City Council Agenda Packet 07-23-1990AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 23, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan
Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held July 9, 1990,
and approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 9,
1990. U)5 5 A
3. Citizen comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Public hearing on inspection report, consideration of ordering
abatement of hazardous sidewalks, and authorization to
advertise for bids for sidewalk repairs and replacements.
5. Discussion on possible City aquisition of industrial property
from Farm Credit Services.
6. Sandberg East Development Update.
7. Consideration of authorization to rebid garbage hauling
contract.
B. Consideration of change order M1 for Project 90-02, 7th and
Minnesota Street improvement projects.
9. Consideration of boulevard stump removal.
10. Consideration of adopting a resolution calling for a public
hoaring on the proposed modification of the tax increment
financing plan relating to Tax Increment Finance District No.
1-9 (Tapper's, Inc.).
11. Consideration of approving transfer from liquor fund to EDA
fund for revolving loan--Tapper's, Inc.
12. Consideration of local cigarette vending machine ordinance.
13. Consideration of bills for the month of July.
14. Adjournmont.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 9, 1990 - 6:15 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Fran
Fair, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
At the special meeting, City Council interviewed Jon Bogart, Bruce
Thielen, and Mike Emberton for membership on the Planning
Commission. After the interviews were conducted, it was the
consensus of Council that all candidates were well qualified for
the position. It was also the consensus of Council to pursue
development of a parks commission and provide the option of serving
on this commission to Planning Commission applicants not selected
for the available position.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren
Smith, to select Jon Bogart to fill the Planning Commission
vacancy. Motion carried unanimously.
iJeflzoO'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Pago 1
0
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 9, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Fran
Fair
Members Absent: Dan Blonigen
2. Approval of minutes.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 25, 1990.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests. and complaints.
None forthcoming.
4. Consideration of a variance request to allow construction of
a detached qarage within the side yard and rear yard setback
requirements. Applicant, Cheryl Steinmetz.
This item was not considered by Council, as the variance was
approved by the Planning Commission and no appeal was
forthcoming.
5. Consideration of a Dreliminary plat request for commercial
subdivision Dlat. Aoplicant. Stuart Hoqlund.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill described the Minnie Point
subdivision and noted that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the preliminary plat subject to City acquisition
of proper drainage easements across properties impacted by
Minnie Point storm water and subject to development of a plan
for conveying storm water along the Oakwood Drive right-of-way
to Highway 25. O'Neill noted that most of the water from the
Minnie Point area currently drains onto the Hoglund
Transportation company property on its way to the freeway
ditch and then into the Walnut Street storm sewer system.
This has not been a problem in the past, as the Minnie Point
area and Hoglund Transportation property have been under
common ownership. Now that the land is being subdivided with
the intent to sell, it may be prudent to formally identify a
drainage and utility easement across the Hoglund
Transportation property. O'Neill went on to noto thoro appear
to be two possible drainage alignments. Selection of the
alignment is to be determined by the applicant. O'Neill also
noted that a portion of the water produced by the site drains
to the Oakwood Drive ditch. The purpose of this ditch is to
Page 1
0
Council Minutes - 7/9/90
convey water westward to Highway 25. Unfortunately, the ditch
does not serve this purpose, as there are culverts along the
ditch line that are absent or are too small to properly convey
the amount of water that would be produced by this site;
therefore, it may make sense at this time to acknowledge the
problem and develop a plan for opening up this ditch line to
Highway 25. The construction of the ditch improvements may be
deferred until such time that actual construction occurs.
After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Warren Smith, to approve the preliminary plat of the Minnie
Point subdivision subject to City acquisition of necessary
utility and drainage easements across properties impacted by
Minnie Point subdivision storm water and subject to
development of a plan for improving Oakwood Drive ditch in a
manner that will allow storm drainage to drain to the
Highway 25 or freeway ditch storm drainage areas. Oakwood
Drive storm drain improvements are to be completed during or
before Minnie Point commercial site development. Motion
carried unanimously.
Consideration of a variance request to allow construction of
a parkinq lot within the 5 -foot curb barrier to lot line
setback requirement. Apolicant, Wright Countv State Bank.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Wright County
State Bank is developing a parking area in conjunction with
the expansion of the Monticello Theatre. In order to achieve
46 parking stalls, a variance to the side yard setback
requirement of 5 feet is necessary. The plan proposed shows
a 2.3 -foot setback along Highway 25 and a 2 -foot setback along
Broadway. O'Neill noted that the Planning Commission
recommended that the variance be approved subject to City
staff and Wright County State Bank developing a plan for use
of the setback area with the goal of creating a separation
between the parking area and the Highway 25 sidewalk utilizing
green space, bridge railing, or a combination thereof.
City Council reviewed the Planning Commission decision and
concurred. It was the consensus of Council that extra
streetscape railing could be used to frame the parking lot
area, thereby creating a separation between the stalls
bordering the western or Highway 25 edge of the parking lot.
Pago 2
0
Council Minutes - 7/9/90
Consideration of ordinance amendment to hard surfacing and
curbinq requirement. ADplicant, City of Monticello.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the proposed
amendment to the hard surfacing and curbing requirement. The
proposed amendment is designed to lessen hard surfacing and
curbing requirements on a limited basis via the conditional
use process. After describing the proposed language of the
ordinance, Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed Planning
Commission's interpretation of the ordinance as it relates to
the Martie's Farm Service store.
It was noted by the Planning Commission that it would not be
necessary for Martie to install hard surface or asphalt paving
in front of the four overhead doors, as Martie will not be
using the door openings on a routine basis. It was suggested
that the area in front of the overhead doors be seeded.
Mayor Maus suggested that the area in front of the overhead
doors be covered with gravel material and that the use of the
overhead doors as described by Martie is more than routine and
that Martie should request a variance to the ordinance to
allow particular use of this area without asphalt paving.
After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Shirley Anderson, to approve the proposed ordinance amendment
lessening hard surface and curbing requirement as a
conditional use in the I-1 and I-2 zone with slight
modifications as noted. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 192.
Consideration of withdrawing requirement that the City obtain
Norell/Sandberg easements Drior to preparation of olans and
specifications.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that Rod
Norrel and John Sandberg support the proposed utilities
alignment through the property and support the basic finance
plan and are interested in pursuing the project; however, they
do not fool it appropriate to provide the easements at this
time. Norrel and Sandberg requested that Council review the
previous decision and consider ordering plans and
specifications without obtaining the easements. Rod Norrel
was in attendance and noted to Council that at this time the
project cost as noted by the City Engineer may be too high to
make the project feasible; however, it is possible that a
construction bid that comes in 101 loss than expected may make
Cha project possible and create numbers that he can work with.
Page 3
0
Council Minutes - 7/9/90
He went on to note that the basic project looks good. He does
think that somehow we can move ahead on it; however, at this
time, Norrel is not willing to provide the easement.
Ken Maus noted that John Sandberg is looking for a building
permit to allow construction of homes without public sewer and
water service. if we stop now, Sandberg will be back again to
request permission to build. it is important that we develop
as much good faith effort as we can. Development of plans and
specifications shows this good faith effort and provides
information necessary to conclude that the project is feasible
and, therefore, strengthens the City's position if this matter
ever finds its way to court.
John Badalich noted that the property is in the corporate
limits of the city. The City is almost obligated through the
grant obtained to develop the sanitary sewer system to serve
the Sandberg East area. According to the long-range
comprehensive plan, this area is to be served with city sewer
and water.
After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Warren Smith, to withdraw the requirement that the City obtain
Norrel/Sandberg easements prior to preparation of pians and
specifications. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of granting 3.2 beer license to the Lions Club
for the TRAM 250 event.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson,
to approve granting a 3.2 beer license to the Lions Club for
the TRAM 250 event. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Consideration of grantinq an increase to the individual
Pension for the volunteer firefighter relief association
members.
Rick Wolfsteiler reported that members of the volunteer fire
dopartmont request that City Council increase their retirement
benefit from the present $21,500 to $23,500. This benefit is
payable in a lump sum after 20 years of service based on the
requested increase of $100 per year of service to the new
amount of $1,175. The relief association plans are referred
to an amount par year of service such as $1,175, which is
payable at this amount only after 20 years of service.
wolfsteller noted that it appears that the relief association
financial computations allow for the fire department to
support an increase in their annual pension benefit to the
$1,175 per year amount. Anything over this amount would
Page 4
9
Council Minutes - 719!90
require City support through taxes. Based on this fact,
Wolfsteller noted he has no objection to the increase being
granted as long as the City Council realizes that there are no
guarantees that state aid or investment earnings will continue
at the present level. Such aides are necessary to support the
pension fund.
After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded
by Fran Fair, to grant an increase to $1,175 per year/$23,500.
Motion carried unanimously.
11. Review of first quarter liquor store financial report.
City Council discussed the City policy toward advertising the
Hi -Way Liquor Store service. It was noted by Ken Maus that
advertising should include a notation that the City of
Monticello's primary goal is to promote the responsible use of
alcohol. Warren Smith concurred with the position that City
advertising should be low key and stress safety. Shirley
Anderson agreed that the liquor store should advertise on a
limited basis.
Joe Hartman noted that each year 300 to 400 minors are turned
away from the liquor store, which indicates that the City
control of liquor sales plays a positive role in limiting
distribution of alcohol to minors.
Council discussed distribution of uniforms to employees. It
was the consensus of Council that it is a good idea to provide
one or two shirts to liquor store employees with replacement
shirts being the responsibility of employees.
Council discussed recycling of cardboard boxes produced by the
liquor store. It was noted by Ken Maus that recycling of
cardboard boxes is consistent with the City's aggressive
recycling policy. He noted that the market for cardboard is
not good at this time but that we should stay with it. Maus
also noted that the manner in which the recycling is done
should be studied closely in terms of cost and in terms of
space requirements associated with storing recycling
materials.
12. Consideration of award of bid for annual sealcoatina protect.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Warren Smith, to award the soalcoating contract to
Asteeh in the amount of $31,346. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 5
Council Minutes - 7/9/90
John Simola noted that the Astech bid is $153 under budget.
He went on to note that Astech worked for the City seven years
ago and is a reputable firm.
13. Consideration of cost sharing oolicy for new sidewalk.
sidewalk replacement, and sidewalk repairs.
Public Works Director, John Simola, requested that Council
establish a policy for cost sharing in regard to new
sidewalks, replacement sidewalks, sidewalk repair and
maintenance. Simola reviewed information obtained by other
cities regarding their policies.
Council reviewed the proposed sidewalk cost sharing policy.
During the discussion, it was determined that there should be
a policy for allowing property owners outside the grid area to
benefit from the sidewalk cost sharing policy if certain
conditions are met:
1. The sidewalk area that is not on the grid should be
immediately adjacent to the grid.
2. The sidewalk should currently be in place.
3. 1004 of the residents on the block adjacent to the
grid should sign a petition indicating their desire
to participate.
It was also suggested that the City share in 254 of sidewalk
removal costs off the grid if an entire block requests
removal.
In addition, Ken Maus noted that criteria should be
established for identifying hardship cases. It was his
concern that some individuals may not be able to finance the
property owner's share of the improvement. It was noted by
Rick Wolfsteller that the present assessment policy does allow
for deferral of assessments based on hardship.
After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded
by Shirley Anderson, to approve the sidewalk cost sharing
policy. The policy is as follows:
SIDEWALK COST SHARING POLICY
Sidewalk off the grid is the total responsibility of the
abutting property owner. It can be removed rather than
be ropairod or replaced. It must be removed in its
entiroty across the length of the property in question.
The boulevard must then be restored. If requested, the
Pago 6
Council Minutes - 7/9/90
City will bid sidewalk removal and boulevard restoration,
supervise the project, and bill property owners. Cost is
to be 100• for the abutting property owner for individual
sections ,of sidewalks off the grid.
If 1008 of the property owners on a particular block
petition the City for removal of existing sidewalk from
the entire block, the City will pay 258 of the project
cost when performed by the City.
2. Major replacement of sidewalks on the grid (residential
or commercial and more than two panels per property):
City pays 758. (No 1008 credit for first two panels.)
3. New sidewalks on the grid abutting commercial property:
City pays 75%.
4. New sidewalks on the grid abutting residential property:
City pays 758.
5. Preventative maintenance by abutting property owner.
6. Minor repairs or replacement on the grid abutting
commercial or residential property (two panels or less):
City pays 1008. The City will also pay 100% or repair
all pedestrian ramps at intersections.
7. Sidewalk width considered for cost sharing by the City
will be limited to five (5) feet unless the City Engineer
deems additional width is necessary.
B. The City Council will consider adding additional existing
sidewalks to the grid if: a) the segment abuts the grid;
b) it is in complete block sections; c) and 1008 of the
property owners in each block petition for inclusion on
the grid.
9. Deferrals of assessment will be granted for property
owners age 65 or older for whom the cost will be a
financial hardship. Individuals must apply under
standard public improvement regulations.
10. Snow removal: Existing ordinance remains in force. City
does only City property and south side of Broadway
(residential).
Page 7
0
Council Minutes - 7/9/90
NOTE: For items 2, 3, and 4, the percentages are of the
actual project costs bid annually by the City and installed by
the City or its contractor. For those individuals who wish to
repair or replace their own sidewalks as per City standards,
the City may reimburse property owners based upon City bid
prices or actual costs, whichever is lower. Damage resulting
from deliberate actions of a property owner or his/her
representative is exempt from cost sharing by the City under
this policy.
Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
7
J€ WID 'Nei ll
Assistant Administrator
Page A
9
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. (J.O.)
f
LIST OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE COMPLAINTS --STAFF RESPONSE
Following is a list of public nuisance ordinance complaints
submitted by Vicki Schluender. Ms. Schluender will be in
attendance at the citizens comments section of the meeting to
discuss the items listed. A video of subject properties will
be provided. Many of the items listed may or may not
constitute a public nuisance depending on one's perspective or
interpretation of the ordinance. This will be a good
opportunity for the City Council to provide its interpretation
of the public nuisance ordinance, which will help staff
develop a matching level of discretion.
100 Marvin Elwood Road
Complaint: Two non -licensed immovable vehicles.
Staff Response: Owners ticketed, court date pending.
Complaint: Unfinished painting of garage.
Staff Response: Not a violation.
105 Marvin Elwood Road
Complaint: No deck or railing off back of house
at location of elevated patio doors.
Staff Response: Not a violation --door opening
obstructed per building code.
109 Marvin Elwood Road --Puppy Parlor
Complaint: Debris in front and back yard/dirt
hill
Staff Rosponse: Owners contacted; If corrections not
made, warning letter will be issued.
111 Marvin Elwood Road
Complaint: Debris --Brick and other construction
material.
Staff Rosponse: Not a violation --materials being
used to Improve property.
Complaint: Truck in back yard.
Staff Rosponse: Not a violation --truck runs and is
licensed.
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
113 Marvin Elwood
Road
Complaint:
Debris in back yard.
Staff Response:
Not sure if debris constitutes a
public nuisance. Are we harassing
property owner in this situation?
Complaint:
Fish house moved in.
Staff Response:
Fish house used as a storage
building must meet City code. Staff
will review the house in terms of
the code.
Balboul Estates --Chandler property
Complaint:
Debris in front and back yard.
Staff Response:
Debris includes paneling removed as
part of remodeling. Property owner
has been asked to remove materials.
Warning letter will be issued if no
action taken by property owner.
Burkholder PropertV
Complaint: Unfinished painting.
Staff Response: Not a violation.
Complaint: Unmowed yard --weeds
Staff Response: They have been cited; the City can
mow the property at any time. Will
need deputy escort.
Nass Property
Complaint: Mess in the yard. Junk1
Staff Response: Not sure if items in yard constitute
public nuisance violation --judgment
call.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of ordinance on public nuisances.
2
7-1-1
CHAPTER 1
PUBLIC NUISANCES
SECTION:
7-1-1: Activities, Business Prohibited
7-1-2: Exceptions
7-1-3: Public Nuisance
7-1-4: Enforcement
7-1-1
7-1-1: ACTIVITIES, BUSINESS PROHIBITED: Subsequent to the enactment
hereof, the following acts, conditions, activities, business
or businesses are hereby prohibited except as hereinafter permitted:
(A) No unwholesome substance, garbage, refuse, offal, or similar
substances shall be brought, deposited, left, dumped, or allowed to
accumulate within the City. For purposes of this section of the City
Ordinances entitled "Public Nuisances," refuse shall include but not be
limited to the following or similar items stored or parked outside:
1. Passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks, and other vehicles
not currently licensed (if applicable) by the State which are, because
of mechanical deficiency, incapable of movement under their own power;
2. Passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks, and other vehicles
which are currently licensed by the State but, because of mechanical
deficiency, are incapable of operation on a public street or highway
under their own power, or passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks,
and other vehicles which are capable of operation under their own power
but which are not currently licensed by the State, when stored or parked
outside for more than 30 days, unless prior to the expiration of the 30
days the owner of said vehicle petitions the City Council for and the
City Council grants an extension of the time limit on outside storage.
In reviewing such application, the City Council shall consider:
a) the number of such vehicles stored on the petitioner's
property;
b) the condition of the vehicles for which the extension is
sought and the hazards posed by such vehicles to public health
and safety;
C) the affect of said vehicles on neighboring property and
property owners;
3. Household appliances such as but not limited to washing machines,
dryers, refrigerators, stoves, freezers, television and radio sots,
phonographs, and similar items, vehicle parts, old machinery, machinery
parts, tiros, tin cans, bottles, building materials (unless current
building permit for their use is in force), wood (unless used for fire
wood and neatly stacked), metal, or any other material or case off
material, and similar items. (3/26/90 #184)
Ml
7-1-1 7-1-1
(B) A public nuisance is a crime against the order and economy of the
State and consists of unlawfully doing an act or omitting to perform a
duty which an act or omission shall:
1. Annoy, injure, or endanger the safety, health, comfort, or repose
of any considerable number of persons.
2. Offend public decency.
3. Unlawfully interfere with, obstruct or tend to obstruct, or render
dangerous for passage a lake, navigable river, bay, stream canal or
basin, or a public park, square, street, alley, or highway; or
4. In any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life
or the use of property, and as such, nuisances are hereby prohibited.
(C) In any area the existence of any noxious or poisonous vegetation
such as poison ragweed, or other poisonous plants, or any weed, grass,
brush, or plants which are a fire hazard or otherwise detrimental to the
health or appearance of the neighborhood.
(D) In any area, within 100 feet of the nearest building, the existence
of weeds or grass in excess of six (6) inches in height or any
accumulation of dead weeds, grass, or brush.
(E) In any area, on an occupied lot, the existence of weeds or grass in
excess of six (6) inches in height or any accumulation of dead weeds,
grass, or brush.
