City Council Agenda Packet 03-11-1991AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
61 Monday, March 11, 1991 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen, Clint Herbst,
Brad Fyle
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February 25,
1991.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of a simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing residential lot and part of another existing
residential lot into two residential lots. Applicant, Donald
and Joan Doran.
5. Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
section 6-3, permitting accessory uses in an R-1, R-2, R-3,
and PZM zone by adding "sale of items including automobiles,
recreational vehicles, boats, and other equipment. Items sold
limited to six items per property annually and limited to
items owned by property owner." Applicant, City of
Monticello.
6. Consideration of ordinance amendment pertaining to Council and
Planning Commission meeting times.
7. Consideration of amending personnel policy.
8. Consideration of gambling license - Ducks Unlimited Banquet.
9. Consideratiun of purchasing fire door placards for apartment
buildings in the city of Monticello.
10. Council update on present car allowance policy and City
vehicle use.
11. Review concepts on sewor and water assessment for trunk sowor.
12. Adjournment.
A
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 25, 1491 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen,
Clint Herbst, Brad Fyle
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of minutes.
Motion was made by Brad Fyle, seconded by Clint Herbst, to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 11,
1491, as written. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
4. Consideration of adootina an ordinance establishinq a police
advisory commission.
City Council reviewed the ordinance prepared by Administrator
Wolfsteller. Dan Blonigen noted that the ordinance should be
amended to include only city residents on the commission. Ken
Maus noted that the City of Rockford has a police commission
and at least one member of the Rockford commission must be a
juvenile. Maus noted that we may also wish to consider
allowing a juvenile to serve on the Monticello Police
Commission.
After discussion, it was concluded that the police commission
should have a hand in establishing the final wording of the
ordinance.
Brad Fylo indicated that he would like to serve on the police
commission.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Dan Blonigon, to approve establishment of a police
commission but table final approval of the wording of the
ordinance pending input from the police commission membership.
Motion carried unanimously.
Pago 1
J
Council Minutes - 2/25/91
5a. Consideration of accepting the annual report on the 1990
economic development activities.
011ie Koropchak reported that in conformance with Star City
recertification requirements, the Industrial Development
Committee presents to Council an annual report on the 1990
economic development activities, which includes specific
accomplishments made during the year.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Clint Herbst, to accept the report as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
5b. Consideration of adoptino a resolution to approve the 1991
Economic Development Work Plan and the Industrial Development
Committee proposed budoet.
011ie Koropchak reported that in conformance with Star City
recertification requirements, the Industrial Development
Committee presents to the City Council the 1991 Economic
Development Work Plan and the IDC proposed budget for review
and approval.
Shirley Anderson asked how the position of Economic
Development Director is funded. Administrator Wolfstellor
reported that the Industrial Development Committee provides
408 of the revenue for the position, and the City finances the
remainder.
Council discussed the task of hosting a mooting to discuss
local property taxes with County Assessor, Doug Gruber;
County Commissioner, Pat Sawatxko; and City Council. Ken Maus
noted that a 108 increase in commercial valuation has been
mandated, which will have a significant impact on the taxes
that commercial and industrial properties pay. Maus noted
that the City should make sure that the rationale behind the
required increase in valuation is proper and justifiable and
consistent with commercial values found in other portions of
the county.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Brad Fylo, to adopt a resolution approving the
work plan and IDC budget as proposed.
SEE RESOLUTION 91-7.
Page 2
VO4
Council Minutes - 2/25/91
Consideration of ourchasinq automatic level for inspection
department.
Dan Blonigen asked how the automatic level can improve staff
efficiency. Tom Bose responded that the time to set up an
automatic level is less. Establishing service line elevations
and setting pipe grades can be done with increased accuracy
and speed with an automatic level.
Brad Fyle noted that the time to level does not take that
long, and he recommended the use of a laser level.
John Simola noted that the laser level is a short -distance
instrument. We need an instrument that will work well over
longer distances.
Staff and Council discussed the pro's and con's of a laser
instrument versus an automatic level. Bose remarked that the
automatic level requires two people to efficiently operate.
He went on to say that the person needed is usually an
employee of the contractor; therefore, two City staff people
are not usually needed to properly operate this piece of
equipment.
