street lights and signing as hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The State shall prepare the necessary plan,
specifications and proposal and shall perform the engineering and
inspection required to complete the items of work hereinafter set
forth. Such work as described immediately above shall constitute
"Engineering and Inspection" and shall be so referred to
hereinafter.
2. The contract cost of the work or, if the work is
not contracted, the cost of all labor, materials, and equipment
rental required to complete the work, except the cost of
providing the power supply to the service pole or pad, shall
constitute the actual "Construction Cost" and shall be so
referred to hereinafter.
65628
-2-
C3. The State with its own forces and equipment or by
contract shall install a new traffic control signal with street
lights in accordance with State Project No. 8605-34 and
Federal -aid Project No. F 089-1 (38) on Trunk Highway No. 25
(Pine Street) at West River Street - East River Street.
Estimated Construction Cost is $77,500.00 which includes State
furnished materials. Anticipated Federal -aid share is 76.'5
percent. Anticipated State's share is 11.625 percent. City's
share is 11.625 percent (not to exceed $9,600.00).
4. The State shall install or cause the installation
of overhead signing and shall maintain said signing all at no
cost to the City.
5. Upon execution of this agreement and a request in
writing by the State, the City shall advance to the State an
amount equal to its portion of the project cost (not to exceed
59,600.00). The City's total portion shall consist of the sum of
the following:
a) The City's share (as specified in Paragraph
3) based on the actual bid price and the
estimated State furnished materials costs.
b) Six (6) percent of its share (Item (a) above)
for the cost of Engineering and Inspection.
6. Upon completion and final acceptance of the
project, the City's final share shall consist of the sum of the
following:
65620
a) The City's share (as specified in
Paragraph 3) based on the final payment to
the Contractor and the actual State furnished
materials costs.
b) Six (6) percent of its final share (Item (a)
above) for the cost of Engineering and
Inspection.
The amount of the funds advanced by the City in
excess of the City's final share will be returned to the City
without interest and the City agrees to pay to the State that
i
amount of its final share which is in excess of the amount of the
( funds advanced by the City (not to exceed $9,600.00). ,
7. The City shall provide an adequate electrical
power supply to the service pad or pole, and upon completion of
said traffic control signal with street lights installation shall
provide necessary electrical power for its operation at the cost
and expense of the City.
8. upon completion of the work contemplated in
Paragraph 3 hereof, it shall be the City's responsibility, at its
cost and expense, to: (1) maintain the luminaires; (2) relamp
the traffic control signal and street lights; and (3) clean and
paint the traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm
extensions. It shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost
and expense, to perform all other traffic control signal and
street 1 fight maintenance.
65628 0
9. Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work
to be performed by the State shall not be considered employees of
the City and any and all claims that may or might arise under the
Worker's Compensation Act of this State on behalf of said
employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any
third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part
of said employees while so engaged on any of the work
contemplated herein shall not be the obligation and
responsibility of the City. The State shall not be responsible
under the Worker's Compensation Act for any employees of the
City.
10. Timing of the traffic control signal provided for
herein shall be determined by the State, through its Commissioner
of Transportation, and no changes shall be made therein except
with the approval of the State.
65628
0 f
-5-
CITY OF MONTICELLO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
City Attorney Mayor
(City Seal)
By
City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA
I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CRECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By
District Engineer Assistant Commissioner
Operations Division
Dated
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION:
DEPARTlIE14T OF ADMINISTRATION
Special Assistant Attorney
General -State of Minnesota
By
Dated
65628
-6-
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Monticello enter into
an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of
Transportation for the following purposes, to wit:
To install a new traffic control signal with street
lights and signing on Trunk Highway No. 25 (Pine
Street) at West River Street -East River Street in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and
contained in Agreement No. 65628, a copy of which was
before the Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be
and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby
assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual
obligations contained therein.
CERTIFICATION
State of Minnesota
County of Wright
City of Monticello
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a
true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by
the Council of the City of Monticello at a duly authorized
meeting thereof held on the day of
1989, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession.
(Seal)
r
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
8. Consideration of Council recommendation regarding rezoning request within
OAA (Bohanon property). (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is asked to review the proposed rezoning request that
will be submitted soon to the Orderly Annexation Board. After review,
Council is asked to make a recommendation to the City representative
regarding the City position on the matter. Please note that in years
past, Council has not provided input regarding such rezoning requests.
The proposal submitted by Mark Wolston calls for the rezoning of 260 acres
located east of Silver Springs Golf Course and west of property rezoned
one year ago by Mr. Wolston. This property has been under the ownership of
the Bohanon and Hougland families. Wolston will be presenting a plan for
the proposed development area to Council at the meeting. It is my
understanding from Wolston's attorney that the plan calls for development
of 107 lots with an average size of 2.5 acres. The plan has no provision
for park development.
The Monticello Township Planning Board has reviewed the proposal and does
not support the plan to rezone. It is my understanding that the Township
objects to the rezoning request because the proposal is not consistent
with the existing land use plan for the area and is also not consistent
with the proposed land use plan. Specifically, the area can be serviced
with City utilities at some point in the future; and due to previous
rezonings, there is sufficient residential land in the area to satisfy
market demand. The Township was also concerned about the impact of the
storm water drainage on the city system.
RECENT CITY DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED REZONING AREA
As you recall, the OAA has been working on development of a revised land
use plan which was initiated in response to recent rezoning of
agricultural land to residental use. These rezonings included the
rezoning of 40 acres to the east and approximately 80 acres to the west of
the proposed rezoning area.