(F) No person shall hereafter engage within the City in any trade or
employment which is hurtful to the inhabitants or dangerous to the
public health, or injurious to neighboring property, or from which
obnoxious odors arise, or undue noise eminates, and specifically no
person shall operate a dump or garbage dumping area or rendering plant
or trailer court except such specific activity be authorized by the
issuance of a permit as hereinafter provided.
(G) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit garbage, tin cans,
or refuse to be thrown or scattered upon any street, alley, highway,
parkway, boulevard, or real estate.
(H) All detached structures not requiring a building permit that do not
conform to the following requirements shall be deemed a public nuisance.
1. All such detached structures shall be constructed of uniform
building grade material.
2. All sides, roof, and floor shall be securely fastened to the
interior frame of said detached structure.
0
7-1-1
7-1-1
3. All surfaces of such detached structures shall be stained, sealed,
or painted.
4. Exterior metal surfaces shall be treated with materials designed to
resist corrosion.
5. Structures that do not have slab floors shall have a rodent barrier
that extends 8 inches under the surface of the ground along the
perimeter of the outside wall of the structure.
6. All such detached structures shall be permanently anchored to the
ground.
7. Storage sheds erected after the adoption of the zoning ordinance
shall meet district setback requirements.
8. Detached structures shall be erected in the side or rear yard of
any residence.
(7/10/89 #178)
(4/9/90 #185)
(a)
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
4. Public hearinq on inspection report, consideration of orderina
abatement of hazardous sidewalks, and authorization to
advertise for bids for sidewalk repairs and replacement.
(J. S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The sidewalk information meeting was held Monday, July 16.
Nina residents attended the meeting. Those individuals
appeared to be supportive of the City's new cost sharing
policy, and their questions were related to cost sharing,
removal of sidewalks off the grid, and extensions of the grid
to abutting sidewalks.
The purpose of the public hearing is to listen to testimony
from residents concerning the inspection report and whether or
not their sidewalk is hazardous to public travel. It is also
possible that the general public may have questions regarding
the inspection criteria, grid system, and the City's cost
aha ring policy and possible assessment period. At the
conr:luslon of the public hearing, the City Council should
ordar the abatement of hazardous sidewalks as outlined in the
raport. Based upon the cost sharing policy, the City Council
should direct the public works department to repair or have
repaired those sidewalks on the grid with minor problems
Involving two panels or less per property (panel length is
considered to be a maximum of six feet). The time table for
all ropairs or replacement both on and off the grid should be
a maximum of 90 days. This would take us into the last week
of October, which is toward the end of the concrete pouring
season. For those residents off the grid who will be removing
their sidewalk, the time table could be 120 days extending
1nLo late November.
Each property owner affected by the Council's action to abate
hazardous sidewalks on the grid will receive a notice and a
potation or form to have the City perform the work on a cost
sharing basis. Those petitions should be returned by
August 15.
So that the residents will have cost information prior to
their decision to perform the work, the City Council should
authorize staff to advertise for bids for repairs and
replacement of hazardous sidewalk based upon specifications
used in the mid 70's for the Broadway sidewalk. Tho bide
could be roturnablo August 13 and be reviewed at the Council
mooting that evening.
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is as follows: Based upon
information presented at the public hearing and the
[L / sidewalk inspection report, the City Council should order
`h the public works department to repair or have repaired
Y - all minor sidewalk problems on the grid involving two
panels or less within the next 90 days. In addition,
notices to property owners with hazardous sidewalks on
the grid needing repairs to more than two panels shall be
sent notices to abate those hazardous sidewalks within 90
days. They will also be sent a copy of a form or
petition to have the City perform the work on a cost
sharing basis. Those individuals with sidewalk off the
grid will be sent notices to repair or replace in 90 days
or remove within 120 days. Finally, alternative Al would
authorize City staff to advertise for repair or
replacement of sidewalks. Estimated quantities will be
based upon the amount of work to be performed by the
public works department and 95% of the other sidewalks.
2. The second alternative would be to order the abatement of
hazardous sidewalks as outlined above but to alter the
time table to allow additional time. It should be noted,
however, that any additional time will involve next
year's construction schedule.
3. The third alternative would be to modify some of the
previous decisions or policies at the conclusion of the
public hearing.
4. The fourth alternative would be to do nothing. This does
not appear to be applicable, as the City Council has
followed a proper and logical procedure to abate
hazardous sidewalks to this point; and the abatement of
hazardous sidewalks is an important issue for all
citizens of Monticello.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that the
City Council opt for alternative 11.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of specifications for sidewalk replacement are available
at city hall for your review; Copy of letter from resident who
cannot attend public hearing.
July 18, 1990
City Council
City of Monticello
Dear Council Members:
I am writing this letter concerning your proposed sidewalk
ordinance, because 1 am unable to attend your informational
mmmtiny on July 23rd.
1 am the owner of the pr'crperty at 000 West Third Street,
which is the lot on the southwest corner of Third and Maple.
According to information receivr-,d from the City, you are
proposing to reclar;4ify the sidewalk on Maple Streak to ba
part of a basic sidrrwall•, grid for the City, and you propose
that the prupurty owners adjoining the grid sidewalks share
in the cust of their maintenance.
You may testabl.isl a sAdewalk grid anywhere you wish, but I
do not fylll th,.t: it is lair to charqu any costa relating to
yrsd niclowall;s to residential property owners. I have no
lotorest In having a grid with-!wAll! along my property, anti
therefore 1 have no interest: in pyyiny for its cost.
Only when all reui dent -i Fel prupert:y owners have !.i 0ewaiku
aloh(j their prbpurty will I is,el. that it i, fair to chargf!
us with their 615ket?1). If the City will proeemd immediately
with a didawalk eonntruvt.ion proyr•am througiluut• the t;i,1:y,
than 1 will support OwArying a portion of the cost thQrwof
to thu prupurty ownarr— I have no interest in paying
anything toward heti ulslxecp of grid vidaewallsg.
'1'11anit ycata f-ur• 4un1iider•1ny my cunf.tdrnu 6rbutrt this Irrupuawd
prour-Am.
1'vf;rr+ct4l4 ! nhmil,ted,
John b. 4i 1 if
s
(612) 374•-5473
9
kTCK
TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH • 449 west Broadway. Box 776 • Monticello. Minnesota 55362
July 16, 1990
T0: Monticello City Council
SUBJECT: Sidewalk Repair/Replacement
The Trinity Lutheran Church Council and Todd Holt (413 W. Broadway)
wish to petition into the city grid for sidewalk repair and replacement.
The Church Council and Mr. Holt understand we will be assessed $2.50 per
running foot of sidewalk along the north side of Broadway Avenue only.
The Church Council and Mr. Holt also understand the city wants to
replace 5 panels of sidewalk in front of Trinity Lutheran Church and the
entire 100 foot portion in front of Mr. Holt's house, and the total cost
to Trinity and Mr. Holt will be approximately $350.
Thank you for your consideration.
Trinity Lutheran Church Council
7,4G'7,e-
Todd Holt, Homeowner
413 West Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Bruce G. Miller and Gary A. Sandberg, Pastors • Phone (612) 295.2092
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
Discussion on possible City acauisition of industrial nrooerty
from Farm Credit Services. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The end has apparently come for Mr. Jim Boyle, and it now
appears that Farm Credit Services Is the owner of the balance
of Mr. Jim Boyle's property which lies between the Oakwood
Industrial Park all the way and including the balance of the
Meadow Oak subdivision. Farm Credit Services has been
gathering information on outstanding taxes and assessments and
will be very shortly ready to market the property as soon as
possible. It is their Intention to sell the property as
quickly as possible hopefully to one or two buyers rather than
getting involved in selling off only small portions here and
there.
As you know, Farm Credit Services has been very cooperative in
working with the City and Remmele Engineering to allow for
Remmele to purchase the 3.39 -acre parcel that will be attached
to Lot 6 in the Oakwood Industrial Park for Remmele's
manufacturing facility. They have been anticipating acquiring
the right to sell this property for a long time, and they
realized that they may need the City's cooperation in dealing
with the delinquent assessments which are now over $600,000.
It is very possible in the near future that the City may be
approached by a potential buyer of the property requesting
some cooperation by the City in structuring a repayment plan
on these assessments, although the possibility does always
exist that they will be able to find a buyer who can come up
with the entire amount in cash.
The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss whether or not
the City should or would like to get involved in owning a
portion of this property for future expansion of our
industrial park. I believe it has been mentioned In the past
by the Industrial Development Committee and possibly some
Council members that as we continue to develop the parcels in
the Oakwood Industrial Park, the City will be faced in the
future with expansion of the industrial area adjacent to the
Oakwood Park. Naturally, Mr. Boyle's property is currently
partially zoned Industrial to allow for this expansion, but
one way of controlling it from the beginning would be if it
was a City owned project. On the other hand, the current
Industrial park Is privately owned, and this has worked
reasonably wol l in the past; there may not be any need for the
City to actually be involved in ownership to promote
indusLrlal growth.
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
If the City had any interest in acquiring a portion of the
industrial property from Farm Credit Services, they would be
willing to sit down with the City and negotiate a trade off of
a certain amount of acreage that the City would like to have
in exchange for a forgiveness of a like amount of assessments.
For example, enclosed is a map of the Boyle property along
Chelsea Road that also abuts the east side of the Oakwood
Industrial Park that would contain approximately 65 acres as
outlined. This is only an example, but Farm Credit Services
would certainly be willing to let the City have this property
or any amount that we choose, and they would establish in
conjunction with the City a reasonable market value for this
property and then agree to deduct that value from the
remaining assessments that are delinquent. This would lower
the outstanding debt for them and allow for the remaining
portion of the property to be sold easier, and it would not
require any immediate cash outlay from the City.
I realize this is certainly a decision that would not be made
overnight; but if there was any interest at all in this type
of an arrangement, we would probably have to act fairly
quickly, as Farm Credit Services would like to know before
they start trying to market the entire parcel as to whether or
not the City would like to buy a portion some day. They would
hate to get into negotiations with a potential buyer and then
have the City come along and want to purchase 40, 50 or 60
acres which could nullify any deal they may be putting
together.
One drawback that I can see is that I'm not sure the City
should be involved in real estate development. The City
currently owns 10 smaller lots in the industrial park that
haven't sold very quickly, and this may be better left to a
developer. In addition, it appears that Farm Credit Services
has interested buyers for all or most of Jim Boyle's property,
including the Meadow Oak subdivision, which would probably
mean that the City will recapture its assessment delinquencies
fairly quickly within the next year. Even if the City had to
negotiate with a potential buyer, it's very likely that we
could get a substantial down payment on the delinquent
assessments and only have to carry the balance for 3-5 years.
This may be a better alternative than getting in the land
business.
ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
If the City has any interest in actually owning
additional industrial property that the City could
control, now would be the time to negotiate with Farm
Credit Services. The Council could direct the staff to
tomo up with a dollar value that Farm Credit Services
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
would want to have deducted from the total delinquent
assessments in exchange for a certain amount of acreage
you would choose.
Council could decide against any City ownership of the
property but indicate that with the right potential
buyer, the City would be willing to discuss possible
financing arrangements on the delinquent assessments.
In a related issue, the enclosed map outlines a 40 -acre
parcel of land adjacent to the school property that the
school has indicated a willingness to purchase in the
future. I believe if they would acquire this 40 acres
some day, they have a desire to extend a road between
Fallon Avenue and the present intersection of County
Road 118 by the Middle School. In some respects, this
could be a benefit to the City; but on the other hand, I
do believe we should be concerned about what effect
school ownership of this property may have on development
of industrial property to the north up to Chelsea Road.
Although this is not related to the original subject, it
Is brought to your attention for your comments if you
feel the school acquisition of this property could have
an effect on how the rest of the property along Chelsea
Road develops.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
From a personal viewpoint, I do not think the City should
necessarily be involved in the real estate development
business. There may be advantages to controlling a certain
amount of acreage, as we could determine who we want to sell
this property to or just plain have land available if the
right company camo along; but we may be better off allowing
private developers to develop and receive our money for the
delinquent assessments through that process.
Anothor possible advantage to owning city industrial property
Is that we are not sure how long tax increment financing
assistance programs will be available for land write-downs,
etc. I suppose if the City owned industrial property, we
maybe could have more flexibility in lowering the coot of land
to a potential Industry or providing very attractive financing
terms. This still may not be enough of a reason for the City
to got Involved In actual ownership.
At this point, the staff is really looking for direction from
the Council as to whether or not you would liko us to pursue
further negotiations or just let Farm Credit Services proceed
With their Salo of the entire parcel.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map outlining the property.
Consideration of interpretation of previous motion - Is the
deferral of Cty. Rd. 39 project assessment contingent on
Krautbauer providinq new protect sanitary sewer and waterline
easements?
REFERENCE/BACKGROUND:
Council is asked to revisit previous action taken on June 25,
1990 at which time Council acted to "accept the feasibility
study, approve the finance plan, and to order plans and
specifications subject to City acquisition of necessary public
easements. Finance plan includes retroactive deferral
(abatement) of sanitary sewer and water (interest 3 years)
against Krautbauer properties, reduction to lift station unit
assessment from 98 to 74 units, and a lifting of storm sewer
assessments until such time that the storm sewer facilities
are needed due to development of Krautbauer property." The
basic question is as follows:
was it Council's intent to approve a 3 year retroactive
abatement of the interest on the County Road 39 project with
or without Krautbauer providing easements for the new project.
In other words, does the decision to abate Krautbauer's County
Rd. 39 interest expense stand on its own merit and separate
from the new project.
The good news is that "A Glorious Church" is interested in
purchasing nearly 7 acres of Krautbauer property and is
willing to pay nearly one half of the total Krautbauer Highway
39 project assessment ($43,000) prior to obtaining a building
permit. In addition, Mr. Krautbauer has committed to using
the revenue from the sale of the land to pay the remaining
assessment against his property. It appears that the total
original assessment after June 25, 1990 adjustments could be
financed through Krautbauer's transaction with "A Glorious
Church". The terms between Krautbauer and the Church are
based on adjustments to the original assessment which reduce
the Church property assessment from $61,000 to $43,000.
According to Church officials, the transaction is not possible
without the adjustments in place.
The not so good news is that Krautbauer is not interested in
participating in the now project and will not provide the City
with easements rights which could jeopardize his deal with the
Church if it is Council's position that the interest on the
original assessment will be abated only after the City obtains
the easement.
ALTERNATIVES:
Under each alternative below, it appears that a now route for
the now project must be determined, the original terms of the
agreement/ finance plan must be renegotiated, or a developer
must be found to buy the Krautbauer land and develop it under
the original terms. Due to the delay caused by further study
and negotiations, it is likely that the project will not be
completed during this construction season. If a new route is
needed, the feasibility study expense of approximately $6,500
is lost.
Motion to adjust assessment as outlined on June 25,
1990 and abate 3 years of interest expense
regardless of Krautbauer participation in future
improvement projects.
Under this scenario, Council makes the determination to adjust
the original assessment based on its own merit and the
reasoning for the abatement stands apart from other
considerations associated with the new project. Following are
some potential ramifications of this alternative:
It appears likely that due to "A Glorious Church" property
acquisition, a considerable portion of the original assessment
($98,000) against the Krautbauer property will be collected
and it is likely that all of the adjusted assessment (586,000)
will be collected. On the other hand if the original
assessment is put back in place because of Krautbauer refuses
to provide the new project easement, it is likely that the
Church will not purchase the land and it is possible that the
original assessment will not be paid.
Krautbauer has indicated that he will attempt to sell the
portion of his property that is crossed by the proposed sewer
and water line. It is possible that the original route could
be followed if a buyer of the property that wishes to develop
the site is found. staff will attempt to facilitate this
process.
The possibility of assuring recovery of the Krautbauer
assessment is very positive, however doing so limits the
ability of the City to encourage Krautbauer to participate in
the new project.
This alternative may not necessarily create a poor precedent.
Changing an assessment that was already on the books was In
part justified by the fact that the City was crossing the
property again and because of this second crossing and second
assessment, special consideration.regarding first assessment
was in order. This justification remains possible as it is
likely that a now route will result in a now or "second"
assessment of $15,000 - $17,000. Therefore, approval of the
Interest abatement does not necessarily open the door to
similar requests by other property owners affected by the
County Road 39 Project and other projects.
Motion to deny adjusting assessment as outlined on
June 25, 1990 and deny abatement of 3 years of
interest expense unless Krautbauer provides
necessary easements associated with new project.
Under this scenario, the City does not set the questionable
precedent of amending an assessment without a unique
circumstance in place and retains leverage that could
ultimately encourage Krautbauer to provide requested
participation in the new project.
According to Krautbauer he will not participate in the new
project even if it means losing the retroactive abatement of
interest on the first project. Therefore, the only way to
cross Krautbauer's land is througt. condemnation which may
cause the route to be less cost efficient and therefore less
desirable. It is not known at this time how much condemnation
will add to the project cost however is possible that the cost
of another route without condemnation, though less preferable,
is less than the cost of the preferred route with
condemnation. There may be no sense in pursuing this route if
Krautbauer resists it.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff supports abatement of interest on the original
assessment with or without obtaining easements from
Krautbauer. After consulting with the City Attorney, it
appears that a limited precedent will be set if the 3 year
abatement is approved without the City obtaining the easements
associated with the new project. This is true if an alternate
route includes an assessment of some kind against the
Krautbauer property which is quite likely. In addition,
allowing the abatement to remain may assure the Krautbauer/A
Glorious Church transaction and with it, the City is assured
of recovering a large portion of the original assessment.
Subsequent to Council action on this matter, staff will be
working toward development of new alternatives for serving
Sandberg East.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Nona.
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
Sandberq East Development Update. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Sandberg East development plan is at a standstill for the
time being. A request for further Council action is not
established at this time.
City staff has not ordered preparation of plans and
specifications, as the City has not been given easement rights
to cross Mr. Krautbauer's property. Furthermore,
Mr. Krautbauer has had second thoughts about other aspects of
his participation in the finance plan as approved by Council
on June 25, 1990. As you recall, the plan includes a
retroactive deferral of previous assessments which hinged on
Krautbauer's participation in the current project as outlined
In the finance plan. It appears now that the finance plan
that all parties worked so hard on may come unglued.
At the same time, John Sandberg has started the preliminary
platting process. Please note that I have kept him up to date
on the Krautbauer situation.
In addition, "A Glorious Church" has entered into a verbal
agreement to purchase a portion of Krautbauer's property
(7 acres) for the purpose of developing a church site. The
site chosen is located along Highway 39 between the City lift
elation and the western boundary of the property. Krautbauer
has enterod into a purchase agreement with the church under
the pretense that the three-year interest deferral on the
original project is in place. Under this scenario, the church
property must pay approximately $43,000 in assessments. What
KrauLbauer is ignoring is that the deferral is not valid until
he provides easements associated with the current project.