It was the consensus of Council that the use of this automatic
level for the inspection department will increase efficiency;
therefore, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by
Clint Herbst, to approve the purchase of a Topcon automatic
level from John Hess Surveying Instruments at a cost of $935.
Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of authorizing staff to work with City olanner
toward development of Industrial Park Master Plan,.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the Industrial
Development Committee has recommended that the City Council
authorize staff and City planner to analyze issues pertaining
to future development of industrial areas in the community.
O'Neill went on to note that one of the goals of the study
would be to develop a basis for zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan amendments designed to assist the City In
achieving industrial land development potential.
O'Neill wont on to review the various concerns that have boon
raised in the past few months regarding industrial land
development along with a proposed method for addressing the
concerns. In his report, O'Neill outlined the concept of
development of a business park design standard in the area of
Page 3
Council Minutes - 2/25/91
the proposed school district/elementary school development.
The study would attempt to establish an industrial development
standard designed to minimize potential conflict between
school and industrial uses. O'Neill also noted that the City
may wish to develop new standards consistent with the Remmele
and Tapper sites for industrial areas located along the
Chelsea Road corridor and east of the existing Oakwood
Industrial Park. The new standards developed under a business
park concept would provide a place for companies interested in
locating in an area where site development standards must
remain high. He went on to note that the business park
standards will not impact existing industrial land; therefore,
industries that cannot achieve the higher development
standards will continue to have a place to locate.
O'Neill also went on to review the importance of development
of a drainage plan for the area between the school district
property and the freeway. At this time, development of that
land is hampered by an absence of storm water drainage plans.
It may be the appropriate time to develop a plan that would
allow for the most efficient use of the industrial property.
Council reviewed the proposal to conduct a planning study. It
was the consensus of the Council to table the authorization to
conduct the planning study pending additional input from the
City planner. Council was concerned that the cost of the
study Is somewhat excessive, and it was suggested that the
scope of this study be reduced in an effort to reduce the cost
as well. O'Neill noted that he would discuss the matter with
the planner and prepare a revised method and program for
addressing the planning issues. Council also noted that it
makes sense to get the cooperation of Farm Credit on this
project. O'Neill noted that he would contact Farm Credit and
request their participation in this planning process.
Council was concerned that the drainage issues are not
properly understood in the area; therefore, a motion was made
by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Hlonigen, to authorize
expenditure of $5,000 toward payment of costs associated with
development of a storm water management plan in the area.
Motion carried unanimously.
O'Neill noted that the cost to conduct the storm water
management plan could be incorporated into a public
improvement project and said expense could be incorporated
into a future assessment role.
Page 8
D
Council Minutes - 2/25/91
8. Consideration of settinq a 1991 Board of Review for Mav 8,
1991.
Council confirmed the date scheduled for the Board of Review.
The Board of Review date was set for May 8, 1991.
Consideration of vacating lot line drainaqe easements.
Rick Wolfsteller reported that in 1979 a building permit was
issued for a single family home that was to be constructed
primarily on Lot 1, Block 1, Roden Acres, but it also included
the easterly 14 feet of Lot 7, Block 1, Doerr Estates. Doerr
Construction owned both Lot 7 of Doerr Estates and Lot 1 of
Roden Acres and obtained permission from the City of
Monticello to allow for the 14 feet of Lot 7 to be subdivided
and attached to Lot 1 of Roden Acres. The City approved the
simple subdivision, but the drainage and utility easements
associated with each lot were not vacated. It appears from
the plat for both developments that there remains a 12 -foot
drainage easement on both sides of the original lot line which
will need to be vacated since the house is constructed over
the original property line. In conjunction with the vacating
of the easements, the City could require that the property
owner provide a new 6 -foot drainage easement to correspond
with the newly created lot line. The property owner has
indicated a willingness to provide this relocated easement.
In addition, the City could contact the Adjacent property
owner to see if they would be willing to provide a new 6 -foot
drainage easement on their property so that the City would
continue to have a 12 -foot easement.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigon, seconded
by Brad Fylo, to vacate the drainage and utility easements as
originally platted on the west side of Lot 1, Roden Acres, and
the east side of Lot 7, Doerr Estates, contingent on tho
property owner providing a now 6 -foot drainage easement
adjacent to the westerly property lino of the now parcel and
direct staff to attempt to obtain a 6 -foot easement from the
owner of Lot 7, Block 1, Doerr Estates. Motion carried
unanimously.