At the time that Council reviewed the draft of the proposed OAA land use
plan, Council provided mild support for development of the area so long as
the design of the development is such that future extension of utilities
could be easily accommodated and so long as the administrative structure
was in place to assure the City that the actual development reflected any
approved plana. It was also understood that consideration of such a
proposal would be conducted at such a time that the demand warrants this
type of development.
Since this earlier position was taken, a number of events have occurred.
1. The OAA plan has not been adopted and the final input provided by
{ Council on the plan might not necessarily reflect previous views.
-10-
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
2. A new Council and Mayor are in place which may affect Council position
on this matter.
3. No mechanism has been established whereby the City could monitor
street construction, or monitor and control placement of structures so
as to assure compliance with a development plan designed to
accommodate future city utilities.
4. Large areas that have already been rezoned are still undeveloped.
Rezoning the property based on a market need does not appear
justified.
The OAA will be considering this proposal in terms of the OAA land use
plan as established in 1977. It is the view of the Zoning Administrator,
Tom Salkwski, that despite recent rezonings nearby, the existing plan
policies will be valid when addressing this particular proposal.
APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE OAA AREA.
Following are a list of concerns associated with the development
proposal.
1. Sanitary sewer and water utilities are relatively close to the area
proposed for rezoning. City trunk utility linea have been sized to
accommodate the area and are available as indicated on the attached
map. Allowing development to occur without city sewer and water is
inviting future problems associated with contaminated ground water and
subsequent financial problems that will result when area homes are
ultimately serviced with city utilities.
2. A major portion of the storm water that will be created by this
development will pans through city systems. Approval of this plan to
rezone will result in a storm water plan designed without the input of
the City. Storm water runoff from the development could exceed City
capacity without City input on the design of the storm water drainage
system.
3. No parks are provided for in the plan. The developer proposes to make
a cash payment to the Township in lieu of land dedication. City park
facilities will he inpacted by individuals from this area using City
park lands.
4. The City currently has an inventory of 86 buildable lots and 44
platted lots without utilities. development of at least 51 lots in
1989 is likely. The added competition provided by the lots created in
the rezoned areas will place an additional burden on the ability of
City and private developer to market existing City Iota.
7
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
�= B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Recommend that City representative to OAA Board vote against said
rezoning. Proposal is not consistent with the OAA land use plan per
one or more of the concerns noted above.
2. Recommend that City representative to OAA vote in support of rezoning
proposal.
3. Recommend that the City representative to OAA vote to table the matter
pending collection of additional data.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative one based on concerns 1 - 4.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
OAA planning area map.
If
------------- ---- ----- --
*at
x;ltv is
`mm� keg
�F4
74—
_eK
City of monticellO
"Ot
planning
(OR N)
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
10. Consideration of re -authorization of plans and specifications for the
reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For several years beginning in 1980, Mississippi Drive has been
deteriorating to where it has become an eyesore to the neighborhood, and
is not only in the poorest condition of any street in the city of
Monticello but probably in several of the surrounding communities as
well. The Council realized this after some discussion in March of 1988,
and on March 14 of that year authorized the City Engineer to study the
problem and draft plans and specifications for reconstruction of the
street.
We had hoped that the City Engineer would complete his work by mid -summer
of 1988 so that we could either look at fall of 1988 construction or at
least budget for the project and complete it in 1989. I have requested
information about how the project is coming from Chuck Lepak, who was the
project engineer on the County Road 39 project for OSM, and Chuck has
indicated that the project never was started. It appears that this
project has an extremely law priority with OSM. I'm sure that the
failure of this street is not a shining star in their design book.
Since the cost of the project was unknown and would most likely be funded
through a bond issue, with a portion of it being assessed, or through
City surplus funds, no amount was actually budgeted for 1989. Enclosed
you will find a copy of the minutes and agenda supplement for March 14,
1988.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to re -authorize OSM to prepare a
detailed study along with plans and specifications for the
reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. One would hope that the
analysis and project would be done in a timely fashion and would
include rationale for failure of the street to reach its design life
(failure of the street actually began as soon as 1980). It may be
beat to eat the time for the plans and specifications to be done such
as 45 days.
2. The second alternative would be to request proposals from two other
engineering firms for the analysis, plans, and specifications for
thio project and make a decision at a later Council meeting as to who
should do the engineering work. Thin alternative has some rationale
in that OSM has not acted in a timely fashion and that it may be
difficult for them to point out errors or omissions (if they exist)
in the original design of the project.
3. The third alternative is to do nothing. This does not appear to be
practical. I urge all the Council members to visit Mississippi Drive
and look carefully at the street and curb condition prior to Monday
j evening's meeting.
-13-
H
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
There is an indication that some City of Monticello-OSM projects are not
being completed in a timely fashion and are sometimes lacking in
attention to detail or follow through by OSM. This, coupled with the
fact that Mississippi Drive would be a redesign, tends to give staff the
impression that alternative A2 would be proper in this situation. The
Council may, however, wish to give the City Engineer an additional 45
days to complete the work as outlined in alternative #1.
This in no way means or suggests that the staff is considering switching
engineers for other projects. we simply feel that this project is unique
enough and has been put on the back burner long enough that it may be
best handled by another firm.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of March 14, 1988, agenda supplement and minutes.