Without the deferral and other reductions made to the original
assosement, the church assessment amounts to $61,000, which
offectively eliminates their interest in the site.
A meeting has been scheduled with Mr. Krautbauer and Dan and
Jake Gasslor of "A Glorious Church" at 1:30 on Friday.
Unless staff can prepare a complete agenda in the time
remaining on Friday, Information regarding the outcome of this
meeting along with subsequent requests for Council action will
be delivered to Council early Monday.
Attachod for your information is a letter sent to "A Glorious
Church" and a copy of the portinont section of the Juno 25,
1990, meeting minutes.
Council Minutes - 6/25/90
Consideration of accepting feasibility study, adoptinq
preliminary finance plan, and consideration of ordering
preparation of plans and soecifications--Sandberq East
development.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill summarized the various issues
associated with the residential development of the Sandberg
East area and outlined a method by which public improvements
extended to the Sandberg East area could be financed by
adjoining landowners and in part by the City of Monticello.
He noted that the finance plan, along with plat design,
results from considerable study of numerous options for
serving the area and also stems from numerous discussions and
meetings with the affected landowners.
Ken Maus noted that Council, when reviewing this plan, should
keep in mind that the situation is unique; and due to previous
decisions by City Council and the OAA, the City is in a unique
position whereby utilities must be extended some distance in
order to serve a plat that has been recorded some time ago.
Decisions that the Council makes regarding this proposal could
set the groundwork for a potential policy governing financing
of improvements that cross properties whose landowners do not
necessarily desire public improvements.
Maus noted that a positive aspect of this plan calls for
payment of three years of interest associated with assessments
against property that is crossed. Maus noted that the policy
could be applied to future developers as they request services
outside the immediate city boundaries and that in the future,
the deferred interest expense could be paid by developers if
they desire to develop property outside the immediate city
limits. Maus noted that in this situation, the City is
obligated to pay for the deferred interest expense, as the
situation was indirectly created by the City and the OAA.
John Simola suggested that if the City is to prepare plans and
specifications for this project, then easements should be
obtained from the affected landowners, thereby assuring the
City that the plans can be used at some point in the future.
Ken Maus also noted that the finance plan calls for a
retroactive deferral of interest associated with the County
Road 39 project as it applies to the Krautbauer property. In
addition, the finance plan calls for an adjustment to the
sewer lift station unit charge based on a recalculation of
units from 98 units to 74 units, and the finance plan calls
for lifting of the Krautbauer storm sewer assessment until
such time that the property is developed in a manner that
directs storm water to the County Road 39 storm water
improvements.
LG
Council Minutes - 6/25/90
Robert Krautbauer was in attendance and debated the method of
assessing the original storm sewer. Krautbauer asserted that
the City should not be assessing for storm water improvements
when typically, according to Krautbauer, the county pays for
culverts under county roads. John Badalich explained that the
county did pay for the cost to develop a culvert necessary to
control county road run-off; however, a larger structure was
needed to accommodate run-off from the water shed area which
includes the Krautbauer property. Badalich noted that
Krautbauer's assessment reflects the relative benefit
Krautbauer receives in being able to convey drainage to the
oversized culvert. In closing, Krautbauer stated that when
the City drops the assessment, the City will obtain the
easements necessary to extend utilities to the Norrel property
and will be provided an easement at the location of the
existing Highway 39 culvert.
NOTATION: Finance plan does not necessarily drop storm sewer
assessment. Storm sewer assessment deferred until such time
that it is needed due to development of the Krautbauer
property.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Dan Blonigen, to accept the feasibility study, approve the
finance plan, and to order plans and specifications subject to
City acquisition of necessary public easements. Finance plan
includes retroactive deferral of sanitary sewer and water
assessments against Krautbauer properties, reduction in lift
station unit assessment from 98 to 74 units, and a lifting of
storm sewer assessments until such time that the storm sewer
facilities are needed due to development of Krautbauer
property. Motion carried unanimously.
Dan Goeman commended the Mayor and City staff for their
professional and diligent work on this project and noted that
this development could turn out to be a fine project.
G)
%tON'TICELLO
Office of the City ,Administraw,
250 East Broadwav July 19, 1990
MonticeIla ',IN 55362.9245
Phone: (612)295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Mr. Dan Gassler
Route 2
Cedarcrest Acres
Big Lake, MN 55309
Dear Pastor Gassler:
This is to inform you that the City of Monticello will provide your
organization with a building permit that will allow construction of
a church facility on the 6.75 acre site now owned by Robert
Krautbauer. The building permit will be issued subject to the
following conditions:
1. An amount equal to $43,250 must be paid to the City to retire
assessment debt relating to development of land proposed as
the church site. This amount may be paid to reduce the
assessment against the proposed church site or may be paid to
reduce the assessment against the remaining Krautbauer
property. The actual distribution of debt repayment is a up
to you and Mr. Krautbauer; however, the total assessment
recovered by the City must equal $43,250.
The assessment total is based on the following formula:
Sewer (809' @ 20.70 per ft) . $16,746.30
Water (809' @ 25.49 per ft) m 20,621.41
Storm sower
6.7 acre @ 526.13/ acre - 3,525.07
Lift station
6.7 acre m 14 lots @ 168.40 2,357.60
$43,250.38
Please note that the assessment amount is contingent on
execution of a City Council approved plan for extension of
sower and water utilities to the Sandberg East property. A
vital component of the plan includes City acquisition of an
casement through the Krautbauer property. According to the
Mr. Dan Gassler
July 19, 1990
Page 2
plan, this easement must be acquired prior to development of
plans and specifications. if the City is unable to acquire
the easement and therefore execute the plan, the assessment
figure noted above cannot be guaranteed.
A copy of the minutes of the meeting during which the finance
plan was approved is attached for your information.
Z. Issuance of the building permit is contingent on City approval
of a simple subdivision or subject to approval of a plat which
results in the creation of the parcel on which the church is
proposed to be located.
3. Issuance of the building permit is contingent on City approval
of a conditional use permit application allowing a church to
operate in an R-1 zone.
If you should have any questions regarding this letter, please feel
free to call.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Rick Wolfateller
City Administrator
RW/kd
Enclosure
cc: File
G)
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
Consideration of authorization to rebid qarbaqe hauling
contract. (J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For some time now, City staff has been concerned with the high
rates that we pay for contract hauling of our garbage to the
Yonak Landfill. Our current contract with Corrow Sanitation
was a 908 increase over the previous contract in effect prior
to August 1989. Since the inception of the new contract, the
City has for the past year averaged in excess of 25% reduction
In waste going to the landfill through its recycling program.
What this has meant to our contract hauler, Corrow Sanitation,
is that during the past 12 months, they hauled 137 fewer loads
to the landfill than they did the previous year.
When approached by City staff about renegotiating the existing
hauling contract, they indicated they would not negotiate for
twice a week pickup, as they felt they were charging what the
traffic would bear and that the City could not get a better
price elsewhere. By going to once a week pickup for the
single family households, they indicated they would drop their
price from $7.50 a month to $6.50 a month. This is less than
the price difference between the alternates originally bid in
August of 1989.
With our hauling costs approaching $145,000 per year, City
staff felt it was time to approach the City Council with
alternatives. In preparation for this, Gary Mattson, the
Public Works Director for the City of Buffalo, and myself met
with representatives of four communities who have their own
garbage services using automated pickup with both 90 -gallon
roll -around containers and stationary 300 -gallon containers.
The four communities visited were Chisholm, Virginia, Eveleth,
and Mountain Iron. The City of Virginia has been doing
automated garbage pickup in excess of ten years, with the City
of Eveleth being the newest city to utilize automated pickup
with city forces beginning in 1986.
Gary Mattson and I observed and videotaped a typical
residential pickup in Mountain Iron using the automated
system. With this system, the operator is actually a truck
driver rather than a garbage picker, and the City would pay a
much more economical worker's comp rate. Accidents,
breakdowns, and complaints are extremely rare, and the city
officials and residents appear to be wall satisfied with the
system. After observing the system in Mountain Iron, I had
the opportunity to follow one of Corrow's trucks around in the
city of Monticello. To keep the simulation or test period the
same, I informed the driver that we would be videotaping his
operation. Corrow uses a ono -man driver/loador type
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
operation, which is extremely tough on the individual and
results in higher worker's comp rates. Even though the truck
driver was informed that this information would not be
presented to his employer and he should go about his daily
routine at a normal pace, it is quite evident from the
videotape that this individual was putting forth his best
efforts while being videotaped. Even with this, the
comparison was quite striking. Corrow's operation was about
33-1/38 slower than the automated pickup over a comparable
period of time in a similar area.
There are many benefits to going with the automated pickup
system. Not only will it ultimately be cheaper to operate,
the four cities spoken to said that it helped their cities
present a cleaner image. Very rarely is any garbage not
placed in the container, and the containers help control pests
as well as the entrance of rainwater into the garbage. No
significant problems are encountered in the winter, and all of
the cities spoken to said their citizens readily adapted to
the roll -around containers.
when we bid our contract for hauling garbage last year, we
received an alternate bid from Corrow for using the automated
pickup which would save at that time $.75 per household per
month. At that particular time, we chose not to use that
option because of the cost of containers. It may be
beneficial at this time to reconsider that option again, as
staff believes this is now more attractive than our current
contract. If the City were to do its own garbage pickup, I
would recommend that we use the automated system with the
roll -around containers. Using this system, our estimated
annual cost for a truck, fuel, maintenance, and a year-round
operator would total $67,373 per year. Based upon a six-year
life cycle on the truck and a $20,000 resale value, this
Includes all costs and benefits and backup services, including
heated storage of the vehicle. Under this seenerio, the City
could be divided into three or four sections and single family
through 4-plexes would be picked up on a once a week basis.
There would be amplo time to pick up apartments on a once a
week basis or possibly continue on a twice a week basis. We
would, however, have to switch the apartments over to the 300 -
gallon containers for automated pickup. The City could
consider that the apartments continue to be contracted out
under a separate contract, or the City could leave the
apartments to contract for their own services, as is the case
in most other cities.
10
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
The above scenerio is based upon the City of Monticello
entering the garbage business itself. We are continuing to
work with the City of Buffalo, and significant savings could
be realized over the above scenerio with a joint venture. In
addition, a backup uniL would be available.
City staff proposes that the Council authorize advertisement
for bids based upon once a week pickup with existing garbage
containers, once a week pickup with automated 90 -gallon roll -
around containers, and with the apartments bid separately at
once and twice per week. City staff would then also prepare
a bid from the public works department with the City going
Into the garbage business with or without a joint venture with
the City of Buffalo. Bids would be returnable one month later
on August 27 to be reviewed by the City Council at the first
meeting in September. Our current contract has a six-month
cancellation clause, so it is expected that any change in
hauling would occur in the spring of 1991.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize City staff to
advertise for bids and prepare a bid from the public
works department to be returned August 27 as previously
outlined.
2. The second alternative would be to include other options
with the rebidding.
3. The third alternative would be not to prepare bids from
the public works department either with or without a
joint venture with the City of Buffalo.
4. The fourth alternative would be to do nothing and
continue as we aro.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public
works Director that the City authorize to rebid, with the
public works department preparing its own bid, as outlined in
alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Videotape showing the difference botwoon automatic and
existing pickup to be shown at the meeting or available for
private screening; Copy of specifications on automated pickup
units; Preliminary budget for City of Monticello garbage
C pickup by City employees.
Automated Refuse Collection
It Grabs More:
Ninely gallon containers located 78 inches, or 300 g
located 84 inches to the centerline of the container can be reached and
urrloadod with Iho Curbtenderb remototy-controlled lift arm.
It Packs More:
The Puncher, a now ram typo compactor, has been developed to
match the capacity of the Curbfonder Collection Ann. The 31.5 cu. yd. hopper
allows continuous collection without stopping for compactor cycling.
Pay loads in excess of 18,000 lbs. aro commonly delivered to the
landfill in a 25 cu. yd. body.
n
elq-- Viol-
It's Fast — 600 to 1,000
It Pecks Three Ways: T.
Homes Par Day:
TM atop ncmn U., Peel 1-... RadYWMOewena0ess
,,� �, as. nre.ea siau
m„ n. memo m aaer Pn wa.q A "Light Touch":
earn Pa,mPr oar tm ms:A m..
Pammu.nbrn P.� 'Emr bw�,: e . ura.....e..y
b an Plpm [mWT
am rpmelPA�rttae0 erm erm rtn
mmz. a an PwcM Peen me e
Pen Pr.mePIO
m®en aoiVmE b amll ars lawn
r "emur Pw eM.s otic amen m tt,
nmlLn erP OPnn,b Prmiiwt flet•
.pomp ou m vm mUnw w
a� Oe mepoPe Pum of b oe maPrN l.m Praate Een boost,.
bn TM l P fyn mrrOet
rmn ram mn
aANPVIK plmena P/Pr cwnav rmnPeemmmm:Pom ram�E N e
erm cmmwn enP.tl
Curmin0er b ®sP er(Ior PeY buff
lPe mra oer tames oV ma..er
OeMOPO f.eao eePr PM ar. m tlp NTP eb Cem bouUe, em emD
Pm arlrme a tmRn.s n P,t
n 0a �,
rr01o00eeeb' Prrr tlr r1PEa0.mtM
�
cenamuiP Pec. e b ertnmeh mrd �'uU"Onl ro wnemr n
Meld .- aetMeg mmlpe Pon• a Oemae
The system of the future is at Wayne Engineering nowt
s
Five Good Reasoi
System
'
LW E.Pwrrva MemlbcWrm: Ne a meyvrma Mrmmg Pepe aevamn
� ten eNretmrP m c� erm iron rew m Celmrreb wetm E�eab Pm
eavhmmm maoaa<nae a 4mnmo meemr eP�roa n on UMm
2. re. Ne o Pe bee: DU hP m mszm WC .e Pe[.vr .en eamMet ae. em Peetg
o mBa' oer man .Nm rePan sen m PYr mmb, wU moo en, mern mean ae
rv�mr. a vrc.a rePiPaO
3. Ngh Ce RV Lag RUN erm'. er Po.noa am e G Pn a W -M nrm mag rwrm
m"aw+e .atYrtg m m :poo mrma Hama w m W .urea eoh osP em m Prn nreemrm
a Ob mvarw
4e e.N. cenetnbnL PrePemn ca c- l.noma Ye b u Pe mm Da tuP b
+eP mn P.rraro wn a On .vnmh 1M lvr� a ms.r m.nmrNnria nbrmeeg 0m("r ens
ePm°V Qe euMPa'fm bwave' .rm err rann. arm mrh m','al Ureem ++w rPncm
tamaV aertre�u erm emrro muvin uW
Se Ne RiY TO iryPa NremnrY; Qe WNmnm fivPnm TIe,P Pn a RPmvrP vPr Pmt
elvmYl rteme evelepels a w b m.ree9w.er a .nW r
/ POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR
l GARBAGE/REFUSE HAULING
I. CURRENT COST OF HAULING WITH CORROW
1330 houscholds @ $7.50/mo. X 12 mo. = $119,700
552 apartments @ $3.50/mo. X 12 mo. = 23,184
misc. leaf 6 dumpster pickup = 2,400
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $145,284
II. SWITCHING TO ONCE A WEEK ON HOUSEHOLDS (SINGLE FAMILY THROUGH
4-PLEX) WITH CORROW (TWICE A WEEK ON APARTMENTS)
1330 households @ $6.50/mo. X 12 mo. _ $103,740
552 apartments @ $3.50/mo. X 12 mo.= 23,184
misc. leaf 6 dumpster pickup = 2,400
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $129,324
III. SWITCHING TO ONCE A WEEK ON HOUSEHOLDS WITH CORROW (TWICE A
WEEK ON APARTMENTS) AND USING $0.75 DISCOUNT AS BID IN JULY
1989 FOR AUTOMATED PICKUP USING 90 -GALLON CONTAINERS -
1330 households @ $5.75/mo. X 12 mo. _ $ 91,770
552 apartments @ $3.50/mo. X 12 mo. - 23,184
misc. leaf 6 dumpster pickup - 2,400
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $117,354
IV. CITY AUTOMATED PICKUP OF ONLY SINGLE FAMILY THROUGH 4-PLEX
ONCE PER WEEK 190 -GALLON CONTAINERS) AND MISC. CITY BUILDING
AND LEAF PICKUP --
1330 households @ $4.22/mo. X 12 mo. _ $ 67,373
552 apartments @ $3.50/mo. X 12 mo. - 23,184
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 90,557
V. CITY AUTOMATED PICKUP OF ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ONCE PER
WEEK USING 90 -GALLON AND 300 -GALLON (APT) CONTAINERS INCLUDING
LEAF AND MISC. PICKUP•••
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 67,373
4
GARBAGE.OPT: 7/19/90 Page 1
D
VI. CONTAINER COSTS
A 90 -gallon roll -around container costs approximately $58 and
should last 8-10 years or more. The existing 30 -gallon
galvanized cans could cost $42 to $45 per set of 3 and last
less than 5 years. A large quantity order could result in
lower prices. The cost of 1,130 containers would be $77,140.
Several options for payment by residents could be considered
from 08 to 1008. The 300 -gallon containers hold the same as
a 1-1/2 cubic yard dumpster and cost $177 each. A 1-1/2 cubic
yard dumpster costs approximately $350+.
If the City 'did switch to 90 -gallon roll -around containers,
the existing residential 30 -gallon containers would make
excellent containers for curb -side plastic recycling.
NOTES:
• This is not a current option and would require further
negotiation with Corrow.
•+ This option appears to be the best. Costs could be further
reduced through more competitive bids on apartment pickup.
This option allows room for growth, allows a joint venture
with Buffalo to further reduce costs. The City could also
haul liquor store refuse to reduce costs. This option may
allow single day pickup or once a week in winter and twice a
week in the summer.
••• This option would not allow for much growth without additional
men and equipment. This option may also affect a joint
venture with Buffalo and some difficulties may arise with
switching apartments to 300 -gallon containers due to space
constraints.
GARBAGE.OPT: 7/19/90 Page 2
D
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
Consideration of change order #1 for Project 90-02, 7th and
Minnesota Street improvement projects. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Change order #1 involves three items on the above -referenced
project. Item #1 is the addition of 8,530 square feet of
sidewalk to the project. This would include the sidewalk on
those portions of 7th Street and Minnesota Street receiving
new street as referenced by the 1990 to 1993 grid. It
includes no sidewalk located off the 90-02 project. Cost of
adding this sidewalk to the project is $14,501. We expect
that actual cost to be slightly lower, as we will now not have
to sod the 5 -foot strip taken up by the sidewalk.