10. Consideration of approvinq the biannual rabies clinic and
consideration of fee schedule adjustments for impoundment
fees.
Rick wolfstollor reported that approximately two years ago the
City amended its dog ordinance which re-established the
requirement that all dogs be licensed with the licenses being
valid for a two-year period. The revision to the ordinance
Page 5
0
Council Minutes - 2/25/91
took place in the spring of 1989, and as such, many licenses
are up for renewal March 31, 1991. The ordinance indicates
that prior to a dog license being issued, the owner must
provide proof that their animal has been vaccinated for
rabies.
In 1989, the City sponsored a rabies clinic to encourage
Monticello residents to have their animals vaccinated and also
to promote our new dog licensing requirement. The clinic was
held at the public works maintenance facility on a Saturday
morning with the services provided by a veterinarian. The
City had an excellent response and vaccinated approximately 80
dogs. The rabies clinic provided a low-cost alternative for
citizens to have their animals vaccinated who probably would
not have otherwise made an appointment with a veterinarian.
Ren Maus asked if there are any local veterinarians that are
interested in participating in this program. Rick Wol£steller
noted that he did not believe that the local veterinarian is
interested in participating In this program at this time.
Wolfsteller recommended that the City again sponsor the rabies
clinic as proposed. The clinics have proved to be an r�
economical method for residents to have their animals
vaccinated and encourages owners to obtain licenses at the
same time. From a public safety standpoint, the more animals
we can have vaccinated, the less likely that some residents
will be bitten by a rabid animal.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Dan Blonigen, to authorize the establishment of
the City's second biannual rabies clinic scheduled for
April 6, 1991. Motion carriod unanimously.
The animal foo/fine schedule was discussed. After discussion,
a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan
Blonigen to establish a $35 fine for allowing a dog to run at
large. This amount includes a $10 cost to purchase a license
with purchase of license being roquirod before a dog may be
released to its owner.
11. Consideration of bills for the month of Februarv.
After discussion, motion was mado by Clint Herbst, seconded by
Brad Fylo, to approve the bills for the month of February as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Fago 6
Council Minutes - 2/25/91
12. Other matters.
Dan Blonigen requested that City staff provide background
information and copies of all meeting minutes and other
information relating to establishment of the City
Administrator car allowance and establishment of the policy
that allows the Public Works Director use of a City vehicle
for transportation to and from work.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded
by Shirley Anderson, to review the policy for providing for a
car allowance to the City Administrator and to review the
policy granting the use of a city vehicle to the Public works
Director as transportation to and from work. Motion carried
unanimously.
A letter from John C. Beattie 5 Associates drafted by Linda M.
Trummer was reviewed by City Council. The letter outlined her
concerns regarding the change in quality of clientele that
they serve in Monticello in their rental properties. She
noted that people have become more transient and financially
irresponsible. She wrote that their properties have had
financial problems with the rental market in Monticello
becoming oversaturated. vacancy rates are ranging from 12% to
24%. Trummer went on to urge that the City discourage further
development of rental properties in the city of Monticello.
City Council took the letter under advisement and discussed
the potential of establishing a City code regulating the
operation and maintenance of rental property.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that he would determine
to what extent the City can limit the development of apartment
units on property that is properly zoned for such use.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Jeff O'Noill
Assistant Administrator
Page 7
Le
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
4. Consideration of a simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existinq residential lot and part of another existing
residential lot into two residential lots. Applicant, Donald
and Joan Doran. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Donald and Joan Doran are proposing to subdivide an existing
residential lot and part of another existing residential lot
into two lots. The proposed lot subdivision would meet the
minimum square footage requirement for a duplex, which is
12,000 sq ft of land area, and would also meet the minimum lot
width, which is 00 feet of lot width on a public right-of-way.
The proposed simple subdivision of these two lots will require
a separate document to be recorded with 12 feet of drainage
and utility easement on the 6th Street and Maple Street sides
of the lot, a 6 -foot drainage and utility easement on the
north side of the lot to the adjoining property owner, and a
20 -foot easement on the west side of the lot to the adjoining
property owner. Also, a separate document must be recorded
that states that the City of Monticello will not be
responsible for the installation of an additional water
service into the property. Also, as part of this simple
subdivision request, it must be recorded within 30 days of the
next Monticello City Council meeting, which would be March 11,
1991.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve a simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing residential lot and part of another existing
residential lot into two residential lots.