-14-
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
13. Consideration of Reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mississippi Drive was constructed in 1976. Much of the western end of
the project is in a low area just above the Mississippi River. During
the construction project, great difficulties were encountered with the
contractor, and he was forced to come back and do some remedial work on
the project primarily with the street surface prior to his receiving
final payment.
Now, some 12 years later, Mississippi Drive has deteriorated to a point
where I believe it's an eyesore. The western one-third to one-half of
the project has extensive cracking and degradation of the street
surface. In addition, in many areas the curbing has settled and the
catch basins are actually above the grade of the curb line. In the past
few years, we have done extensive crack sealing and repairs to the area.
In the area of the cul-de-sac we have replaced a major portion of the
curb, as one of the property owners there was unable to get in and out of
his driveway safely.
Why did the street fall apart so quickly, you may be asking yourself. At
this point in time there are several reasons, I feel, that this came
about. The first and primary reason is due to subsurface ground water
and soil conditions that were not adequately addressed in design. It is
possible at that time that the severe ground water problems were
unknown. A second determining factor is the poor construction. By
referring back through notes on the project, one can see that compaction
of the soils as well as the street surface created a product less than
desirable. The third factor which resulted in the overwhelming
degradation of the street was the use of the street by heavy equipment
during the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. The Paul A.
Laurence Company, who built our wastewater treatment plant, was informed
during the period of construction that they could use Mississippi Drive
as an alternate route for materials delivery when the Hart Boulevard
access was blocked. They were specifically instructed to inform all of
their suppliers to haul half or light loads when using Mississippi
Drive. After the project, it had come to our attention that this may not
have been the case. We know of at least one supplier who hauled
extnimely heavy loads well above the street design limitations during the
construction of the wastewater treatment plant. The degradation of the
street surface did not appear immediately after the wastewater treatment
plant project, but it was a factor in the overall degradation of the
street.
The question today is how do we get this street back up to our normal
standards. First of all, we need to fully investigate the ground water
conditions and the subsurface soil conditions under and near the street
itself. Concurrently with this investigation, we need to determine the
_t6- 0
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
amount of settlement which has occurred in the curbing and other
structures within the street section itself. Thirdly, we need to
implement a reconstruction project which will address all of the items
determined by the first two investigations and incorporate into a final
design which will yield a street of adequate design with a normal life
expectancy.
At this point in time, I estimate that a typical design may include the
placement of drain tile on one or both sides of the street section, the
replacement of those settled sections of curb, the complete removal of
all the bituminous and much of the subgrade, the placement of a
geotextile fabric, and the total reconstruction of the street section
itself.
It is surprising that we have not received a number of complaints from
the people along Mississippi Drive about the condition of the street. I
would ask that all the Council members get a chance to look at the street
sometime between now and Monday night's Council meeting. This may or may
not be possible depending upon the outcome of this weekend's weather. I
feel this project should get underway this year, and that ample time
should be allowed to do the investigation and come up with a design.
There is some drain tiling that has been done on the south side of
Mississippi Drive in the area of the city's lots to improve the surface
lot conditions there. It is going to take time to evaluate all of this
data and come up with final recommendations for the design and may be
that this year we would install only the underdrain system and do the
construction next year. Because of the three factors listed above
shortening the life of this street, I would expect that a great portion
of this project would be picked up with ad valorem taxes rather than
re -assessing the property totally. The total replacement of the street
section itself from the corner on the top of the hill through the
cul-de-sac could cost in the neighborhood of $45,000 to $50,000.
Extensive subsoil correction and/or drain tiling could add another
$30,000 to the project. Again, these are very preliminary pre -planning
figures and should be used accordingly. The project would most likely be
funded by a bond issue or surplus funds.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to authorize investigative work and
cost estimates for the recommended design. we could then at a later
Council meeting present this information, discuss the project costs,
project time table, and proposed cost sharing.
2. The second alternative would be to continue to patch, crack seal, and
maintain an already highly degradated street. At some point in the
future we will have more cracks than we have street surface, and this
does not appear to he a good alternative.
0
Council Agenda - 3/14/88
C C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that you authorize
the Public Works Director and City Engineer to begin investigation and
cost study of Mississippi Drive as outlined in alternative number one
above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
A
- 1 B-
Council Minutes - 3/14/88
There being no further discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith to
approve sanitary sewer discharge permit upgrade for Sunny Fresh Foods.
Motion seconded by Bill Fair. Motion carried unanimously.
r
13.
Consideration of Reconstruction of Mississippi Drive.
j i
\`�
After discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair to aexpenditures1
pprove
e
associated with street design only. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen.
Motion carried unanimously.
�<
)
14.
Consideration of Final Plat of Oakwood Second Addition - Applicant, City
:i!•/��
of Monticello.
1�
Motion was made by Warren Smith to approve the final plat of Oakwood
Second Addition - Applicant, City of Monticello. Motion seconded by Dan
Blonigen. Motion passed unanimously.
15.
Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Allowing Participation in the
Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund.
9 1
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve
adopting a resolution allowing participation in the Minnesota Municipal
Money
" a�
Market Fund. Motion carried unanimously. See Resolution 88-7.
I
16.
Consideration of Ratifying the Proposed Date for the 1988 Board of
Review.
`�
Council agreed by consensus that the Board of Review meeting would be
scheduled for May 16, 1988.
17.
Consideration of Allowing the Granting of a Gambling License.
!`
Motion was made by 0111 Fair to take no action on this item. Motion
seconded by Fran Fair. Motion carried unanimously.
;.�
18.