The second item of the change order involves the excavation of
organic material or black dirt beneath the intersection of
Locust and 7th Street. It appears that when this street was
constructed, not all of the organic materials were removed
from the street subgrade. Since 7th Street is now going to be
a minimum 9 -ton all weather road, it is important that we
remove this material to provide a good street base. The
contractor will remove this material and bring in clean
granular fill material at an estimated cost of $1,200. The
City will obtain the black dirt or organic material and use it
on various City projects. Consequently, there is some value
to this material from which the City will benefit.
The third section of the change order involves the sewer
service connection for the now K -Mart building. Our
contractor, R. L. Larson, will make the final hookup of the
K -Mart service for a cost of $100. The City will be
reimbursed this cost from C-70, the contractor for the K -Mart
building.
Thu total cost of change order #1 is $15,801. With this
change order, we are still well under the expected cost for
this project. The only additional change order contemplated
at this time is the addition of some typo of railing on the
south retaining wall. There are areas of this wall that reach
at least six foot in height and may need a railing similar to
tho one located along Highway 25 near Country Kitchen to
prevent someone from falling from above. City staff is
currently researching the need and cost of such a railing and
will present this information to the Council at a later date.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The first alternative would be to approve change order tl
at an ostimated cost of $15,801.
12
c
c
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
2. The second alternative would be to approve only portions
of change order #1.
3. The third alternative would be not to approve change
order 81.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that City Council approve
change order tl as outlined in alternative Y1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of change order.
13
OSoR
saga,
July 17, 1990
2021 fast Hennepin Avenue
Mmneapobs, MN 55413
'12.331-8660
FAX 331.3806
EnFACCM
surv"Om
Planners
Mr. Pete Mechtel
R.L, Larson Excavating, Inc.
800 Highway 10 SE
St. Cloud, MN 56304
Re: Change Order No. 1
City Project No. 90-02
OSM Comm. No. 4534.00
Lear Mr. Mechtel:
Attached please Cord four (4) copies of Change Order No. 1 for the above referenced
project. Please sign all copies and deliver to Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, City of
Monticello. After the Change Order is approved by the City Council and signed by Mr.
Wolfsteller, a copy will be forwarded to your office.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOC/IA INC.
J
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Project Engineer
BAWJcmw
07 f 90-riiei.pm
Enclosure
cc: John Simola, City of Monticello
��%t Sdiden
A bT-
CHANGE ORDER NO: 1
7071 Ease Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55413
iimn
617-331.8660 SYrveyors
'AX 331-3806 Planners
OWNER: City of Monticello DATE OF ISSUANCE: 7/16/90
CONTRACTOR: R.L. Larson, Excavating,lnc. OWNER'S PROJECT NO: 90-02
800 Highway 10 SE
St. Cloud, MN 56304 ENGINEER: Orr-Schelen-Mayeron
CONTRACT FOR: Street and Utility Improvements 6 Associates, Inc.
and Appurtenant Work OSM CONN. NO: 4534.00
You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Document:
Description: Connect to the existing sewer stubs on Minnesota Street (City to
be reimbursed by C70). Construct a 4' concrete sidewalk along 7th Street and
Minnesota Street. Excavate organic material from the Locust Street intersection
and replace with compacted granular fill from the job site.
Purpose of Change Order: To complete the above mentioned items.
Attachments: (List documents supporting change) Preliminary Cost Estimate (the
quantities are estimated and will be adjusted after completion of the work.
--------------------------------------- -------.. --. --------
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE I CHANGE IN CONTRACT TiME
I
Original Contract Price I Original Contract Time
$242,581.93 I I August 15, 1990
---------------------------------------i----------- --------------------------
Previous Change Orders No.- to Mo. - I Met Change from Previous Change Order
I
$ 0.00
--------------------------------------- i ----------- --------------------------
Contract Price Prior to this Change I Contract Time Prior to Change Order
Order I
I
$242,581.93 1 August 15, 1990
---------------------------------------i----------- --------------------------
Not Increase (decrease) of this I Not Increase (decrease) of Change
Change Order I Order
1
$15,801.00 1 N/A
--------------------------------------- 4 ----------- --------------------------
Contract Price with all approved I Contract Tine with Approved Change
Change Orders I Orders
I
$258,382.93 I August 15, 1990
....................................... I........... ..........................
RECOMMENDED:
� APPROVED: APPROVED:
by: VVI L by: by:
Bret A. Weiss, P.E. City of Monticello R.L. Larson Excavating T
Change Order No. 1 - Continued
Preliminary Cost Estimate
7th Street and Minnesota Street
City Project No. 90-02
OSM Comm. No. 4534.00
DESCRIPTION
V Concrete Sidewalk
Excavation of Organic Nat'l
and Compaction of Granular Fill
Sewer Service Connection
M
C
UNIT
QUANTITY
Oji
PRICE
EXTENSION
8,530
S.F.
S 1.70
S 14,501.00
400
C.Y.
$ 3.00
S 1,200.00
1
Each
S 100.00
S 100.00
GRAND TOTAL
= 15,801.00
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
9. Consideration of boulevard stump removal. (J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In the iuld to late 70's during the state's participation in
the City's Dutch Elm disease control program, the City used to
pay for the cost of stump removal for diseased elm trees
located on the boulevard. In the early 80's when the state
quit funding the Dutch Elm disease control program, the City
cut back on its program by increasing the amount paid by
residents and quit paying for stump removal. Consequently,
many of the stumps were left in place. Currently, we have in
excess of 40 stumps located on boulevards, some of which have
been there for many years. It appears in the City's best
interest to improve the image of the community by removing
these stumps from the boulevard and having a program whereby
we will continue to do so for trees located on a boulevard in
the future.
City staff has debated the pro's and con's of removing stumps
and considered the following options:
1. The City would grind out the stumps only, thereby
leaving the wood chips in place and requiring the
resident to remove the wood chips, properly dispose
of them, place black dirt in the excavation, and
re -seed the boulevard.
2. The second option would be for the City to have the
stumps ground out and remove the wood chips from
the area. Citizens have very limited disposal
options for the wood chips. The best and highest
use Is to place them with our wood chips in our
Dutch Elm disposal site to be used as mulch on
various City projects or to be given away to
nurseries or residents. Consequently, we would
have to be involved in opening and closing the gate
and seeing that residents place their chips in the
proper place. It may be best for the City to
remove the wood chips and transport them to our
site ourselves. This, however, leaves a holo which
may be a hazard to the general public until filled
by the property owner.
3. The third option would be for the City to grind out
the stumps, remove the grindings, and place black
dirt in the excavation, with the leveling and
sooding to be done by the abutting property ownor.
This appears to be the boat option and probably
would not greatly exceed the cost of options Al or
02.
14
c
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
In preparation for this boulevard stump removal program, we
placed 42,000 in the 1990 budget. Roger Mack has obtained an
estimate for the cost of the stump removal based upon a stump
count and the estimated diameter of each stump. The estimated
cost is S1,140.30 We would propose to obtain
final quotes and use one or more local contractors to complete
the work based upon the above estimate.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve a boulevard stump
removal program with the City paying for the cost of
grinding out the stump, removing the chips, and placing
black dirt in the excavation at an estimated cost for the
40+ stumps of $1,140.30
2. The second alternative is to modify the program and
consider either option fl or option 92 as discussed in
the agenda supplement.
3. The third alternative would be to do nothing.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and
Strout Superintendent that the City Council authorize and
approve the boulevard stump removal program as outlined in
alternative N1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of existing stumps.
15
TREE STUMPS
Monticello Treatment Plant, 1401 Hart Boulevard --5 stumps
1. 7"
2. 8"
3. 9-1/2"
4. 12"
5. 11-1/2"
Bondhus Corporate Offices --2 stumps
1. 15"
2. 5"
1315 Hart Boulevard --1 stump
1. 15-1/2"
324 East River Street --2 stumps
1. 3'4"
2. 3'
225 West River Street --1 stump
1. 3'8"
716 East Broadway --1 stump
1. 14"
110 Washington Street --1 stump
1. 23"
Old Fire Hall --2 stumps & 1 tree
1. 30"
2. 17"
3. 30"
Corner Locust 6 3rd Street, corner of Harry's Store --1 stump
1. 4'S"
211 Linn Stroot--1 stump
1. 27"
C600 4th Stroot--1 stump
1. 3'6"
D
TREE STUMPS
612 4th Street --1 stump
1. 35"
706 West 6th Street --3 stumps
1. 4'
2. 2'
3. 1'
Ellison Park --3 stumps
1. 4'10"
2. 4'2"
3. 20"
513 Vine Street --2 stumps
1. 29"
2. 42"
512 6th Street --1 stump
1. 10"
Americ Inn --2 stumps
1. 1'
549 Broadway --1 stump
1. 26"
306 East Broadway --1 stump
1. 20"
224 East 3rd Street --1 stump 6 marked tree
1. 50"
2. 46"
Sunny Fresh --1 stump
1. 26"
418 West Broadway--troo marked
1. 32"
E01
TREE STUMPS
215 Locust Street --2 marked trees
1. 32"
2. 2'
500 West 3rd Street --1 marked tree
1. 5'
212 East 4th Street --1 marked tree
1. 4'
319 West 4th Street --1 marked tree
1. 46"
516 Maple Street --1 marked tree
1. 21"
Pine 6 3rd Street (AV Room) --marked tree
1. 36"
430 4th Street --3 trees
1. 40"
2. 36"
3. 32"
400 West 4th Street --1 tree
1. 32"
412 West 4th Street --1 stump
1. 29"
503 Maple Street --1 stump
1. 4'
406 East Broadway --1 tree
1. 21"
400 Now Street --1 marked tree
C 1. 36"
09,
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
10. Consideration of adopting a resolution calling for a public
hearing on the proposed modification of the tax increment
financing plan relating to Tax Increment Finance District
No. 1-9 (Tapper's, Inc.l. (O.K.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the July 11 HRA meeting, the Authority adopted a resolution
approving the proposed modification for the TIF plan relating
to the Tapper's project. Such modification of the TIF plan
includes an increase in the budget, increase of bond issuance,
and increase of bond indebtedness. The budget's direct
assistance to the developer was increased by $12,000 while the
Economic Development Authority's revolving loan (GMEF) was
reduced by $12,000 from the original loan of $100,000 to
$88,000. This became necessary, as the Small Business
Administration (SBA) officers would not accept the
recommendation of Bob Heck, Business Development Services,
Inc., as given to the EDA upon the GMEF loan approval. SBA
loan requirements state that any subordinated debt must have
a maturity equal to or greater than the 504 debenture. The
subordinated debt gap is the $12,000 discrepancy; therefore,
It is recommended to inject equity (TIF) to rectify the
problem. The developers, Wright County State Bank, SBA, and
Tom Hayes agreed with the TIF increase and agreed with staff
recommendation to reduce the level of assistance from the
revolving loan fund (GMEF). This meets SBA requirements and
allows for a greater remaining balance in the City's revolving
loan fund and reduces the City's loan amount which Is a third
position loan. The minimum market value placed in the
assessment agreement of the redevelopment agreement is
sufficient to cover the increased proposed budget, bond
Issuance, and bond indebtedness.
As you know, the closing for this project was completed on
Friday, July 13, 1990, at Wright County State Bank. This was
able to occur because the development agreement reads that if
for some unknown reason the modification is denied, the
$12,000 gap will be transferred from another TIF district.
The HRA did approve the transfer of $12,000 if the
modification was denied.
At this time, the Council Is asked to call for a public
hearing, said public hearing to be scheduled for Monday,
August 13, 1990. This will allow time for local newspaper
notice and allows 30 -day notice to the county, school
district, and hospital, which were Bent notices on July 6,
1990. Now legislation rulings on TIF do not apply to this
modification according to Attorney Bob Deike, Holmes 6 Graven.
16
C
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
To adopt the resolution calling for a public hearing on
August 13, 1990, on the proposed modification of the TIF
plan relating to TIF District No. 1-9 (Tapper's Inc.).
2. To deny adoption of the resolution calling for a public
hearing on the proposed TIF plan relating to TIF District
No. 1-9 (Tapper's Inc.).
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation is to approve alternative Al calling for a
public hearing on August 13, 1990. Discussion of the
modification will occur at that time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution for adoption.
17
Councilmember introduced the following
resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous
consent, and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION
OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1-1 THROUGH
1-11 AND THE APPROVAL OF THE MODIFICATION OF
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-9, ALL
LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the
City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on
August 13, 1990, at approximately 7:00 p.m., to hold a public
hearing on the following matters: (a) the proposed modification,
by increased project costs, of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority's (the "Authority") Redevelopment Project No. 1; (b)
the proposed modification, by increased project costs, of Tax
Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-11, located
within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (c) the modification, by
increased project costs, Tax Increment Financing District No.
1-9, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (d) the proposed
adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1; (e) the proposed adoption of the Modified Tax
Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts
Nos. 1-1 and (f) the proposed adoption of the Modified Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No.
1-9, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections
469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended.
CA)
Section 2. Notice of Hearing, Filino of Prooram. The City
Administrator is authorized and directed to cause notice of the
hearing, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A,
to be given as required by law, to place a copy of the proposed
Modified Redevelopment Plan, Modified Tax Increment Financing
Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plan on file in the
Administrator's Office at City Hail and to make such copy
available for inspection by the public no later than
July 9, 1990.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted by the Council in and for the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, on July 23, 1990.
ATTEST:
C
Administrator
-2-
Mayor
CL°J
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the "Council")
in and for the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of
Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on August 13, 1990, at
approximately 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, 250 East Broadway,
Monticello, Minnesota, relating to the proposed modification, by
increased project costs, the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority's Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the approval and
adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan relating thereto; the
proposed modification, by increased project costs, of the
Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment
Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-11, located within
Redevelopment Project No. 1; and the proposed modification, by
increased project costs, of the Modified Tax Increment Financing
Plan relating to Tax Increment Financing Plan No. 1-9, also
located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, all pursuant to and
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179,
inclusive, as amended. A copy of the Modified Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing
Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-11,
as proposed to be adopted, will be on file and available for
inspection at the office of the City Administrator at City Hall
not later than July 9, 1990.
The property comprising Tax Increment Financing District No.
1-9 is as follow:
Leqal Description
Lot 4, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, City of Monticello,
Minnesota, County of Wright.
PID NO.: 155-018-002040 Owner: Oakwood Industrial Park
Further information regarding the identification of the
parcel to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9
may be obtained from the office of the City Administrator.
All interested persons may appear at the hearing and present
their views orally or in writing.
Dated:
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
City Administrator
0
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
Consideration of approving transfer from liquor fund to EDA
fund for revolvinq loan --Tappers, Inc. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On Friday, July 13, Tapper's, Inc., closed on their purchase
of property in the Oakwood Industrial Park, which included
their mortgage financing through Wright County State Bank and
the closing of the Economic Development Authority's revolving
loan fund through the City. Initially, the City had
anticipated using revolving loan funds in the amount of
$100,000 to help assist Tapper's, Inc., in the building of
their new facility. But in order to meet SBA loan guidelines,
the HRA will be considering modifying the tax increment
financing plan by $12,000 for Tapper's, which resulted in the
revolving loan fund being reduced to $88,000.
The loan documents for the $88,000 have been completed as part
of the closing process; and as a result, these funds should be
transferred from the liquor fund to the newly established EDA
fund. A couple of years ago, the City Council approved an
initial funding for the revolving loan fund in the amount of
$200,000 from the liquor store reserves. The funds were to be
transferred as needed; and as a result, $88,000 has now been
disbursed through this process.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the transfer of $88,000 from the liquor fund to
the revolving loan fund.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since the loan has boon issued to Tappers, the Council should
officially approve the transfer. At this point, the EDA would
still have $112,000 of available revolving loan funds that
have boon previously committed by the City Council for future
projects. Those funds will remain with the liquor store until
such time as they aro needed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
Is
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
t2. Consideration of local cigarette vending machine ordinance.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A number of months ago, the City Council was considering
enacting its own cigarette vending machine ordinance to
prohibit or restrict locations of cigarette vending machines.
At that time, it was decided to wait until the state
legislative session was over to determine if it was necessary
to consider our own ordinance, as the state was considering
adopting a statute regarding vending machines.
A new law effective August 1, 1990, has been adopted by the
state which now limits the locations of cigarette vending
machines to private business locations not generally open to
the public or to which persons under 18 years of age are not
generally permitted access and to other public establishments
such as restaurants, grocery stores, and gas stations if
located in an open area and are operable only by an employee
flipping a switch or providing a special token. In liquor
establishments, the machines are allowed but must be located
in the open plain view and in control of a responsible
employee so that all tobacco purchases would be readily
observable by that employee.
The now law also allows local governments to adopt rules or
ordinances that are more restrictive than imposed by the
state. Technically, the City can still adopt its own
ordinance that would prohibit vending machines entirely if it
so chooses.
At this point, the staff is looking for direction from the
Council as to whether you would like us to prepare an
ordinance that would be more restrictive than this now state
law. If the Council is comfortable with the regulations
established by the state, no further action is needed; but if
you would like to further restrict cigarette vending machines
in Monticello, the staff would prepare an ordinance that could
be considered at the next Council meeting based on your
direction.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Direct the staff to prepare an ordinance further
prohibiting vending machines within the city of
Monticello for consideration at the next mooting.
2. Do not prepare an ordinance at this time.
19
Council Agenda - 7/23/90
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Unless the City Council is set on banning cigarette vending
machines entirely, it does appear that the state law does
provide controls of where a vending machine can be located
when it's available to the public. The requirement of the
vending machine to be operated electronically by an employee
or with tokens provided by the employee should make cigarette
sales more restrictive to those under age. The staff does not
have a recommendation one way or the other.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the new statute.
20
CONSUMER PROTECTION—TOBACCO VENDING
MACHINES—LOCATIONS
CHAPTER i_I
H.F. No. 2042
A.V ACr minting to consumer protection: limiting the locations In which ealn of tobacco by
,ending machine may be made: ptepoaing coding for new law In Minnesota Statutes. chapter
325E.
BE 17 ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MIX.VESOTA:
Section 1. [725E.0751 SALE OF TOBACCO BY VENDING MACHINE.
Subdivision 1. DEFINITION. For purposes of this section, "tobacco" has the mean-
ing given the term in section 609.66.5.