2. Deny a simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing residential lot and part of another existing
residential lot into two residential lots.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing residential lot and part of another existing
residential lot into two residential lots with the
following conditions:
The recording of the simple subdivision must occur
within 30 days of the March 11, 1991, City Council
meeting date.
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
b. A separate document must be recorded indicating the
drainage and utility easements, which would be a
12 -foot easement on the south and east part of the
lot, a 6 -foot drainage and utility easement on the
north part of the lot, and a 20 -foot drainage and
utility easement on the west part of the lot.
C. A separate document must be recorded indicating the
City of Monticello is not responsible for the
Installation of an additional water service up to
the property line.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the simple subdivision request to
subdivide an existing residential lot and part of another
existing residential lot into two residential lots with the
conditions as listed in alternative #3.
D. SUPPORTING. DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision; Copy
of the site plan for the simple subdivision; Copy of the
minimum zoning/building setback requirements.
1) 6 s A- cpAC.,'
2
P ;
s A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
` A residential lot and part of another existing residential lot
into two residential lots. Location is Block 10, East 16.5 feet
�� \\ of Lot 4 and all Lot 5, Original Plat Addition in the
\_ city of Monticello.
Applicant: Donald and Joan Doran
+ 4
f
• :KJs • 'r • �' °
filch
W4Tip
.01
9q °"'1
NOIs: •�� ! /� 1 � f
M.Vy 6y •OGb/YYJYO NWWffy l �y /y+ 1 9 .i
a✓ rw..•.rso er.•rra�.../i •..• � ��..v✓ac _ / tt �i 4 t
i....r� r. t,+s•oN >, w �,r.-oti..�.,. s.•nc..,t \j]/\., S f {/�
ti /(
f t;
f i .
1 3 a./.-
�'
•"�,.. .} � // i 1'� 'LTi. •' 4: ;`t ("
�w
1
(C]
[D]
is less than the minimum required, it shall not be
further reduced. No required open space provided around
any building or structure shall be included as a part of
any open space required for another structure.
All setback distances as listed in the table below shall
be measured from the appropriate lot line and shall be
required minimum distances.
Yard Rear Yard
50
30
30
JU )
3u
r specific regulations.
r specific regulations.
5 20
0 20
0 30
0 0
0 40
0 50
In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts where adjacent
structures, excluding accessory buildings within
same block, have front yard setbacks different from
those required, the front yard minimum setback
shall be the average of the adjacent structures.
If there is only one (1) adjacent structure, the
front yard minimum setback shall be the average of
the required setback and the setback of the
adjdcont structure. In no case shall the minimum
front yard setback exceed thirty (30) feet, except
as provided in subsection (F] below.
In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts, if lot is a
corner lot, the side yard setback shall be not less
than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting
the street right-of-way line.
The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requirements:
1. Chimneys, flues, bolt courses, leaders, sill,
pilaster, lintols, ornamental features, cornices,
eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not
project more than two (2) foot into a yard.
2. Terraces, stops, or similar features, provided they
do not extend above the height of tho ground floor
level of the principal structure or to a distance
less than two (2) foot from any lot line.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE (2) 3/18
Front Yard
Side
A -O
50
30
R-1
30
10
R-2
_ ,}Q
10
R-4
30
30
PZR
See Chapter
10 fo
PZM
See Chapter
10 fo
B-1
30
1
B-2
30
1
B-3
30
1
B-4
0
I-1
40
J
I-2
50
3
Yard Rear Yard
50
30
30
JU )
3u
r specific regulations.
r specific regulations.
5 20
0 20
0 30
0 0
0 40
0 50
In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts where adjacent
structures, excluding accessory buildings within
same block, have front yard setbacks different from
those required, the front yard minimum setback
shall be the average of the adjacent structures.
If there is only one (1) adjacent structure, the
front yard minimum setback shall be the average of
the required setback and the setback of the
adjdcont structure. In no case shall the minimum
front yard setback exceed thirty (30) feet, except
as provided in subsection (F] below.
In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts, if lot is a
corner lot, the side yard setback shall be not less
than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting
the street right-of-way line.