After the agenda items had been addressed, Council discussed the need
for a community survey. It was the general consensus of the Council
�Xi
that a city survey is needed at this time which would assist the Council
in establishing plans for future activities. Assistant Administrator
:..�
O'Neill was directed to prepare information regarding a potential
citizens survey.
Council discussed a staff report which outlined maintenance issues
.s
associated with the streets that lie north of Oount.y Road 75 and west of
Chestnut Street. It was noted by staff that the streets involved are of
rural design and that significant maintenance or reconstruction work
t�a
will be needed on these Streets in the near future. Mayor Grimsmo noted
that the City should seriously consider installing concrete streets in
Council Agenda - 3/27/89
C12. Consideration of gambling license application renewals - Monticello
Jaycees. (R.W.)
0
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Jaycees have applied to the State Gambling Control Board
for renewal of their licenses to conduct gambling at the 1) Best Western
Silver Fox Inn, and 2) the Comfort Inn Motel.
If the City Council is not opposed to the State reissuing these two
licenses, no action is necessary by the Council other than acknowledging
receipt of the applications. If the Council does not oppose the
reissuance of these licenses, I will notify the State that they can waive
the 60 -day notice requirement.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of gambling license applications.
-15-
. I (
Charitable Gambling Control Board
tri'�1 Rm N475 Griggs -Midway Bldg. For Board. Use Only
1 m 1821 University Ave. Paid Amt:
St. Paul, MN 55104-3383 Check No
(612) 842-0555 Date.
GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
LICENSE NUMBER: 1-12159.112 I EFF. DATE: viii]/so i AMOUNT OF FEE: 556.61
1. Applicant —Logs Name of grganizatan 2. Street Address
)ATEM NOITICEll0 ` In U
3. City, State, Zip Ij 4. County S. Business Phorro
' 6rntittllo, 16 $5162 Wright 1 1
t 0. Name of Chief Executive Officer 7. Business Phone
Ions crust ( )
6. Name of Treasurer Or Person Who Accounts for ROVOnuos I a. B.mass Phone
Pas steffa (pt )295-1691
10. Name of Gambling Manager 11. Bono Number 12. Business Phone
uts Ilton 5121122) I (612 1295-2611
13. Name o1 Establishment Where Gambling Will Take Place 14. County 15. No. of Aclho Members
/oat 911ttrl $lira Fat Nsetlalia Nrig6t ! y tri-"
15. Lessor Noma 17. Monthly Rent:
Its it
iftstria Sllvtr far loin 1211
18, It Bingo will be t"ductod With this license, phase apoclly days and times of Bingo.
Days Times Days Times Days Times
1g. Has license over been. I Revoked Date: U Suspended Date: U Dome([ Data:
20. Have internal Controls been submitted previously? MJ Yes U No (If 'No,' attach COPY)
21. Has CurrOnl tease been 1.100 with the board? ,(; yes U No (If -No,' attach copy)
22. Has currant sketch been filed with the board? t Yea t) No (11 'No; attaCp copy) y4,
` � ' I , ' I GAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION I tl r 5
By my signatwa below, local law enforcoment Officers Or 090rns of the Board are hereby authorized to enter upon the ane, at any time, gambling IS
Doing conducted. to observe the gambling and to enforce the law for any unauthorized gams Or practice.
BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION
By my signature below, the Board is hereby authorized to inspect the bank records of the Oeneral Gambling Bank Account whenever necessary to
fulfill requirements of current gambling rules aro law.
OATH
1 hereby declare that
1, f nave read oma application and all Information submitted to the Board,
2 All Informetion submitted is true, accurate and complete,
3 All biller required information ha► been fully disclosed, ,
4 1 em the Chief OxeCUIWe Officer of the organromm,
5. 1 assume lull responsibility for Ina fair and lawful operation Of all sclIvilles to be Conducted.
0. 1 will familiarize myself Will ins Is" of the State of Mmnssota respecting gambling and rute0 of the board and agree, it licensed, to Wide by thew
laws and rules. Including ementlmanls IhOre10
23 Official Legal Name of Organization Signature (Chief Executive officer) Dals Tide 11 r
�,r�
l/4 .'r�r,il ��r /( (f!il r: !ri_>'/'..'/ •%} i�rr,, t
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY
I hereby acknowledge receipt of •copy of this appllCallon By acknownedging recSipl, I admit having been ssry with r1WIG that this application WIN
be nawswad by the Chanlable Gambling Control Board and It approved by in* Board- will bacOme allot iron Ilia dai0 Of scalp! (noted
below), unless a resolution of the local governing y is passed which Specifically disallows Such aCtiv a y Of that resolution Is reCeivlld by
the Charitable Gambling Control Board wlthi s 01 the below noted dale i
24 C�unlyl Nam. (( ocal ` aroing,.Botllyb� Township 11 Site is located within S township, P10829 Complete hems 24
•� n �-✓!1 !4/t and 25
r—svistj of Parson Rsc vi Appift stun 25 Signsluis 0! Person Racnvmg Application
T data Raceha+tl� ( is tla begins aY period) Tbia •kt• 'at s�
Name POrsOn� /{ver rTp�ppik>♦tti61iF a�' i ovarmnp OOdY TOwrlsMp Name r , r *i��
J /r`t/I/
CO -00022-01 (Sla I) While Copy—Burd Gantry—Applicam Pink—rn Body
Charitable Gambling Control Board
Am N-475 Ofiggrigga-Midway Bldg, For Board Use ONy
1821 University Ave. Paid AtM:
St. Paul, MN 551043383 Chock No.