Subd. 2. PROHIBITION. Tobacco may be offered for sale or sold in this state by or
from s vending machine or apQQliance or an yy other medium, device, or object desilmatea or
used for vendin¢ purposes ails at the following locations:
(1) in an area within a factory. business, office. or other place not open to the leneral
public or to which persons under 18 vears of age are not ¢enerally permitted access:
(2) in an on -sale alcoholic bevemire establishment or an off -sale liquor store, if
(i) the tobacco vendin¢ machine is located within the immediate vicinity. 22lain view, and
u
conol of a responsible employee, so that all tobacco numhases will be. readily observable
by that emplovee:
h1it the tobacco vending machine is not located in a coatroom, restroom, unmonitored,
wav, outer waning area, or similar unmonitored area; and
(iii) the tobacco vendin¢ machine is inaccessible to the public when the establishment in,
closed; and
(9) it: other establishments. upon the followinlr conditions:
M it must be located within the immediate vicinity pplain view and control of a
responsible employee, so that all tobacco purchases no I be readilX observable by thai
employee: it must not be. located in a coatroom, restroom, unmonitored hallway outer
wading area, or similar unmonitored area: and it must be inaccessible to the public when
the establishment is closed; and
(ii) it must be operable only by activation of an electronic switch operated by ar
emolovee of the establishment before each sale, or by insertion of tokens provided y or,
emplovee of the establishment before each sale.
Subd. J. LOCAL REGULATION. The Iroverning body of a local unit of government
mayyopt rules nr onlinanem relating to vetidmR machine sales of tobacco that are morn
testnertrve than the restncuons imposed by this section.
Preaented to the governor April 5.19X
Approved April 9, 1999.
JL
8RC FINANCIAL SVSTEM
06/27/90 09:45 :25
-
-
Disbursement -journal
WARRANT DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
CLAIM INVO
GENERAL CHECKING
29953
06/76/90
4ALZWEDEL/PATTY
105
CLEANING
SUP/ANIMAL-C-4.27.75-
UP/ANIMAL-C-1.27.75--29953
29953
06/26/90
SALZWEDEL/PATTY
185
EOUIPMENT/ANTMAL
CONT
151.75
279.50
-PCHECK TOTAL
29954
06/26/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
722
EMOLOYEE
FICA W/H
1.649.91
29954
06/76/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EM PL.OVfP
FICA WIN
310.03
29954
06/26/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
272
EMPLOYER
FICA W/H
_. 130-.16
29954
06/76/00
ePIGMT
COUNTY
STATE
277
EM%LOYEP
FICA WIN
127.97
29954
06/28/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMOLOYEP
FICA WIN
42.23
29954
06/76/90
VRIGHT-COUNTY
STATE
722
EMPLOYER
FICA W/H
_ - L2.75
29956
08/28/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMOLOVER
FICA WIN
9.39
29954
06/26/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
777
EMPLOYER
FICA WIN
42.25
29954
06/26/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
FICA W/H
58.09
29954
06/76/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
FICA WIN
160.50
29954
00/26/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
FICA WIN
100.10
29054
06/26/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
FICA W/H
.-_ 195.50 -
-
29954
08/28/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
FICA WIN
10.18
20954
00/26/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
FICA W/H
5.88
29954
06/26/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
FICA WYK-
L.48
29954
06/26/90
WPIGHI
COUNTY
STATE
772
EMPLOYER
FICA WIN
111.12
29956
06/26/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
FICA WIN
01.92
29954
06/70/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
?22
EMPLOYER
FICA W/!L•
51.32
29954
08/26/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
FICA W/H
16.62
29954
06/26/00
WEIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
FICA W/H
42.23
29954
06/73/00
WRIGHT
COUNTY
,STATE -•-
222
EMPLOYER_
FICA .WM
-_-- 14-13_ .
__-_--,--- -
29954
06126/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE;
227
FEDERAL W//H
7.793.75
29954
06/20/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
?22
EMPLOYEE
MEDICARE
WIN 30.39
29954
00/20/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
227
EMPLOYER
MEDICARE
W/H 0.37
5_ -
29054
00/28/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
MEDICARE
W/H 0.46
29956
06/20/90
WPIGHI
COUNTY
STATE
272
EMPLOYER
MEDICARE
WIN 7.27
.29954
03/25/90
WRIGHT
COUNT 7
-STATE --
222
EMPLOYER
MEDICARE-W/K
. 2.-18
79954
00/20/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
?22
EMPLOYER
MEDICARE
WIN 0.34
29954
08!73/90
WRIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
222
EMPLOYER
MEDICARE
WIN 0.34
79954
00/?3190
4RIGHT
COUNTY
STATE
22
EMPLOYER
MEDICARE
WIN 6.03
20954
06/26/00
W4I64T
COUNTY
STATE
?22
EMPLOYER
MEOECAPE
WIN 1.40
b.670.35
-CHECK TOTAL
79955
00/23/90
nN DEPART
OF
NATURAL
110
WATERCRAFT/ATV REG 345.00
29956
03/20/90
HENNING 6 ASSOCIATES
309
FEES/NEW
MONTE BROC 4.511.62
29087
06/26/00
MOORES/TCM
303
TRAVEL EXP/GRADER
SEM 150.00
29959
00/70/00
PUE:LIC
EMPLOYEES
PIT
170
EMPLOYEE
PfVA WIN
336.1?
29059
03/20/00
PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES
RET
175
EMPLO'1EP
PERA W/H
99.37
29956
00/76/90
PUE%kIC
EMPLOYEES
RET
176
EMPLOYER
PERA WYK
40.01
29050
06/20/90
PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES
RET
176
EMPLOYER
PERA WIN
24.74
20950
00170/00
PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES
FET
176
EMPLOYER
PERA WIN
5.50
20950
00/20/90
PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES
RET
170
EMPLOYER
PFRA WIN
24.74
79958
06/10/90
PUS LIC
EMPLOYEES
RC1
176
EMPL0IER
PEPA WIN
30.05
�r
0 o V o
o ZI°oC
o
0 0
0 0
0
— +-.-..DL,f _ -q-•-a}�-+ ° a G°
o
_
o
°
RC ;hNANCIAL SYSTEM
9 y-°-O6%2-7.[9.0-09:45:25•----••
----•-----•----•-0i'sbu�semenot-Jour,na,Y.
WARRANT DATE VENDOR'
OESCRIDT,ION
�AMOUNY
CLAIM' JNVO.'
�a----
GENERAL 'CHECKING.~ - --_ _- - --
--- - --•-• --= --
:° ° ._-•---
- •-' il
--?8958_OS126L9L-kU81IC
EMPLOYEES-_RET -----17.8-EMPLOY fR-_P.ER4-W/H--7A_BL---
----- "q
-
29958 06/26/00 PUBLIC EMOLOYEES RET
t76 EMP�OYEER PERAAw/H
•33.38
1
29958 06/26/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RET
176 EMPLOYER PERA W/H
?i.73
�
-29959..06/28/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET___
--1.76..EMPLOYER .PERA WZH-------
97-.Sr..
29958 06/26/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET
17,6 EMPLOYFP. PERA W/H
1'10.38
29958 06/26/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET
176 EMPLOYER PERA w/H
114.49
—_2
9959-06628 /.90_PUBLIC. EMPLOYEES_RET__._,1.76-EMDLOVE-R-PERA-W/H---4,7".97—
_-.• --
29959 06/26/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 'RET
176 EMPLOYER PERA W/H
65'.07
29958 06/76/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET
1.76 EMPLOYER PERA W/H
"5.98
29958-08/28/90.PU8LIC.-EMPLOYEES-RET--
178-EMPLOYER-PERA-W/H--_-3.93--------
-•--•
79956 06/76/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FET
176 EMPLOYER PERA W/H
24.73
1
29959 06/26/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RET
176 EMPLOYER PERA W/H
9.73
_ -_7.9958-OV26/90_PUSL.IC_EMPLOVEES-RET-_--17"MPLOYER..PERA-WH.
3.4e
_—
29958 08/28/.90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET
176 EMPLOYER, PERA W/H
0.63`CH
««
_-
1.717.53
ECK, TOTALap,
V GENERAL CHECKING
TOTAL
12.674.00
J.
�
1
T
i
4�
�r
--__••--
-. -_X
-a .—tea -n: _
_ -
_ _�—.�- �-_..
�_ � -
_--- j
6
E:RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM-
YSTEM-06/27/90---09:46:16--•
06/2?/90---09:46-1'6---------- -
-
----- -•Disbursem"lt
•Jourtnel---
-- - -- ---
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR.
^_
DESCRIPTION
.___
AMOUNT
CLAIM INVO
-_
' --- •----
GENERAL CHECKING -. --•--.._.
^- -_-.- -^
_ _.----�_
-_ .
- --29959-06/•77,/90-ANDERSON-&-ASSOCIATE-
—10
SIGNS R-SIGN-POSTS--?72:15----
- ---
29959
06/27/90
ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE
10
CORRECT FUND 0
117.90CR
.. 29959
06/27/90
ANDERSON G ASSOCIATE
10
COP.RECT FUND 4
2'9.83CR
_ -. -_-_�_
___
__ - _ _- --•_-
-
_ - - - - --
74-.42--
!CHECK TOTAL
.. 79960
06/27/90
ANDERSON/GARY
11
TRAVEL EXPENSE
93-.05
29961
06/27/90
BARTCN SAND 8 GRAVEL
305
CONCRETE - K./MART
2'5.00
29962
06/77/90
BERGSIROm OPOS. INC.
21
SHIELD-9IT/STREET- DEPT.
?3.79- -
29063
06/27/90
BIOCYCLE
266
RECYCLING SEMINAR FEE
325.00
29963
06-/24-/-90
-B-IOCYDL-E - --- -- -
---?66.
CORRECT--FVND 043230--
A7.00CR--
-• - -
20963
06/27/90
BIOCYCLE
266
CORRECT FUND 443230
"42.00
325.00
-CHECK. TOTAL
29964
06/27/90
COMMISSIONER OF REVE
36
MN PAYROLL TAX/JUNE 1.849.96
29956-00 %27-/-90-COMMUNICATION-AUDITO--38
PAGER- REPAIRS/FIRE OP--101.40
-
- -- - - -
29988
08/27/90
DRUMMOND AMERICAN CO
298
ABSORBENT/FIRE DEPT
179.65
_ -50
_
29967
06/27/90
DYNA SYSTEMS
MISC BOLTS.ETC/SHOP
106.36
29988-
06•12.7490
-f4K- RIVER VE-TERINAP-V-
_ --52
VET-FEES/EUTHANASIA--
5.1.70---
- �+
79969
06/77/90
FAIR'S GARDEN CENTER
55
SPRINKLERS/PARK DEPT
90.70
29969
08/.27/90
FAIR'S GARDEN-CENTER
55
REPAIR SUP/PARK�DEPT
49.25
29969
06/27/90
FAIR'S GARDEN CENTER
55
TREE REPLACEMENT PRGM
96.98
L
242.93
*CHECK TOTAL
29970
06/27/90
GEEDPITE CONTROLS. 1
56
WATER SAMPLE/WATER OP
32.00
29970
06/27/90
FEEDRITE CONTROLS. I
56
REPAIR PARTS/WATER OP
556.86
29970
06/27%90-
FEEDRITE CONTROLS, 1
50-CHEMICALS/WATER
DEC' 2.517.05
r
3.102.71
-CHECK TOTAL'
79971
00/27/90
GENERAL RENTAL CENTE
04
HAMMER DRILL/WATER 00
77.50
29971
06/27/90
GENERAL RENTAL C?NTE
64
POWER TROaEL/ELLISON
43.48
95.90
-CHECK. TOTAL
29972
06/27/90
GOVERNMENT TRAINING
72
REG FEE/J.O'NEILL
139.00
79973
08/77/90
GPANITE CITY TOOL CO
310
CABLE/SEWER DEPT
09.99
29974
05/27/90
HAVES/WILMA
265
INFO SALARY
136.00
79974
06/27/90
HAYES/WILMA
785
INFO SALARY
42.60CR
93.50
OCHECK TOTAL
8RC FINANCIAL
SYSTEM
06/27/-90--09e46:16• - - - - -
-
- -----Oisbursement-Jou,ne'-1...
WARRANT
DATE
;VENDOR
-DESCRIPTION
`-
ANOINT CLAIM
Y
-INV.O
GENERAL CHECKING --- ---
'' -.--�-- �-
�• T
29975-06/_2.7/90-HEILMAN/`MAR1.ENE,----
-- 60
TRAVEL- E1PENSE_-,----.-=----7..SD�--.---,.---.--
- G
29975
06/27/90
HELLMAN/MA;LENE
-80
SEMINAR EXPENSE
17.30
25.7.0 -CHECK
TOTALIi
29976
08/27/90
HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC
95
GAS - FIRE DEPT -
19.98
79977
06/27,4-90-JACOBSON/07ANE.----
-92-TPAVEL-EXPENSE-
---=85.-50.--,--•. --
29978
06/27/90
KOROPCHAK/OLIVE
97
TRAVEL EXPENSE
89.50
29979
06/27/90
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA+
` 98
MEMBERSHIP DUES+ ~
138.00
_ 29980
08/2.7/.90
LEERSSEN/JANETTE •- -
284
INFO -CENSER 5ALAR.Y—.
132.00-... _
29980
06/27/90
LEERSSEN/JANETTE
264
INFO CENTER SALARY
41:-25CR
90.75 -CHECK
TOTAL
29981
06/27/90
MARCO BUSINESS PRODU
106
COPY MACHINE MTC AG 2.461.33 -
29981
06/27/90
MARCO BUSINESS PROOU
106
COPY MCH FILTER
209.00
-? CHECX_.TOIAL'
29992
06/27/90
MINN DEPT OF NATURAL
302
MOTOR VEHICLE MTCE/FI
254.11
29983
00/27/90
MN 34{36/400 USER GF:
300
MEMOERSHIP DUES
60.00
_ 20984
06427/-8O.MO81.L,-
73l.,GAS.
•-FIRE-DEP_7_.
?,u.78--.�_
79904
06/27/90
w.OSIL
131
GAS - WATER OEPT
74.85
29984
OB/27/90'MOBIL
131
GAS - SEWER DEPT
74.84
29984
.00/27./.00
-MOSIL.... ._ _ _ . _
i3.1
GAS+'-ST.REE.T._DEPT_-_-
96.63-,--
•-.
280,.50 'CHECK
TOTAL,
_. 29085.00/77/90_MONTICELLO-CLINIC."
r.-,30.1-
PHYSICAL-S/NEW_.EMPLOYS-346.74 - r
--
29996
06'/27'/90
MONTICELCo OFFICE PR
136
OFFICE SUP/P.WORKS
8:05
29986
08/2.7/90
MONTICELLO OFFICEPR--130
OFF,ICE.SUPPtIES/C HAL
-470.6'0 ,
-
q5'. 51, *CHECK
TOTAL
29087
06'/27'/90
MTI DISO RICUiING CO
299
PARTS/PARK DEPT
20988
05/27/90
NORTH STAR WATERWORK
147
PRESSURE VALVES/WATER
8117-.70,
79989
06/77/90
NORTHERN STATES POWE
148
REPAIRS TO POLE
53.42
20090
06/27/00
O.E.I. BUSINESS FORM
158
COPY PAPER
74.00
29991
00/77/00
O'NEILL/JEEP
161
TPAVEL E)'PENS
71.15
29992
08/27/00
OLSON/JERRY
159
CORRECT FUND 0
35.ODCR
79992
06/77/90
OLSON/JERRY
159
TEMP BLD INSP FEES
94.00
60.00 -CHECK
TOTAL
I
f.RCFINANCIAL SYSTEM
-
06/27/90,-09'.46:16
04 sburSement-Journi.), ;;- - _
-
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
,OESCFIPTION
AMOUNT CLAIM
INVOi
GENERAL CHECKING
I
�-
-29993-06/?-7-/90-OMANN-BROTHERS.-INC.•-
- 304
SAND/EL-L-ISON PY.-------?7-,3)-
-•- - -
..
29994 06/27,/90 PITNEY BOWES
168
POSTAGE MACHINE RENTAL 63.75
]
-
29985 06/27/90 PORTER/STEVE
.90057
TREE REPLACEMENT
9.81,
-
- 29996-06/2.7-/90- RENNER @ SONS INC./E-
181
PEPAIRS/WEL-L PUMP -*-3-.424-30 - -
-
79997 00/27/90 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC
227
REPAIRS/PARK DEPT
10.48
�
29997 06/27/90 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC
227
REPAIRS/SHADE TREE-
20.34 -•-
30.82 'CHECV.
TOTAL,.
- 29998 -06/27-/90 SCHWIENTFK/ROGEP--
.90058
SHAC'F T=EE-RERLACEMENT $0.00•-- -
29999 06/27/90 SHUMAN/CATHY
1$1
SEMINAR E>•PENSE
75.61
30000 06/27/90 SIMOLA/JOHN E.
308
TRAVEL EXPENSE
_ 20.53
30004 06/.27/b0-SNVDER-DRUG
8.00 --- -
30002 08/27/90 SPRINGSTED: INCORPOR
901
FEES/GO.80NDS
10.547.42
r1
30002-00/07/90 SPRINGSTED. INCORPOR-
--307.FEES/GO
BONDS•• --•14.677.20•
-
-
25.224.62 -CHECK
TOTAIJ
30003.06/-27/-90-TIERNE V -BROTHERS. IN
-- 204-BLACK--TARE-/CITY
-"At-L-- 89.58•--- - - -
-
-
30004 06/27/90 TURNGUIST PAPER COMP
208
PAPER CUPS/CITY HALL 46.54
q
30005 06/27/90 VOYAGEUR LOG. HOMES
90059
ELLISON PARK SHELT
12,337.00
30008 -06/27./90• -WATER -PRODUCTS COMPA
218
METERS/WATER DEPT
- 190.3.9
30007 06/27/90 YONAK LANDFILL. INC.
223
LANDFILL CHARGES
5.217..12
GENERAL CHECKING
TOTAL
59.005.68
I
E:RC FINANCIAL SVSTEM
` _�-i'--07•/03',/90^08:'48�:2-7 -'-- - � --^- -- - - --• Di-sbursem_ ant Journal--- 4 .` -,
a WARRANT DATE VENDOR OE SCR,IPb70N AMOUNT CLAIM, -1 NV(
�1 GENERAL CHECKING
29983-08-L?9d90-MN-34--38-a00-USER'-GP--300-CHECK-vOJOEO- SO�OCR•-- - -
30017 06/?9/90 MARTIE-'S FARM SERVIC 1.07 RETUpN ESCROW REPO 12.000.00
-- --30017 06/29/90 MAkTIE:'S FARM-SERVIC 107 INTEREST ON ESCROW--- 98:63• —�^- - -
12.098.63 'CHECK TOT'At
--- ,ENERAt-CH ECK1.^S - -- r-----TOTAr
i
I
r�
BFC FINANCIAL
SYSTEM
CITY
OF MONTICELL(
j -07-71-03f90-09 r3 }- Ehe-Csr.r— ,L 5408-VO1.-06-PAGE --
BANK
VENDOR
CHECK# DATE
AMOUNT
GENL GENERAL
CHECKING
30010-06P?8/90-A09PT-A-tC7
--A7t17Ls1-C6eCPbI-Sbt�ILb�--340':QO
----
30011 06/29/90
ORR- SCHELEN-MAYERON &
A Engineering Fees
72.276.01
30012 06/28/90
REED'S SALES & SERV!, -c•
Fire Dept supplies
116.46
30073-06/28/90 ---RENNE'R-&-SON
FN-./E-H--WateP
Rise?v6fi7tiooe er pump
-'t5 --597':Q0••_
30014 06/28/90
SALZWEOEL/FATTY
Animal Control Contract & adopt. 5:9.?5
30015 06/28/90
WOLFSTELLER/RICHARD
Conference expense
413.04
-'0918-06/?8/'9P•"'
?A�:k-�4-Irof.>--CL-E`ro1N>-?nF--CYesning-BU6pI'i�g/Sh6p-•--•-^O.i:
7r----.