f
(612) 842-0555 Due: 6
GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION t ,
LICENSE NUMBER: 1-12151-111 1 EFF. DATE: IIIIt111 /AMOUNT OF FEE: ium
t. Applicant—Legal Narrw of Organization 2. Street Address r
(` JlltU$ Illllftlll ( loo Il
3. City. State. Zip ( 4. County S. Business Phone .
lonttulls, 11 1S342 grlght f 1
9. Name of Chief Executive Oriker 7. Business Phone
lions Irsts ( 1
8. Name of Treasurer or Person Who Accounts for Revenues 9. Business Phone
W34olues I).w Sk,,L, Al. „�,,,l%. (612 )211.2611
10. Name of Gambling Manager It. Bond Number 12. Business Prom
i Iso lista 61211tH 1611 )IIS -1611
k13. Name of Establishment Where Gambling Will Take Place 14. County 15. No. oll Active Members
(gf*rt fin inebesse tai 61aticeiis utlfkt X Fs"
18. Lessor Name 17. Monthly Rent: (+
latasN/tf:/firt fee $m
1B. If Bingo will be conducted with thlo license, pleas "fly days and times of Bingo.
RonTimoo ( .. ams Times ,a Times
,
tg. Has ikmse em been: Q Revoked Dur. 0 Suspended Gore: 0 Denied Date'
20. Have Internal crilrols been submitted provbusty7 ,,1 Yes 0 No (11 'No.* attach copy)
21. Has current loan boon filed with the board? Yes O No ill Nei,' attach cap"
i l
22. Has current sketch Won tried with m! board? C] Yes ❑ No 111940: shout caput
to ry 46 1� f 1 ! 1 4211111111.1116 SITE AUTHORIZATION ? F�•
By my signature below, local taw enforcement officers or agents of to Gold are hereby authorized to enter upon the sin, in any tkbe, Gambling is
being COndudted, to Obsaws the gambling and to enforce the law for any unauthorized game Of practice.
BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION ;I
By my signature below, int Board b hereby authorized to Inspect the bank records of the General Connoting Bank Account whenever necessary to
fWIin requirements of current gambling rules and law.
OATH i( J
1 hereby decors that: a Y •i
I.
i have road tuts application and all Information submitted to the Board;
2. All Inlormalion submitted is true, accurate and complete; , 1
' 3.Alf other required Information hu boon fully disclosed; t ..
a.1 am ten chief executive Officer of the organization;
S. 1 assume fun rsaponslbllity la the fait *no lawful Mershon of Oil sclwilles to be conducted;
C I will familiarize myself with the taws W the State of Minnesota fospecung gamaifrgl aro rutaa of the beard and agroo, N Iansed, to abide to iftoq
tows and rules, Including amendments tholalo.
23. Off" Legal Name of Organization Signature (ChM Executnre Office" Data I TifN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY } .
1 hereby ackrtpwledgs recatpt 010 copy of this *pplkatlpfl. BY acknowledging raceipl, i adrtNi having loan sery wish notice Thai We application ant
be reviewed by the Chwilable Gambling Control Board and II approved by the BOOM, will become slncl from the due d raceipl (noted
I boost), antes* a resolution of the but govemi is MW which speciffcaRy &uWn such Wheel of that resoluti0n is received by'
the Clwitable Gambling Canard Board wlihln df�s of to below noted data. `
24, Cif /Coat Na (local G,,ov,}M4 Township: If one is located within a township, plans* complete Nam 24 , k
r- -. ,y�l� I//in fe:�/A and 25: i
of paaon RKI&VI;Appkalu",on: 25. Signature of Person Receiving AppikauanATen s(in abegmy-wooypow)
1�/ 1
Namseft Perm{ ff A pNcyBtl !F LOCW dvenmg Body: Township Nano
rJ
cG4I0o22-01 (If17) r While Copy —Oberd Canuy—Applicant Pork- LOBndY
i I
GENERAL FUND - MARCH - 1989
AMOUNT i
CHECK
Wright County Treasurer - Sheriff's contract - Feb.
12,049.14
26568
Corrow Sanitation - Monthly contract payment - Feb.
7,715.00
26569
Void
- 0 -
26570
void
- 0 -
26571
Void
- 0 -
26572
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial Services - Library
227.50
26573
Patty Salzwedel - Aninal control contract s Adoptions
499.00
26574
Holiday Gas - Gas - Fire Dept.
38.62
26575
Foster Franzen Carlson Agency - Insurance premium
1,228.00
26576
Medics Training, Inc. - Fire Dept. Training
420.00
26577
Minn. Conway Fire 6 Safety - Supplies - Fire Dept.
89.00
26578
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Assoc. - Eng. fees
2,692.96
26579
McDowall Company - Furnace repairs at Library
94.00
26580
Minn. Rural water Assoc. -Reg. fee for seminar i
100.00
26581
Alvin 6 Shirley Jones 6 Wright County State Bank - Land
46,722.40
26582
acquisition
I.C.M.A Ret. Corp. - Payroll Ded.
618.88
26583
Preusse Cleaning - Monthly cleaning contract payment
450.00
26584
Y.M.C.A, of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment
625.00
26585
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Ded.
90.04
26586
Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H
866.40
26587
PERA - PERA payroll W/H -•
-1,517.57
26588
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Fed. 6 Med. W/H
5,235.20.
26589
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll Ded.
210.16
26390
Liquor Fund - Reimb. for interest investment
4,786.84 -
26591
011ie Roropchak - Reimb. for recording fees - Land Acq.
201.60
26592
Deputy Registrar $002 - License 6 Sales tax for new trk
1,001.51 ..
26593
MN. Dept. of Trade 6 Econ. Devel.- Reg. fee for seminar:
._ 30.00 -.
26594
MN. Dept. of Nat. Res. - ATV, Water 6 Snowmobile Reg.
243.00
26595
R.C. Steele Co.— Supplies for animal control
107.25 _.
26596
Pace Laboratories - Water testing •..3:-r•;.
160.00 „
26597
Campbell Abstract Co. - Land Acquisition Fees
231.00 _;
26598
Unocal - Gas - Fire Dept.
40.56
26599
R.E. Mooney 6 Assoc.-- Mtce. of Equip. - Water Dept.'.,
395.38
26600
Corrow Sanitation - Add'1 land fill charges
2,077.80
26601
Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities
2,245.24
26602
Professional Services Group - WWPP Monthly contract
22,083.35
26603
Norwest Investments - Monthly computer payment
2,407,61
26604
Northern States Power Company - Utilities
8,490.45
26605
Marco Business Products - Paper 6 Ribbons
122.00
26606
Century Sales Company - Repairs for Fire Dept.
16.15
26607
Minn. Conway Fire 6 Safety - Truck Repairs - Fire Dept.
752.32
26608
Automatic Garage Door Co. - Repair garage - Fire Dept.
2,123.35
26609
Stewart 6 Zlimen, LTD - Payroll Ded.
682.38
26610
Cragun'a - Reg. fee for Conference - R. Wolfsteller
70.00
26611
Dept. .of Nat. Res. - Snowmobile 6 Watercraft Reg.
156.00
26612
Potty Cash - Reimb. petty cash
61.78
26613
Leg. Conf. - Reg. fee for ceminar - Maus 6 O'Neill
110.00
26614
Bridgewater Tel.- Phone Charges
1,229.01
26615
GENERAL FUND - MARCH - 1989
AMOUNT
CHECK
Mpls. Star 6 Tribune - Ad. for Bids - Demolition of
267.15
26616
West Brdwy Bldgs.
Monticello Ford, Inc. - Purchase new truck b Repairs
16,4 97.09
26617
Minn. Inst, of Legal Ed. - Reg. Fee for J. O'Neill
155.00
26618
Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co. - Group Ins. premium
6,704.31
26619
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Ded.
90.04
26620
Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage allowance for March
300.00
26621
I.C.M.A. Retirement Corp.- Payroll Ded.
618.88
26622
PERA - Insurance premium
18.00
26623
U.S. Postmaster - Postage
500.00
26624
Jerry Hermes - Library Cleaning contract
227.50
26625
Patty Salzwedel - Animal Control contract 6 Adoptions
495.00
26626
Minn. Animal Control Assoc. - Reg. Fee - P. Saizwedel
40.00
26627
PERA - Payroll Ded.
1,604.54
26628
Wright County State Bank - PICA, Fed. S Med. WjH
6,080.24
26629
Chapin Publishing Co. - Ad. for Bids - Demolition of
43.20
26630
West Brdwy Bldgs.
Hoglund Bus. Co. - Repairs
301.62
26631
Monticello Office Products - Office Supplies
574.10
26632
Wright County Treasurer - Sheriff's Contract for March
12,049.14
26633
Simonson Lumber Co. - Supplies
40.65
26634
Unitog Rental - Uniform rental
138.00
26635
Olson 6 Sans Electric - Repairs 6 Supplies
1,328.48
26636
The Glass Hut - New windshield for truck
223.80
26637
The Plumbery - Supplies
17.95
26638
General Rental Center - Rental of Supplies
80.22
26639
Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies 6 parts
449.50
26640
National Bushing 6 Parts Co. -Misc. supplies 6 parts
519.61
26641
Harry's Auto Supply -Misc. supplies 6 parts
286.28
26642
Maus Foods - Supplies
63.09
26643
Share Corporation - Cleaning supplies - Parks Dept.
176.33
26644
Barco Products - Supplies - Street Dept.
436.16
26645
Lindberg Decorating - Paint supplies
20.83
26646
A T 6 T Info Systems - Piro Phone Charges
3.96
26647
Smith b Hayes - Legal Fees
2,339.90
26648
Henning 6 Associates - Prof. Servies for new Logo
57.00
26649
Northern Oxygen Service, Inc. - Supplies - Fire Dept.
12.30
26650
Local #49 - Onion Dues
115.00
26651
Mid -Central Inc. - Ross - Fire Dept.
4,192.00
26652
Jerry Wein - Travel Expense - Seminar - Fire Dept.
138.75
26653
Tom Liefert - Travel Expense - Seminar - Fire Dept.
84.00
26654
Bradley Pyle -Travel Expense - Seminar - Fire Dept.
328.16
26655
Kevin Stumpf - Travel Expense - Seminar - Fire Dept.
84.00
26656
Sentry Systems - Alarm System - Water Dept.