30079 70/27/90
Mn CEP4PT OF NATVi A�
RS Watercraft 6 Atv Reg.
299.00
30;009 05/27/90
VIDEO PLUS.
Recycling video - --
23.30
GENERAL
CHECKING
29.973.97 '•
°E:RC P1n'a�:SI•c,t 54'S7E!^
Oisnurscment-Vourne) °-
- _ I
WARRANT DATE VE1•660 OE's CRI0i'1 'AMOUtJT.CL41m. 3t7v{,',
GENERAL CHECKING
30018-0)/03/90-ANO*:A Cpt•NTV-Sp.IaC' --`--'4-OAYPpt.t- rEt�VCTIONS-?74:97'- -•-"'�-=
30019 07/03/90 HAYES/WILMA 295 INFO CENTER-SALARY:57,.00
-30019-09-109-190-MAY{-5%ff1-i-MA-- ---^-85-INF-0-CE'+iEP.-Snl-4�Y---30:000R--^ ---
1,10.00 'CHECK TOTAL
-30020 07/03/90 -1;C.14. -A -.-RETIREMENT- - 88 P'AYROL'L OEDUCTIC•NS---- 500.,93---
30020 07/03/90 I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT -88 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS to?.04
682.97 -CHECK TOTAL
30021 07/03/90 LEERSSEN/JANETTE 784 INFO CENTER SALARY 85.00.
30021 07/03/90 LF-ERSSEN/JANETTE 284 INFO CENTER SALARY 27.81CR
-- -------- -- - -- - - ------ 6.,.19•- *CHECK. IO1AL
30022 07/03/90 -MN 34-36-400 USER GR - 300 MEMBERSHIP DUES -�- 30.00
300?3 0,7103190 NOR•WEST INVESTMENT 5 155 COMPUTER PAYMENT 7.ti07.61
30024 07-/03/90• PERA /l-tFE-IN$-),--. - 274-Lir-E--INSURAvCE-OUE•------36.00 - •-- -
30025 07/03/90 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 175 WWTP CONTRACT PAYM 27.005.03
30026 07/03/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RV 176 EMPLOYEE PERA vt._H 858.32'
30076 07/03/90 OVE+LIC EMPLOYEE,$ PET 1.?G EMPLOYER PERA WIN 99.61,
300?5- 07-/03 190-P08i'-IC-EMvCOVEES-Qf7---"176-eM-PLOVfP-POA -N%H- • 611:75•-• -=�1
30026 07/03/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET 176 EMPLOYER PERA v/H ?4.74
30026 07/03/90 PUBLIC EmPLOVEES RET 176 EMPLOYER kA:A WIN 5:50
300?6"07/03-/90-PUBL-IC-E-PUOYEE'I PET - 176-•E-PLO4FP-PERA•u/M^ ?�.-74-•.-��=
30026 07/03,/90 6M IC EMPL07EES FET 178 EMPLOYER PERA WIN 49-flq
30026 07/03/90 PUBLIC 6M.PL6,YEF-5 RET ;76 EMPLOYER PSPA W/!1 73.77
300?6-07./03190 PUBLIC•EMPLOYe'ES RET 176 EMPLOYER PERA .1N-^'• 33:49 -
30026 07/03/90 PUEILIC EMPLOYEES RET 119 EMPLOYER PERA WIN 24.73
30020 07/03/90 PUBLIC -EMPLOYEES FET 175 EMPLOVER PEPA WIN 110.42
-30028 07/031,90•-PUBL-IC EMPLOYEES-RET---116-EMPLpYER PEF,A•W/li•--
30026 0T/03/00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PET 116 ,EMPLOYER PEPA W/H )26":44
30026 07/03/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET 170,EMPLOVER PERA W/H .49.44
30026 07/03/40 PU61IC-'EMPL=OVEES"RET---- 116 EMPLOYER PERA M!H=> 58.86
30020 07/`03/00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET 170 EMPLOYER PERA WIN 6.36
30020 07/03/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET 178 EMPLOYER PERA WH 40:36
30026 07/031,90>PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET - -176 EMPLOYER PERA WIN- 24.�3
30028 0003/90 PUBLIC E+IPLO`ik;$ RET 1-16 EMPLOYER PERA VilH 10.44
30020 0.7/03490 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES F.F1 170 EMPLOYER PEP& WIN 1.15
3,0026 07/03/90 -PUBLIC EMPLOVEE5 RFT 116 :MPLOVER PERA WIN - 0-46
_ 1.767.39' 'CHECK' 10T'AL
30027 01/03/110 STATE CA%'1'rOL CQE^.IT 198 PAYPOLL QED)CTICNS 30.04
300?8 01/0?/90 WRIGHT CO',N•1 S1ATE 7 q"P OYFE r1Ca W/H 1.093.71
30020 01/03/40 WPIGHT COUNTY STAFE ??? SMP,OVEE PICA WIC- ?".52
t 30078 07/03/90 NPIGHT COUNIV Slt,-,5 EMt.LOYE] FICA WIN 30.59
G
DRC FilNANCIAL. S�SITEM
-07/03/-90--14.013:51 --- -• - - -- -- -- - 'Dtsounsaln?nt Journe-1-- -
WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM- INVG
----GENERAL CHECKING
30026 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE- = 72? EM.PLAYEE FICA W/H- 174,95 ---
30029 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 227 EMPLOYEE FICA WIN 42.23
30028 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 222 EMPLOYEE- FICA W/H. -42.25.
- - - 3 00 28- -0 7 /034-00-MR-I{,HT-COUNTY- STATE -2?2• EMP4,0YE{ FICA -w/H----- 9.39-----
30078 07/03/90 WRIGHT COVNTV STATE 222 EMPLOYEE FICA W/H 47.75
30028 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE ?22 EMPLOYEE FICA W/H $7.19
---30028 071-03/90 WRIGHT COPUTY •STAT{,- 2-22 FM:LOViE F-IGA W!H ----188.56-- ---- _
_ 30028 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 222 EMPLOYEE FICA WIN 143.47
30028 07/03/90 WRIGHT COU+jTV STATE ??? EMPLQVEE FICA WIN 715.90
- 300?8-07/03-/90 WRIGHT- COUNTY STATE - ??? EM0LC•VEE -FICA WeH __ - - 10-.87-- -
30028 07/03/SO WRIGHT COLNTY STAIE 7?? EMPLOYEE FICA W/H 1.9G
30028 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUN'Y STALE 222 EMPLOYEE FICA W/H 0.79
30026 0a4b3450 -WEIGHT CCXT•v- S -; AT -E- -• ??-e"-i64PLOVEE riCa-./M•--;G0.50-- -
30028 07/03/90 WRIGHT C010-4 TY STATE ?22 EMPLOYEE FICA W/H 92.72
30028 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 772 EMPLOYEE FICA W/H $0.62
3,0078- 07/03/-00-WazIGHT COUNT/. SsdsE -- 242 -EMPLOYEE -FICA WJN _ - 4.7..84-- --- - -
30078 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUr+7V STATE 227 EMOLOVEE FICA W/H 47.23
300?8 07/03/90 WRIGMT -.-0UNTV STATE 22? EMPLOYEE FICA W/H 68.91
30028 074.03/90-WRIGH_7- COUNSX STATE . __.- -0.2.2 FEDERAL WM-----a -/654.43 .- - •-
30028 07/03/80 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 222 EMPLOYEE MEDICARE W/H 3?.88
30078 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 2?? EMPLOYER MEDICARE W/H 0.15
30028--07/-03/80-WRIGHT- COVNsv-6TAT{-_.__22�EMP1 OvFR-ME-0iGARE �+J.H�+a"•1 t----.— ---
300?8 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 727 EMOLOVER MEDICARE W/H 0.42 '
30028 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 222 EMPLOYER MEDICARE WIN 5.55
30028-07/-03/80 WRIGHT-COUNTY- STATE 272 EMPLOYER MED• C,4RE--W/H— 3.17 —
30028 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 222 EMPLOYER MEDICARE WIN 4.75
30078 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 222 EMPLOVER MEDICAPE WIN 5.24
30028 07/.03480 WRIGHT COLINTV STATE 222 -EM PL-0V.ER- MEDICARE -W, HW - 2.40-
5.907.71 *CHECK TOTAL
I
30029 07/03/90 YAEGER/F.LDON .90080 TREE REPLACEMENT PFOG 12.47-- -
GENERAL CHECKING TOTAL -_ 38.270.13
I
1
t_,^ERC FIiJANC'IAL SYSTEM, ;
0)/10,%90 -*09;:-1,T:2, _-,-"_- ---.��.,__ Oi:�hur•asm~nf,d2urrit-1-� m -
WARRANT C,AT•E vE.Nlo04 - :�E'�Cn^IPT']CN - 'C1•.fiUNT =,Lr-t.AiM, '.Ir1VG-3
GENEPAL CHECKING
----3QQ30-07-/'OS/?O-MM-!�,ET'P;Gr-f:c-,Nh•�•LIDPL�..-�..i(-MAt.yGtPeL7 Y-q•7-v-cF=-4r,a:;nl1...�r�_----"--_- -'
3GG31 07!09/90 CO+Pow- 5A7,!I'ATION 4? :;pFf•4GE ti�•1.'-fAGT/J +-?,.+C3.ti
30032 07/09/90 AME P.EAD� MD). _---+ -_ - S E-t;i80N- CO -NST
3,6
J47G.95 `- _- • -
-- 900x.3-09i?19/aCJ_6d{•--+.pu•a ,_O..gED-._-_' _ 3,5 -yrcr, -
3 004 1 07/09/90 MINNzgn'A STATE +:jt X62 OLO PE S174CHALb 1,C77.03
30442 07-/09/90 MON1ICE LLO Com.!vNI320 SUrMcR •EC PF'G C04 16.•500.00
30034
07/09/90 66:13GE.WATEk 1ELEPKCN
74
TELEPHONE CHARGES
676..70 �
'
--
30034
07-/U9F9G-6F-itwewA;ER-iatcDi.Fj•.----�u'-'iELEPMGNE-tiMA.iGt'+-•---^7i-.e`5-'•=-^^=---
-
30034
07/09/90 BRIDGEWATEk TELEPHON
24
TELEPHONE CHARGES
44.06
30034
07/09/90 BRIDGEWATER TELEPPC'N
24
TELEPHONE CHAPGEE•,
42.27
•
--310034--OT-/-0BL90-Ok•d
DIG EWATE-9-a{{{PHON
- -24
:EbEPHONE -CHARGES,-
7L.-2.2--------• --
30034
07/09/90 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
24
TELEPHONE {.IAPC-S
188.01
30034
07/09/90 BRIOGEWATER IElEPHON
N.
TEIEPHOvE CHJ;PGES
?0.00
•
- 30034--07/09/-9U--ORMGEwA:rER-4&LE-0HON--
--24-T'ELLRHONE--CHARGED'
t3.50------ - •-
30034
07/09/90 BRIOGEWATEk TELEPHON
24
TELEPHONE CHARGE$
38.79
30034
07/09/90 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
24
TELEPHONE CHARCES
?0.00
30034-0
7-/09/-90-BF•ILGEMAT{R-TFLEPNON--•24-TElE-P'+C•µf-6HAcfiE{
'a 6.38 �-- r- ��
30034
07/00/90 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
74
TELEPHONE C4A.4ES-
-37.03
30037
07/09/90 BRIOGEWAZE•R TELFPHCN
?4
'TELEP+ONE CHARGE$
11.00
30t.36-07'/-09%90-6R+oG 6w4'7_F.•-T L-EPHON-
6---
if Lf PHONE C;AAc'. --= 1$.FIE1-
TOTAL
1.207.40
"CHECK
'i
1 -
30035-07/•09=3�'�FCiStiN-v17:.SEf.Wir
- -4a rr.!�;JTcR
30036
07JC$r4Q'fiOLCitr"5 OriMLEirE;
9'QgG3•
:;ECVCLING OPTIE
.S.E!0
30037-
07/09/90
8"1
LI8De4V CLCANINS CC1JT
227`•50
a " . ,---30039
-0.✓-oei9D--HOGK'NEI--T•�-�;NSP�CRTrrTI.�=gii=,-ofp.-I.-
EiVc t use �-g p � •36. �: � -
3li039
07:/09"!.00 MARK :HOECeh+.0-ER
40092
GEC;±,C4SNG, =?T,3
-40,09,
Y
X17.
�c
30040
07/091;90 MIDWEST GJ`x COkPANP'
I":'S
U17 LI T1,ES
300140:
07109/,,90.MIOwEST. GAS COMPANY
1`15
UT ILITT,E�
1.1.13
3004,0,
00./00790 ►i]OHE$i Glc rnuFANy
115
LIT1tITTES`
c>
30040
0.)!09790 MiOa'?T-GAS-COMP>ANV
L)9
uiJL(TIE 5
0040
07,00/90 M10WEST 'LIZ;$ COM:Jt.JV-
115
6111ITIE$
'r
30040-07-/O0/90-Mi0wE6-T^GAS-COMPAN1
•- 115
1iTl,ETi•.S
7.06 ----.
^
30040
07/09%90 M1PWE81 GAS COMPANY
115
UTILITIES
5.47
1�I
3004,0
07/00/00 MIDWEST 'GAS COM,PAN'i
115
UTILITIES
15. 31
01,04 - •fuj-._L'' TfTA1
3 004 1 07/09/90 MINNzgn'A STATE +:jt X62 OLO PE S174CHALb 1,C77.03
30442 07-/09/90 MON1ICE LLO Com.!vNI320 SUrMcR •EC PF'G C04 16.•500.00
`L
.-ECIC FINANCI Al $YSTEM
-
07/10-/90-09da7:YI '---'- --,-- ---'--
- --'-
-- - --'
'
WARRANT"
047E V!<l.oR
OFSCRIPTI^:J
AMOUNT CLAIM 1NVOI
GENERAL CHECKING
r
--30043-OT/-0.9199-roQRinff:n-^yr.TES-P(wF-----�'�-•:rI�IT7E:--
-
3cY0t�'. - --"- - _
30043
07/09/90 NORTHERN STATES POWE
148
UTILITIES
i92.69
3 004 3
07/09/90 NORTHERN $1r,TES POW
148
UT3LIT7'_S
3.570.E1
-3004}07/09/90• -NORTHERN STATES-POWE
11.6
UTILITIES -----
— 84 .IS ------- -
30043
07/09/90 NOkIHERN SIATES POWE
i L 8
UTILITIES.
549.97
30043
07/09/90 NORTHERN STATES POWE
148
UTILITIES
24.67
30049
'03'1-09190-NOPfHE'RN-<.r-a•ES-�OwE.---10-6--UritY-iE--
-ro�-.OS----•
•
30043
01/09/90 NOPTHERN STATES �C•W'F
148
UT.' .:TIES
12.99
30043
07/09/90 NORI'HEkN STA'ES POWE
148
UTILITIES
24:.06
30043
07/09/90 NORTHEkm STATES--POwE-
143•-Vi1LiT4E9-----
•-=�+-0•:Y7--- -- - -
30043
07/09/90 NORTHEC'N STATES POWE
148
VTIL771ES
4'9.64
30043
07/09/90 NORTHF,PJJ STATES POWE
148
UTILITIES
867.23
30044
07/09/90 ROC:Ek 44IF'.
.00064
RECOCIING DkIIE
75.OL�
30045
07/09/90 WOLFSTEILFc/k1CHRl'0
217
MO7JTHLV MILEAGE
ALLOW 300.00
GENERAL CHECKING
TOTAL
5?.196.52
- -
-
ll
'E:�•C >-1 nl;r�"4,pr:.- c.Vcitrr
--^9Tf•1i-t.v0
-
Ii ARRANT GATE VErC)Cl'
"ESC'R?:TIO-J _t'MOU{J,7lip1)r••I'tJVt��
}j
-
uENE f'AL UiC-CKING
----5604'7-0T/1',-l90-f'A1C.^�'GARpE'tJ-C4-n"S k''•'^'S5'TnAIE-i'RE-E-'RE`S•:ACE'!!ft:9
47-:50-�---'•- -
1
,
L:
30047 07/11/90 FAIR',S GA?DEN CENTER
55
GRASS SEED/PARKS 5.00
r.
3001,7 n7/1.1/90 FAIP'S GAF'0Ero CENTER,
!:.S.
TkF.E C::LAf-f MtJT/S,T9 9.8.70.00
it
3DDh)-071-ty790-R'ai'.?•..j-r`,:Qpsv-Cfr.-'-r.�--
--r.g-Sr.6.1weY{'.
r••. ----"09•:-7.,- -
�.
.-
30OL7 07/11/90 Fr,IR'S Gr.RGErJ CE •Jt FP
SS
G.-Ass S.r•rw.;EP i0•rE6
I
30040 07/I1/90 GRl1YS. ,1G-r:SGN F 45c
74
CO!1%l!TER EV41VA�ipN = 503-.-1.5
_
30049 07/11/90 GRUVS. "OHNSON & AS;.
71,
ANNUAL AU0177 CrA?G 111.000,.00
30045 07/11/90 '. UWAC I.:C•'-N
?7
".-;AGE ?'(P EIJ S
?(,r119-Ott1vSO- tllti`ACtlr7rn;r__ --_-
a-.>-M-ZiA*S
E. x,C•r: E—'-•'•t•5-9D'--^....
.
30049 07/11/90 LVKACI'./:•:-:+
3?7
•t=LEAGE EYPENSE +0.67
50045 D7/t:/00 1!wACr!l.:pyt:
Yi7
MILEAGE EYENSE t0.bP
30JiJ 07/1,:90 E'. :'E10Iwl
_.,
+119
RfF'A:F,g,'•r..c'�• IRE ,..S,o.oD
•Y .•'
30051 07/11/00 -N OEC'ACT OF NATURAL
SNOWMOE!+.LE/HATED/ATV 700.00
--3965"^-L+�•��90-t'f71-t:'e-OC:T-kf{-•r•�'.:-...�
.7:•i;.`w!':-7r:3--'_�eaf;Bf"4--+•:,?9=r9--_-
,_mac
a
30053 07/11/90 SIMONSON LUM6EF CC-MP
193
MISC SUUPLIEI/PARKS 43,.90
-
:OUS3--0`r>•,•r19O-vI*tE•>t°E•v-;•Vw�fk-{•r�..F._.—...ys.