90.00
26657
Douglas Smith, New Hope Fire Dept. - Membership Dues
25.00
26658
American National Bank 6 Trust Co. - Interest due on bond- 1,075.00
26659
Kiplinger Washington Letter - Subscription renewal
58.00
26660
LaTour Const. - Payment #7 -Sanitary sewer, Trunk Water
21,352.94
26661
Main Lift Station
,J
0
GENERAL FUND -- MARCH -- 1989
AMOUNT
CHECK
Monticello Fire Depart. - Firemen's Wages
572.08
26662
DNR License Depart. - Watercraft b Snowmobile Reg
117.00
26663
Henning b Associates - Prof. Services- Logo
789.40
26664
League of MN. Cities Ins. Trust - Ins. Premium
1,379.00
26665
McDowall Co. - Repairs at Library
313.80
26666
MTI Distrib. Co. - Reg. Fee for Seminar
40.00
26667
MacQueen Equip, Inc. - Reg. Fee for Seminar
30.00
26668
Medics Training Co. - Supplies - Fire Depart.
157.70
26669
Copy Duplicating Co. - Copy machine mtce. at Library
36.00
26670
Kangas Auto Radiator Service - Vehicle repairs
56.50
26671
Jim Hatch Sales Co. - Supplies -.Street Dept.
200.60
26672
Mobil Oil Co. - Gas
102.79
26673
Earl F. Anderson - Handicap signs
125.77
26674
Humane Society of Wright County - Animal Services
135.00
26675
Wright County Mayors Assoc. - Mayor Membership Dues
80.00
26676
Payroll for February 41,235.48
Total Disbursements for March 256,986.29
LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR MARCS - 1989
AMOUNT
C9ECR
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
190.68
1 14311
Griggs, Cooper 6 Company
3,638.39
14312
Johnson Bros. Co. - Liquor
1,123.71
14313
Foster Franzen Carlson Agency - Liquor Liability
12,053.00
14314
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Ded.
250.00
14315
Commissioner of Revenue - State WH
98.13
14316
PERA - PERA W/H
205.63
14317
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Fed 6 Med. W/B
618.31
14318
Quality Wine 6 Spirits - Liquor
1,394.54
14319
Bellboy Corp - Liquor
2,856.89
14320
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
4,000.41
14321
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
7,509.84
14322
Eagle Wine Company - Wine
1,331.27
14323
National Child Safety Council - Advertising
63.00
14324
T.V. PanFair Publications - Advertising
156.00
14325
Dick Beverage Company - Beer
1,404.77
14326
Bolles Sanitation - Garbage contract payment
141.00
14327
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone charges
68.45
14328
Liefert Trucking - Freight Charges
515.83
14329
Day Distributing - Beer
481.55
14330
Dahlheimer Dist. - Beer
12,283.35
14331
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales Tax for Feb.
5,770.99
14332
Viking Coca-Cola Co. - Pop
304.15
14333
Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer
8,936.45
14334
Granite City Cash Register Co. - Supplies
37.28
14335
Coast to Coast - Supplies
5.79
14336
Ron's Ice Company - Ice
124.80
14337
Bernick's Pepsi Cola Co. - Pop
243.95
14338
Monticello Times - Adv.
190.30
14339
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco Company - Misc. mdse.
476.84
14340
Seven - Up Bottling Co. - Pop
180.85
14341
Northern States Power Co. - Utilities
519.86
14342
Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities
213.19
14343
Johnson Bros. Co. - Liquor
1,552.66
14344
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Liquor
69.37
14345
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer
8,559.55
14346
Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor
1,176.18
14347
Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co. - Group Ina.
720.18
14348
PERA - Ins. premium
9.00
14349
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
250.00
14350
Johnson Bros. Co. -Liquor
502.33
14351
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Fed. 6 Med. W/H
587.72
14352
PERA - Pora W/H
199.65
14353
Quality Wine 6 Spirts Co. - Liquor
1,375.88
14354
Ed Phillips 6 Sons -Liquor
679.94
14355
LIQUOR --- MARCH 1989
AMOUNT
CHECK
Bellboy Corp. - Liquor
2,362.33
14356
Maus Foods - Supplies
8.88
14357
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repairs
59.51
14358
Void
-0-
14359
Wright Way - Advertising
80.75
14360
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine
230.16
14361
Griggs, Cooper S Co. - Liquor
2,758.33
14362
Johnson Brothers Co.- Liquor
909.83
14363
McDowall Co. - Repairs
122.50
14364
Total Payroll for February 5,546.97
Total Disbursements for March 95,158.92
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
March 22, 1989
City Attorney's opinion on expending funds for employee benefit --waste copper
recycling. (R.W.)
At the February 27 Council meeting, the City staff informed the Council that
scrap waste copper had been collected for a number of years by City employees
from non -city sources and recently sold, accumulating approximately $600 in
revenue. The Council had commended the employee's efforts for recycling and
indicated it would be acceptable to reimburse the employees in such form as a
Christmas fund or party fund, etc., upon approval of the City Attorney.
Attached you will find the City Attorney's opinion which indicates that in
order for the City to expend funds for the employees' benefit, the Council can
authorize retroactive pay increase in the form of a party using the proceeds
from the scrap. As Mr, Hayes indicated, another approach would be for the City
to sponsor a voluntary seminar for City employees on a topic such as recycling
and include as part of the seminar a meal as an inducement to get the employees
to attend. Either method is a legitimate expenditure. As a result, if the
City Council is still receptive to using these excess funds for the employees'
benefit, an official motion should be rude to either establish a retroactive
pay increase in the form of a belated party or indicate that a seminar will be
held requiring the employees attendance.
I
r rr VPS, ATTORNQY9 AT LAW HLA wiV Hw OPY�Se
30f SOUY« wALNUt 1iRHHT GINQMA PROPOHSIONAL 0406.
P.O. 0011 008 OPHOORY V. SMIT«, J D. 83f MAIN ST,. 341T0 107
mo -c HLLO, MINNESOTA 3378]-0"08GARY L. PRINGLO. J.O. 11910.180'11 CLX RIVER, m-e30TA 38300
THOMAS D. MAYS 3. J.D.
OPYiCe PMOwQ Ie1L AOF eIgY � OP�ISQ MOwH Ie1L ul•JYb
RIc.AR0 M CLO4GM, J.O.
March 8, 1989
Rick wolfsteller 6
Monticello City Council
Monticello City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Rick:
I have been asked by the City Council about disbursement of the "scrap copper"
funds by the City. It is my opinion that since the copper was collected during
the City work hours and in conjunction with City employment, the proceeds
from the copper belong to the City. I believe, however, that City staff should
be congratulated for demonstrating the benefits of recycling. Such initiative
ought to be rewarded to encourage future exemplary conduct.
Secondly, I have been asked for an opinion on the appropriateness of the City
returning the funds to the employees by way of sponsorship of an employee party.
Generally speaking, expenditures of City funds must be for a public purpose .and
be authorized by statute or ordinance. Gifts by the City are not permitted. A
Minnesota Attorney General's opinion issued in 1966 concluded that a party for
employees was in actuality a gift, because the expenditure served primarily a
private purpose --employee en,joyement--as apposed to a public purpose (A.G. OP.
59-a-22, 11/23/66). To make Monticello's situation different, I would suggest
one of two approaches:
1.Since the scrap copper was collected by the City employees with the
understanding that they would receive compensation for the scrap copper
by way of a "party fund", it would be appropriate to grant the employees
a retroactive pay increase in the form of a party (A.G OP. 270-d
8/12/77 okays such retroactive disbursements) using the proceeds from
the scrap.
2. The City could sponsor a voluntary seminar for employees on an
appropriate topic such as reyeling. The seminar could be conducted
after regular working hours. To encourage attendance it would be
appropriate to provide a meal. If at the conclusion of the seminar the
employees wished to remain to celebrate a retirement or other occasion.
I do not see a proLlem so long as the City does not pay for the latter
part of the evening. Such a seminar would be consistent with publio
policy and would be authorized under the same provision for other
educational expenditures.
Should you have any Questions do not hesitate to contact me.
�U3
ruly,
Thomas D. Hayes
TDH/scm
Pile No. 74-1115
i
1_
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
March 22, 1989
Setting of date for special closed meeting to review Karen Hanson information
with attorneys. (R.W.)
With the recent City Council action establishing Karen Hanson's position as
full-time effective March 1, 1989, Mr. Tracy Eichorn -Hicks, attorney
representing the insurance company, has requested additional information on
salary levels and insurance cost for dependent coverage on Ms. Hanson in an
effort to determine what her annual wage loss has been since 1986. This
information has been supplied to the attorney, and he is then suggesting that
the City Council meet with our City Attorney and himself along with insurance
company representatives to discuss how the City should proceed with the
lawsuit.
The attorney is suggesting that a special meeting be held sometime after
April 3, 1989. I would suggest the Council agree on a date and time, and I
will then forward this information to the attorney. The last closed meeting we
had concerning the lawsuit was held at 2:00, which I'm sure is also acceptable
from their perspective.
ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Agenda - 4/10/89
Consideration of request for one (1) day set-up/3.2 beer license for Ducks
Unlimited banquet and one (1) day 3.2 beer license for July 2 celebration
Lions Club. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Lions Club is again sponsoring the Ducks Unlimited Banquet
scheduled for May 1989 to be held at the Monticello Roller Rink. As in the
past years, the Lions Club requested a 3.2 beer license and a set-up license
for the one day banquet. The license fee for the two licenses would be $35.
In addition to the Ducks Unlimited Banquet, the Lions Club also requested a
3.2 beer license for the annual July 4th celebration to be held July 2, 1989.
The license fee for this event would be $10. There have been in the past no
problems associated with the issuance of either license. A Certificate of
Insurance showing the Lions Club has liquor liability coverage will be required
before the license is issued.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the issuance of the one day temporary 3.2 beer and set-up license
{ for May, and a one day 3.2 beer license for the July 2 celebration. The
set-up license application would be submitted to the Liquor Control
Division for their approval prior to issuance, and approval should be
contingent upon proper liability insurance certificate.
2. Deny the request for the licenses.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION,
It is the staff's recommendation that both license requests be granted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR TONIGHT'S AGENDA
Consideration of Granting a Seasonal 3.2 Beer License to the Monticello
Softball Association. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Softball Association has again requested a 3.2 beer license to sell
at the softball fields. With the exception of one year that we issued
the license to the Jaycees, the Softball Association has been the holder
of this seasonal license. The Softball Association will be presenting a
letter of intent to acquire dram shop liquor liability insurance, but
they cannot actually receive the insurance coverage until the City
approves issuing the license. As a result, the Council can approve this
license contingent upon receipt of the Certificate of Insurance for
liquor liability and the appropriate fees, which last year were $125.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Grant the license contingent upon receipt of necessary insurance
documents and fees.
2. Deny the license - Some rationale should be stated for denial.
C. STAFF RECOMME."IDATION:
Staff recommends that the license be granted, again contingent upon propr
insurance coverage being presented.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
r
t