30053 07/11i90 SIMONSON LUM-RER Q-'
:93
r.15C aFwL•1f5�r�1REE9f: -r?.3'.-3.4.--_-.,..,.-_ 7
SIGN REPAIR SUPPLIES 29.3&
-
30053 07/11/90 SIMONSON LL'M4ER CO+1P
193
SLL7SON PARK LOG 0L
-3,0053 L`U";ufo-ft`+a.
_'. t9:5U9GcIi�Jvn^£•R•�fvT--_
"-.•0"_-.'.-------
-•'
1.534.00 'i>!EC1�
JOTry;
- -
- - 3005w 07/11/90 5Ti'>.w fQvT:1ER5'-"--' -
30
- -326,
Ctft+N•C`A4oF.T/Fga�-Hat 150:09•"-
"• -
GENE c CNECVING
TOTAL 19.1'2,.65
RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
-07/19-/90 111 12 :02 ----
WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM INVO)
GENERAL CHECKING
--30059-07/-43/90 ANDE-RSON/DAN----- - - .90066 SE-WER-/WATEFI E144P-PA;' -?4:00----- ----
30060 07/13/90 COMMISSIONER OF PEVE 37 WATER SALES TAX DUE 186.72
30061 07/13/90 MONTICELLO FIRE DEPA 135 FIRE DEPT PAYROLL 1.413.00
30061 07/13/90 MONTICELLO FIRE DEPA 135 MEDICARE W/H FIRE OP 6.59CR
30062 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYEES INS PREMIUM 941.66
30082 407/-13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF -----
30062 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 618.07
30062 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 150.03
34062-07 13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL—J. IF _-_.a7h�teDLOYJrRS-1N5_A¢EMIUM-158.^' ---
30062 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 150.03
30062 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 35.11
300b2-07X13/pD_Pl.'INCIP.AL-lt1UTlW- erne nvee•c INSnteMt.�r a8fl-,-gp_ _.
30052 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 91.10
30062 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 197.74
7006a--07./a3/AO--RR3N4IPA4-AVZUA1r-L3.F--.-47�.-fMPIOYi-RS--Iyt-P-RFMIJJAa-484.-7'
30062 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 621.19 '
30062 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 535.51
•,70062 -0.74-14440-A-RINC4PAL MJTVAI-IIF---.0-&{MP1,pYE•RS 14-.43— ---
30062 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 326.47
-- 30082 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 133.07
--- -30062-07/43140 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174-E-M0,.0V-EDS--1116 AIREMiVM-- S7.09-----
30002 07/13/90 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PREMIUM 91.10
30062 07/13/90 PRINCIDAL MUTUAL LIF 174 EMPLOYERS INS PPEMIUM 94.35
-- - - - -
4-00-35-- J-CM£LK- TOTAL
30063 07/13/90 SAL2WEDEL/PATTY 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONTR 513.25
30064 07/13/90 U.S. POSTMASTER 710 POSTAGE 500.00
GENERAL CNECKIN-2- TOTAL - - 6.695.7i -
d
CRC FINANCIAL SVSTEM
07/49/90-
11:43-:-16
e4 ---
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION Aw.6ONT CLAIM
INVOI
GENERAL CHECKING
----79e63
0.7/4.3-/96-CORROW-SANITATION----
-12
C-0,PP-F-C4—00D4,4G
29863
07/13/00
CORROW -SANTTATION
42
CORRECT CODING ERR 12.101.67
0.00 "CHECK
TOTAL
30055
07/13/90
WRIGHT COUNTY STATE
221
INVESTMENTS C.D.' 800.000.00
--3-0056 -07 /43 of90
-WR-IGHT COUNTY -STATE---
-771
30057
07/13/90
WCSe- 8, Wt'. P.O. BAPSAR
320
EDA REVOI-VING LOAN 88.000.00
30058
07/13/90
WRIGHT COUNTY STATE
221
INVESTMENTS C.D'S 600.000.00
30065-07./12/90
JOMNSONIMIVE —90062
IRAVEL-CAAENS -- —252.915--
30066
07/19/90
PIMmELE ENGINEERING.
??g
PURCHASE OF 68.8 P 51-016.72
30 067
07/19/90
REMMELE ENGINEERING.
329
PURCHASE Or OUTLOT 5.e52.84
•
-300S8--0l1J9/90
WRIGHT. -C-OUN3'V—"OLIT0
30069
07/19/90
WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD
254
RECORDING FEES 20.00
30070
07/10/90
I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT
60
PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS T 500.93
30070
07/19/90
I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT
80
PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 182.04
ACHE -CK
TZTA4
30071
07/19/90
STATE CAPITOL CREDIT
198
PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 30.01
3007?
07r"9J"
A T & T INFO SYSTEMS
15
FIRE PHONE CHARGES 3.96
3007 3
0 7./-1 0/9"OAM'-S
-PEST- CONIM.
30074
O?jle/QO
AMSPICAN lJAT'TONAl 6A
7
7NIEPUT OUEJ8ONDS 0.103.75
.--.-30074
07/22/90
AMERICAN NAT10NAL, RA,,
-7
1 NTE RE ST _ZUE MOND S. -t4.j 39. 7 6,
30071
01,/18/90
AMERICAN NAITONAL 04
7
INIEPEST DUEISONDS 13.300.00
30074
07/10/20
AMERICAN NATIONAL PA
7
INTEREST DUF/SONDS 12.4F-0.00
3007&
07 t10/90
AMERICAN NAT70VAt FA
7
T N I E k f S T 0 1! E l el OND S. 4 ,091.25
30074
Wis/ao
AMERICAN 14 A T I CN A -, F3A
7
1 'J T F. P EIS 7 35.915.25
30071
07/18I90
AMERICAN NAI IC-!:tL V.
7
]NlEkrSJr DoimoNrjs scl.13c.25
-3007.4
07/18/00
AmE-R I CAN NATZONAL E.A
I
INTME43- OUZ1601909- 1 1.4"-00-
30071,
07/16/90
AMERICAN NATIONAL EA
7
INTEREST DUE/BONDS 15.667.60
193.418.75 -CHECK
TOTAL -
3007b
07/18t90
ANDERE-ON 9 ASSOCIVE
*0
VicIffy
30078
07/18/90
AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS
17
RADIO/WATER REFEDVOTP 781.30
30077
07/18/90
AUTOMATIC GARAGE D03
?60
REPA294/WAGE DODR 86.00
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01-Sbaem"t, -d clurn all
WARRANT
OA1F
VENDOP
DESCkTPTICN AMOUNT CLAIM INVOI
GENERAL CHECKING
D__.oC
30079
07/10/90
BERGSTROM SPOS. INC.
?I
PARTS/STREET DEPT 2.00
30080
07/1e/90
BOSE/TOM
336
MILEAGE EXPENSE 43.00
--30061
07Y19/90
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS.-
--25
teAISS-V/STPEET CK -PT 152-.-75
30062
07/18/90
BURLINGTON NORTHERN
337
SEWER COLL SUR CHARGE 23.00
30083
07/16/90
BUSINESS RECORDS CDR
27
COMPUTER SOFTWARE P 3.794.10
-31106
LABS—
-7-6
-CLSAP44N6-5UP4-PAQV.S
30085
07/19/90
COAST To COAST
35
INFO CENTER REPAIRS 31.74
30065
07/10400-00ASST
T-0 COAST--
36
-CHFMICAL-WAP4S To,
30095
07/16/90
COAST TO COAST
35
MISC REPAIR PARTS/PARK 35.55
30085
07/10/90
COAST TO COAST
35
CLEAN SUPPLIES/ANIMAL 78.99
3 008 5-0-7
1-1-0490-00A S -T- -T-O -COAS-T- — -
36610-REP*IPs./-PA"S ?1,$'-
?1,4'3ooe5
30085
07he/90
COAST TO COAST
35
SUPPLIES/WATER DEPT 98.77
30095
07/16/90
COAST TO COAST
35
'UPPLIeS/SEWFP DEPT 73.21
-30095--07/1@/90-COAST-
TO- COAST- -
35
SMAtL-TOQLSi�AQK- -OEP;- 45:79 •----- - --
5,-.79-
30085
30085
07/18/90
COAST TO COAST
35
SMALL 700LS/SHOP 25.26
30005
07/10/90
COAST TO COAST
35
EQUIPMENT PARTS/PARKS 9.07
36005
07/ iO/QD
-COAST- TO COAST-
35
81,0 - OEPAIR- -0
30085
07/18/90
COAST TO Cr -AST
35
SUDPLIES/STPEET DEPT 4G.09
30005
07/10/90
COAST TO COAST
35
CLEANW SUPPLIES/LIB 12.28
30066
07/le/90
COAST I'D COAST
35
SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT—
30005
07/10/90
COAST TO COAST
35
MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 52.52
547.09 -CHECK TOTAL
30006
07/10/90
COPY',OUPLCA7ING PROD
4 i
COPY MTCILIBQAPY 40.20
30067
07/40/90
DOT Y/KAREN;
Li 0
MItEAGE EIAPENEE 315.96 -
30009
07/18/90
DUERR'S WATER CARE 9
49
WATER CARE/RENTAL HS 14.25
30089
07/iS/90
EULL CONCRETE PPVD✓)C
314
CC-N0,kElE1!.TkEfTS 90.40
30090
07/10/90
FIRST TRUST CENTER
59
INTEREST VUE -ON SON 3,791.15
30090
07/18/90
FIRST TRUST CENTER
50
INTEREST DUE ON SON 4.118.75
30090
07/10/90
FIRST TRUST CENTER
50
INTEREST DUE ON SON 4.727.50
30090
07/10/90
FIRST TPVST CENTER
50
PAYING AGENT FEES 1^9.30
30090
07/10190
FIRST TR'j,.T CENTER
50
INTIEREST DUE r.N " 24.657.50
30090
FIRST TFUST CENTER
5t
PAYING AGFNT FEES 607.90
30000
07/10/90
FIRST TRUST CENTER
50
1990 00 BOND PAY 620.000.00
30020
07/1e/90
FIRST TF UST CENTER
58
INTEF.Erl ON G.O. e 20.717.50
too .e14.20 "CHECK TOTAL
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
- -07/19190 - t 1 :13:
I6- - -
-
- -- ------0i•sDur�em!nT-JOurne}-
---- ---
-�
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AM•?UNT CLAIM
INVDI
-,
GENERAL CHECKING
-- 30091
07/18/90-FVLE--BRAD
-- -----•--
6?-TRAVEL-4M-PENSf-
200.-25
-'
30092
07/18/90
GENERAL RENTAL CENTE
64
DENTAL/ELLISON PK SHLT
47.65
30093
07/18/90
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIP
337
RE"ATRS/TANKER/FIRE DP
12.00 -
^
---d4D094
07/48/90-GOPHER
STATE ONE--CAL-
- 69
Poor---•---
30095
07/18/90
HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
78
EQUIPMENT PARTS/PARKS
10.05
34DO95
07/18/90
HARRY'S AUTO DNP.L'LV
-.'-" 7-8-FAN-lFMEl+s--P AA7S-Ly71t`6frL+.O�l.� -
_ 30095
07/18/SO
HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
78
VEHICLE PARTS/STREETS
9.73
30095
07/18/90
HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
78
SUPPLIES/TREE DEPT
10.00
--3DD95-W-/18190_-HAE6Y'S-ALTO
SUPPL-Y_
7.
-SAWPLIEWWATJa-D.U.1-
32..53---
- --
30095
07/18/90
HAR4i'S AUTO S1.100LY
78
PEPAIR OAPTS/WATFP 00
3.00
_
30095
07/18/90
HAPPY'S AUTO SUPPLY
78
UFR3CANTE/.HOP & GAR
4.45
__3DOSS
-02-/78/90.JiARRY'S
AUTO-SUPP-LY
__ ]_9.SUPPELIESISHOD_.
Ll-.,)Fl
• 30095
07/18/90
HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
78
LUBRICANTS/SEWER
11.60
30095
07/18/90
HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
78
SIGN REPAIR PARTS
5.40
90096
07/16/90
HAVES/WILMA
285
INFO CENTER SALARY
164.00
-30046.
034--18-60
HAVZSIWILMA - - --
--- 285
INFO LfW7{�{.ALAC-1v---57_ZbC,C.--
112.75 'CHECK
TOTAL
- - --34097
-07/-18/40
-NCR CONSTRUCT70N. IN
330
.12S"00---- --- -. -
- - -
30098
07/18/90
HERMES/JERRY
01
LI6oARY CLEANING CONT
2?7.50
e
30099
07/10/90
INDUSTRIAL ALLOYS CO
323
SUPPLIES/SHOP 8 GARAGE
97.00
30100
07/4.8/90
INT UNION OF OPEPAT
_ -90
11NI4N DUES- -- ----
96.00
3010t
O7/18/90
INTERSTATE DETROIT D
371
VEHICLE PARTS/STREET
708.24
30102
07/18/90
J M OIL COMPANY
85
LUBRICANTS/STREETS
12.24
30102
07/18/90
J M OIL COMPANY
95
LUFRICANTS/FIRE
16.95
---
91.-20 -CH=CK
TOTAL
30103
07/18/90
JFNSEN/CHpIS
.90065
REPLACi�t,.T OF SHRUBS
6..?6
-30104
07/19/00
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
96
MEMEERE'-IP DUES 1.659.00
L-
30108
07/18/00
LEER66ENI,JANETTE
794
IN90 CENTER FAL-ARV
196.0+
30108
07/18/90
LEERSSEN/ i.iNETTE
2E4
TNF CE1•T;F :AwA;Y
?3.1lCR
72.68 •CHECV
1010A
30108
07/10/90
LIEFERT/TOM
.00068
TRAVEL EXPENSE
62.90
'( BRC FINANCIAL_ SYSTEM
--
WARRANT
DATE
VEN:OOR
OESCRTPTION
-
AMOUNT CLAIM
INVO_
GENERAL CHECKING
• - -30107
07/1-8/•90
-LITTL-E M04.•NTAIN-EL•EC
'101 E! 1 -?04,.9}--
-
30108
07/18/90
LCNG !AXE FO40 TRACT
31 7 REAPING PACT/S*REST
69.24
30108
07/18/90
MAUS FOODS
106 t.":7MAL CLEANING SUP
?1.78
- 30109
07/18/90
MAUS FOODS
108 SUPPLIES/TORCH kUN
100.23
MAUS F-QOC'S
1U8 CIEcNING-5ua1HBRARY-
?6-:05----------'
30109
07/18/90
MAUS FOODS
108SUPrLIES/SHOP
4.10
'- 30109
07/16/90
MAUS FODE, S
100 5UPPLIES/CITY HALL
7.57
------
'--
-- --- - --- ---
--.
X72..-f•3-�GHELA-TvTAI
30110
07/16/90
MID CENTRAL. INC.
113 MISC SUPPLIES/FIRE OP
365.05
.. 30111
07/18/90
MINN. REAL ESTATE JO
335 MAGA2IME ARTICLE
925.00
--30112-07•/18/90
MINNESOTA RURAL MATE-
• 128 MEMBERSHIP• DUES ---100.00--'-"
'
30113
07/18/90
MN CLERKS 6 FIN OFFI
315 MEMBERSHIP DUES
25.00
30114
07/16/90
MONTICELLO CLINIC
301LAD TESTS/J.LUKACH
15.00
30-115-07/
WOO
-MONTICELL0-OFF ICE PR-
136 OFFICE SUPPLIES-
320.75- -
-
30115
07/18/90
MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
130 SUPPLIES/TORCH RUN
4.50
_ 30115
07/10/90
MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
138 OFFICE SUPPLIES/SEVER
24.18
- -
- '--
- -
- - - -- _ --
349.*-1---+CHECK-TOTAL
30116
07/18/90
MONTIC_�LI.0 PRINTING
1_1T PRINTING/FIFE
30.65
30116
07/19/90
MONTICELLO PP.:NIING- -
137 PLO PEPMTT FORMS- ' - -
45.65
30116
07/16/90
MONTICELLO PRINTING
131 SEVER WATER CARDS
10.80
30110
07/10/90
MONTICELLO PPINTING
1?7 SEWEP WATER CARDS
10.00
" 30-118-07/10/90
MONTICELLO PRINTING
1') C1!PS/i.E05E- -
- 6-0.90-
78.!0-144.20
144 .20-CHECK
TOTAL
30117
07/19/90
MOODY'S INVESTORS SE•
3 13 G.O. BLIND FEES 1.738.40
i
30117
07/10%90
MOODY'S INVESTORS SE
3 13 G.O. BOND FEES 7.203.60
4.000.00
1:RZCK
TOTAL
DOUR
07/10/90
MOON MOIOR '/.E S. IN
42 EO!1IPMENT PARTS/PARVS
32.90
30118
07/18/90
MOON MOTOR EALE3. IN
142 REPAIRS/PARKS
3.95
30118
07/10/90
MOON MOTOR SALES. IN
1462 SUPPLIES/PARAS
7.90
30110
07/10/90
MOON MOTOR SALES. IN
142 VEHICLE PARTS/PARKS
20.70
73.53 -CHECK
TOTAL
30119
07/19/90
NATIONAL BUSHING PAP
1 40 1UPPLIES/9cWER
'.3?
30119
07/10/90
NATIONAL GUSHING DAR
1 LL E.UPPLIES/WATER DEPT
1.10
4.42 -CHECK
T0141.
30120
07/18/90
NELSON/AL 0 JULI'_
1 45 NEwluAPER SUSCRIPTION
17.10
4
ERCFINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/19/90 t-1:13:18
--- - -
- - -•-
----- i'S-�burser.++en!-,fournad-----------
WAF;RANT
DATE
VErc00R
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM
^-
INVOI
GENERAL CHECKING
- - - 3012-1•-07/18/90
NORT14FRN--- - - •- ---
3?}{OMRREE3OR-/L+4.-T-ER-C+f��-599.99-1----
-
30122
07/18/90
NORTHERN OXYGEN $EP.V
147
SU?PLIES/FIRE DEPT 13.50
30173
07/18/90
NORWEST BANK MINNESO
154
G.O. BOND INTEREST 3.067.50
_
30123
07/18/90
NORWEST BANK MINNESO
154
PAVING AGENT FEES 200.00
- 30173-07118/90-NORWEST
BANK MINNESO-
-154
30123
07/18/90
NORWEST BAUK MINNESO
154
PAVING AGENT FEES 200.00
30173
07/10/90
N04•WEST BANK MINNESO
154
PAYING AGENT FEES 200.00
30123-07/18/90
NORWEST BANK MiNNESO
--:54-G.0.,SC44YTA; T4"6i•7-i•1-84.7-50--__
_ 30123
07/10/90
NORWEST BANK MINNESO
154
G.O. BOND INTEREST 1.635.00
30123
07/18/90
NOPWEST BANK MINNESO
154
PAVING 4GENT FEES ?00.00
30123
0]J-1B/9D-NORWEST
BANK M.IVNESO-___
�54�•AV1NG dGENi_-FEEi�_?OII.D0.^-_ _ _
-
30123
07/10/00
NORWEST SANK MINNESO
154
G.O. BOND INTEREST 3.720.00
30173
07/18/90
NOF'VEST SANK MI NNE SO
154
G.O. BOND IN-EREST 9.350.00
.-30]23.
07/-2B./90_
NORWESI BANK-MINNE$O.
- _54-PA'fl!lG Ac ENT Fric
50.057.50 *CHECK
TOTAL
- 30.124..O-7/-LSJVDA'COt+NOR/MICHAELJ7.
_.—.283
,
30125
07/10/90
OMANN BROTHERS. INC.
334
STREET MTC SUPPLIES 136.85
30125
07/18/90
PLUMBERV-PURCELL'S P
251
BLD REPAIR SUP/PARKS 55.17
_
30176
07/18/90
PLUMOERY-PURCELL'S P
251
SUPPLIES WATER DEPT 1.09
57.06--- SCMECK.TOTAL
30127
C7/tE'/90
PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
173
FIRE HALL CLEANING 50.00
30127
07/18/90
PREUSSE'S CLF-ANING.6
173
CITV- HALL "tAN#JG-
650.00 4CHECK
TOTAL,
30128
01J/14/00
OUALITV LAWN MAINTEN
319
MOWINVOT-r-Y WAbt70.•00---- -
30170
071/0/90
QUALITY LAWN MAINTEN
319
MOWING/FIRE HALL 70.00
30120
07/18/90
OUALITY LAWN MAINTEN
319
N.OWIN,i/LIBRARY 70.00
3D 128
07/18/90-OUALIIV
LAWN-MAINTEN-
319
tAISC MiwING/BLIGFLL 520_80
730.00 -CHECK
TOTAL'
30179
07/18/60
RED'S MnDIL
324
RftAI9-,/F7cE DEPT 14 7.4.4
30130
07/18/00
'EED'S SAI,fS { .'RVI
306
fL1,F$, ETC./PACK OE''T $2.24
30131
07/19/90
ROVtt TIRE OF MONTIC
727
VEMICIE REPAIPS/WATER 177.04
)0131
07/19/00
ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC
?27
PEPAIRS/FIRE DEPT 223.93
30131
07/16/90
ROYAL T7L( OF MANTIC
227
cEoa7RS/DARK{ 33.17
301''-1
07/1El90
FD+A1, 7I•E OF M{:7I
12:
V3HIC:= 99C/STREET` 191.90
870.89 -CHECK
TC -AL
30132
07/19/90
SAFETV-KLEIN CORP.
164
NTC AGPFE/STREET DEPT 64.00
A
.� BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07119/90—•1.1:13:16-- - - - -- 0"puraenent-Joarnsi ---
WARRANT OA1"F VENDOR PESCRIF,TION A-OL1NT CLAIM INVOI
GENERAL CHECKING
- --30x33--07/IBd80-iCHERER-EANITAi7C'N - 196 LATRINEEN;.'.t :?-00--------
30134, 07/18/90 SORBUS 318 MTC AGfEE/CCMDUTER 1.3:7.00
30135 07/18/90 TEAM CHOICE ?28 BASES & GROUND PLUGS 196.00
--30136-07-/-18/90 -TEAM-LABORATORY CHEM-- -331 CtiEMICALSJ'EVERfa-4:25-08- -- -
30137 07/16/90 UNI TOS RENTAL SERVIC ?11 COVE RALLS/T,MOORES 6.4,0
----�O-137-07-1-19/90 UNITOG RENTAt SERVIC --• 211 UNIFORM REN4/L "V2-BO - •
30137 07/18/90 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 211 UNIFORM, RENTAL 25.75
30137 07/18/90 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 29.4,8
----30-1"39--07-/I"90•-UNI TOG RENTAL -SE-RVIt - -2-1-1 UNIFORM RENT-At-- -0.-71----
30137
0.7i ---30137 07/18/80 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 11.09
90137 07/18/90 UNITOG RENTAL SFkVIC 711 LIN IF ORM RENTAL 16.02
102..?3-•4CHECK-TOTAL
90138 07/18/90 UNOCAL 213 BATTERIES/WATER DEPT 7.16
-30198. 09118/90-UNOCAL-- ----- 213- GASYWATER-OEoi -- 18.57 ---
23.73 *CHECK TOTAL ,
--90t99-07/19/90"-WRIGMT COUNTY AUDITO- 219 JULY CONTRACT -"MT "-
30140 07/18/90 Y.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO 724 JULY CONTRACT PAYMT 025.00
GENERAL CHECKING 'TOTAL 3.321.06?.71
i
C
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
:4-5bur__-_-_ dou"a1 --
�7a WARRANT DATE VENDOR
Ita,
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
CLAIM INVO
Iui
�pLiL4U R UND
sr1
1-54 E04-G-AI--SERVICE-800054—C+IECK YO*OEC
�y
c•� 15180 06/20/80 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE
800052 EMPLOYEE FICA W/H
189.73
t° Sa
•bo-O8/-24/90-WR4"T--GOUN7.Y-STATE-800052-EMPLOYER--F-ICle-W/W
188 13
--
��� 15180 06/20/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE
800052 FEDERAL W/H
269.77
.s, 15160 06/20/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE
800052 EMPLOYEE MEDICARE
W/H 9.41
's i1-1-80-88-40AO--W"GH7-COUNTY-67A-TE--00062-EMPL-0YE4-MEGILARE-WtV 8
--
:�°
686.05
$CHECK TOTAL
�` - - 1518.1-09/-20%90-JOHNSON-EROS MMOL-ESA
-800022-L-IOUOR-PHRC-HASE—F-.349-.i
9-
- -
.c 15181 06/20/90 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022 WINE PURCHASE
1.276.75
«
�
2.620.23
*CHECK TOTAL
L
it 15182 09/20/90 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM
800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE
4.923.29
`-'--ab-793--08/-20/-0d�R1194-IC-SMPbOYEE.fr-R6.�-900038-EMRLLYf�AERA-W/II '04.3
—_-- .
15183 06/20/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET
800039 EMPLOYER PERA W/H
110.52
214.97
*CHECK TOTAL
KI 15184 09/27/90 COMMISSIONER OF REVE
800005 MN STATE TAX W/H
249.92
'
iq
—!6106-08i EQ--Q-00M-0000 G Li000R-PURG06ASE----3.
st-.:1
15185 06/27/90 GRIGGS. COOPER i COM
800019 GRENADINE MIX
17.35
3.999.00
*CHECK TOTAL
t' 15186 05/27/90 PHILLIPS 8 SONS CO/E
800037 LIQUOR PURCHASE
2.992.62
15180 06/27/90 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E
000037 WINE PURCHASE
709.55
?x:O"-17--•CHECK-TOTAL
= LIQUOR FUND
_ d
TOTAL
18.053.04
r.
c
it
C
rff�
:1 E1RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
-_--07'/�»��-Q8`•tPS'.17'—� _—J'1'SbOTSC�IRIT'J
OQr'tld•
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT CLAIM INVC
16`
r
'u
LIQUOR FUND
ss ;5:99--98i3M99-'dOHa90N-BROS--WrrOtf-S'A-BBOOP4--ti000R-4UH�5:
15187 06/30/90 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022 WINE PURCHASE
942.76
'u
.o
1.585.93 VCHECK TOTAL
•,r 15198 06/30/90 CHUCK TWEOT SEMINARS
.90061 SEMINAR REGISTRATION
39.00
Kb
-15-Y88-'08'/40>91)�Rf4?'.—C009ER-%-COM-8000t9-7.i4U0R-Dt1RCMA'sE
:.:, :.3_
sr
15190 06/30/90 EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012 WINE PURCHASE
958.31
15191 06/30/90 OUALITY WINE & SDIRI
600040 LIOUOR PURCHASE
404.08
"t 15191 06/30/90 OUALITY WINE & SPIRI
600040 WINE PURCHASE
746.06
' .ISO -02 —"CHECU-TOTAL
Q 15192 08/30/90 JOHNSON EROS WHOLESA
800022 WINE PURCHASE
1.532.58
1•
g; —1 5-192-0 813 0 /90-dOHNSON-8209--MMOL-ESA--900044-1-IOOOR-PUROHASE 2:-194:40 ----
tr
3.725.03 *CHECK TOTAL
.• LIOtf9R--Fur d rEz:.. 3.99'9-05 ,
u.
rc�
r�
r
c
i
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
87-/03198-1+. [-M-:a 2 -^ — -----01 sbe: _ -, _ _ t ! . w•ne3---
�.� WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAIM INVC
` LIOUOR FUND
"r-15-193-Oa-1-03�-90-MiOWE�T-SAS-LGMFMNi-9000?8 H�Titi3IES•---4.-24 --------
;es
•�15194 07/03/90 MN MUNICIPAL BEVERAG 800029 MEMBERSHIP DUES 3'0.00
[9
it 15195 07/03/90 PERA (LIFE INSI 800063 LIFE INSURANCE DUE 9.00
`r--s6196-47443-/40-P1+8L fMPL0v{-ES-R -T 8001139-EMW.-0vEE -AER'--•-
°15196 07/03/90 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET 800039 EMPLOYER PERA WIN 101.92
x'
cs 108.14 •CHECK TOTAL
cc 15197 07/03/90 STATE CAPITOL CREDIT 600044 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 250.00
s
-[,—:is-Ig6--Oatl-03•F90-•W�}GH�-GAIwFY-6TH:S 800052-4#4PL-4v{E-Pi4A-W,.--i74-.4'. ----
,s1 15198 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 800052 EMPLOYER FICA WIN 174.04
00 15798 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 800057 FEDERAL WIN 202.01
s.`l--1SJ$a—D�-�Dd/-0O—WR-I G11.�GOYNS Y—ZLAZFr-600063--6?sPL11YEf ,.E--.. ,, Q.ff --_
15198 07/03/90 WRIGHT COUNTY STATE 800052 EMPLOYER MEDICARE WIN 9.56
629.21 *CHECK TOTAL
or,
LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 1.403.59
cry
•1
K
Ii
'f [I
�r
.l
' sl'
� CII
ERC FINANCIAL
SVSTEM
fL'
^09i-ro-f
::.
:..
..ice..... _....�...
.,,,,,.....r.
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT -CLAIM
1NVOI
iv
i•�
LIQUOR FUND
lo,
I`9
r9
15
99
BET.-%::. -.
E
Too,.uo
15?02
07/0Oi90
BRIDGEWATER TELEGHON
80000?
TELEPHONE CHARGES
19.27
c•'
15203
07/09/90
COAST TO COAST
800004
BULBS b AIR. FILTER
??.73
F-
5 2 0
80009-eE:f: Fm'`•:::..:t
-3-2,,S.:C
-
�ss'
15204
07/09/90
DAHLHETMER DISTRIf.UT
000009
MIX PURCHASE
78.75
r=
18.91.9.85 -CHECK
TOTAL
'1q
�c
15205
07/09/90
DAN 8 JERRY'S GP.EENH
800069
SHURBS 6 LAWN MAINT
59.50
sr �-t5'Y08--8i'/49f90-DRY--OS-3FRtBI�TiNB-00M-B009t0
BEER-PHR2MA`:E
.'
15207
07/09/90
DICK BEVERAGE COMPAN
800011
MISC PURCHASES
45.50
DICK -8E•VERAbE-eOMPA
OQG+4*'SZ
'i.7iAri_L'
��.
2.264.20 •CHECK
TOTAL
t5?08-99t091"..
:.,..-:L _..- ... is
6:68,b
:M-F.�ila;i. 7..P
:50.95I
AL1
15209
07/09/90
GRIGGS. COOPER 6 COM
800018
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1.679.95
15210
07/09/90
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1800019
BEER PURCHASE
13.270.12
t--t5�1 .
:/:O�UOs CAnOY-Lr f06RCC0-QOQO4t-ti3°--C�ft..e.
ETE
3:7.9:
15211
07/09/90
JUDE CANDY @ TOBACCO
800021
LIQUOR BAGS
123.55
N1
15211
07/09/90
JUDE CAf;DY T00ACCO
800021
MISC. PURCHASES
64.00
15212
07/09/90
F'MOM RADIO STATION
$00060
ADVERTISING
200.00
T
I
15213
07/09%90
KOLL'ES SANITATION
60C•023
GAROAGE SERVICE
20.40
-•15,2
09 -mrI
CH QPGES "
- 096:4* --- - --
-•
' -
15215
07/00/90
MAUS FOODS
800027
MISC. SUPPLIES
15210
07/09/90
_ _
MN.NATIONAL GUARD EN
*00056
�T17.59
ME-'ERI4HIP ClUft
30.00
4 _;
—M92ii
04/09190 MOH410ELc0 OFFICE-0R 50003.1.
9fFICE-SUPPLIES-----fa9-3a
A`,,•+�
15219
07/09/90
MONTICELLO-TIMES
600032
AOVE.RTISING _
r 151.00 _
15219
07/09/90
NORTHERN !TATE$ POWE
*00035
UTILITIES
9'6.46
i P1
15-220
07 f091*0
-O"MARA RPOS: COMPANI
-900059
-CUP-H00ER3. ETC--
-
15220
07/09/90
O'MARA EROS. COMPANI
600056
Mtc PURCHASE
4.50
114.30 •CHECf
TOTAL
C
'•�
BRC FINANCIAL SVSTEM
I '_ ..-0.7-/-1-0./�---OG...a.3r_1 (` �...� ._'^•L�'{•9DUP9tRM'rdOU I.11! -a -�-•
la'
-�
WARRANT DATE VENDOR. DESCRIPTION
A-OUNT CLAIM- INVOI
LIOUOR FUND
5 -2 -24 -044 -WOO OVA++TY—L-AW?'P-4-ITEN 8000x-0--L-0e+N—MAi*TEt'Ar::E
'f -.•Q9
Ihai
15222 07/09/90 QUALITY WINE & SDIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE
4.385.50
.'u'--.�•.—.^.-7-/681-90—OUAl3S•Y—v7µF8-6�iR3-B00"0—WdNE—PVR6MASE-----302-.�-3--
4.747.83 *CHECK TOTAL
,E:
•
"A
t -5 -44j -X 09/99--4.0N-�9c3 eOMoaroY-90004-rlf.f -0H?C-H-AS:
86-i.S: -
•t
15224 07/09/90 SEVEN-UP BOTTLING CO 800043 POP PURCHASE
100.00
15225 07/09/90 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 BEER PURCHASE
16.602.35
--`'
e•? —
a•
.ar
15277 07/09/90 ?EE MEDICAL SERVICE 800054 MEDICAL SUPPLIES
21.95
n'
LIOUOR FUND TOTAL
63.372.38
h r'
1rl
,1!
It
C
' iR . E=lt:t,e:C. A•_ °V,5.'r^. �, � � � +
,s7m—T-.mT
-, urn8l1___7
GPUVS. JOi4NSCt.'J &. ASS
WARRANT DATE VE Nook
DA scp TPT,7.0ri
AMOUNT CLAIM JNV
LIOU-C-R FUND
ti
oc
lee
_et"TS
07/11/90
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/F
800037
WINE PURCHASE
353.88
jut
.....
15229 07/-11/80 FAIR'S GARDEN
CENTj k 800071 SHRUGS -& PLANTS
168-.35
15230
07/11/90
GPUVS. JOi4NSCt.'J &. ASS
800070
AUDIT CHARGES
1..500.00
11
lee
15232
07/11/90
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/F
800037
WINE PURCHASE
353.88
jut
.....
.
1.255.20 -CHECKr
..
....... . ". Z o L,
:18
-Ile15233
07/11/90
QUALITY WINE 6. SPIRI
800010
WINE PURCHASE
1.568.07
t
1.730.63 -CHECK TOTAL
o z1
15234
07/11/90
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT
800045
TOMATO JUICE
IbI
15234
07/11/80
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT
800045
LIQIJOR MIX & COOLERS
175.48 I
-I. ie e' E -C -X -401 -AL
LIQUOR FUND
TOTAL
6.970. 77
�LCC
JU,
11
COUNCIL UPDATE
July 18, 1990
Status of union contract neqotiations with public works employees.
(R.W.)
The two-year contract with the public works department employees
expired April 1, 1990. The City's labor representative, Attorney
Mike O'Connor, and myself have met a couple of times with the union
representatives to discuss their contract demands. Typically, two
to tour meetings are required before the negotiations are
completed; and recently we had thought that the list of demands had
been pared down to a reasonable amount, including some contract
language changes, and we felt we had reached an equitable agreement
on a tentative salary increase for the union members similar to the
percentage increase that has occurred for other non-union
employees.
While I thought this would be settled by now, we recently received
a notice that the union is petitioning for mediation services in
regard to this contract renewal. While we are not exactly sure why
the union is requesting mediation since we thought we had arrived
at a reasonable offer, it does appear that the contract renewal may
take a little while longer than anticipated.
The union membership had requested a couple of changes in regard to
the work schedules and the City's contribution for health insurance
premiums that we have been pretty adamant about not changing. In
regard to the work scheduling, the employees would like to have
summer hours whereby they would start at 7:00 a.m., reduce their
lunch hour by one-half hour, and finish work at 3:30 p.m. The City
has opposed any changes to the City's right of scheduling work
hours. While I realize the employees would like to have their
shift end at an earlier time during the summer, I believe it may be
a problem In having the public works employees off work at 3:30
while the supervisors and Public Works Director, along with City
Hall, would still be expected to work until 4:30 or later. In
addition, many of the summer job requirements of the public works
department could not be started at 7:00 a.m. such as mowing grass,
cutting troes, etc., and I feel this earlier start may be
unproductive. At this point, the City will continue to oppose any
contract language that would give up our right to scheduling of all
work hours. The union is also requesting that the City's
contribution for group health Insurance premiums be the same as all
non-union employees; and again, we are opposing that change and
have indicated that if the employees within the union expect to be
troatud exactly like non-union employees, we question why they wish
to continue to be represented by the union.
As for as the salary increases are concerned, it appears that the
union and the City are in agreement on the wage increase in the 4%
to 4-1/2% range for the next two years.
Council Update
July 18, 1990
Page 2
Hopefully, a proposed contract renewal agreement will be presented
to the Council in the near future for ratification; but if we
actually get into mediation, 1 may be seeking Council input on the
labor agreement.
C