The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requirements:
1. Chimneys, flues, bolt courses, leaders, sill,
pilaster, lintols, ornamental features, cornices,
eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not
project more than two (2) foot into a yard.
2. Terraces, stops, or similar features, provided they
do not extend above the height of tho ground floor
level of the principal structure or to a distance
less than two (2) foot from any lot line.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE (2) 3/18
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
s. Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Zoninq Ordinance,
Section 6-3, permittinq accessory uses in an R-1, R-2, R-3,
and PZM zone by addinq "sale of items including automobilest
recreational vehicles, boats, and other equipment. Items sold
limited to six items per property annually and limited to
items owned by property owner." Applicant, City of
Monticello. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is asked to consider establishing an amendment that
limits the ability of property owners to utilize residential
property as an "open sales lot." This request stems from
complaints that certain residential property areas are being
used for commercial purposes as open sales lots, thereby
diminishing the residential character of the neighberhood.
The articles "for sale" on such residential properties include
vehicles, boats, lawn mowers, and other items. Open sales for
strictly commercial purposes on residential property is not
allowed and should be confined to the business zones.
At this time, there are nine sites where the problem appears
to be occurring. They are located at the addresses on the
attached list. All of the property owners on the list
attached have been notified that an ordinance is being
developed that might limit sales activity. They all received
a public hearing hearing notice. Only one attended the public
hearing.
The purpose of this amendment is to specify what type and how
many items may be sold from residential property. Any sales
above and beyond what is noted would be considered use of the
property for commercial purposes and, therefore, a violation
of ordinance.
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter,
received testimony from the public, and then adopted the
proposed ordinance based on the finding that use of
residential property as sales lots should be regulated in
order to maintain the residential character of neighborhoods.
At the same time, the Planning Commission recognized the right
of Individual property owners to use their own property as a
alto for selling items owned personally by the property owner.
Following is the section of the ordinance to be amended with
the actual amendment underlined.
CHAPTER 6
"R-1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
6-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following aro
permitted accessory uses in an "R-1" district:
(A) Private garages, parking spaces, and car ports
for liconsod and operable passenger cars and
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
trucks not to exceed a gross capacity of nine
thousand (9,000) pounds as regulated by
Chapter 3, Section 5, of this ordinance.
Private garages are intended for use to share
the private passenger vehicles of the family
or families resident upon the premises, and in
which no business, service, or industry is
carried on. Such space can be rented to non-
residents of the property for private
passenger vehicles and/or non-commercial
vehicles, trailers, or equipment if sufficient
off-street parking in full compliance with
this ordinance is provided elsewhere on the
property. Such garage shall not be used for
the storage of more than one (1) commercial
vehicle owned or operated by a resident per
dwelling unit.
[B] Recreational vehicles and equipment.
[C] Home occupations.
[D] Non-commercial greenhouses and conservatories.
[E] Swimming pool, tennis courts, and other
recreational facilities which are operated for
the enjoyment and convenience of the residents
of the principal use and their guests.
[F] Tool houses, sheds, and similar buildings for
storage of domestic supplies and non-
commercial recreational equipment.
[G] Boarding or renting of rooms to not more than
one (1) person.
[H] Limited open sales: Allowinq sales on a
limited basis of items accessory to private,
residential use of land includinq, but not
limited to, automobiles. recreation vehicles,
lawn and garden oquioment, boats. and other
equipment. Accessory use of property as a
limited open sales lot shall conform to the
followinq requirements:
1. No more than a total of six items per
site may be advertised for sale per year.
2. No more than two items can be displayed
for sale at any one time.
3. Individual items may not be displayed for
sale for more than 30 days per year.
4. Items sold are limited to articles owned
by individuals that make their primary
residence at the limited open sales site.
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
5. Sale items may not be placed on a public
riqht-of-way.
6. One siqn not exceeding two square feet in
area advertising sale Item is allowed
without a permit. Said sign must be
placed within or attached to sale item
and shall not be free-standing.
Enforcement of this ordinance would require that City staff
maintain a record of sale activities at residential sites
based on casual observation. Staff would make a point to
notify property owners in advance of the open sales
limitations.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt proposed amendment to the zoning
ordinance establishing limited open sales as an accessory
use in residential zones.
Under this alternative, Council would adopt the amendment
based on the finding that sales activity allowed on
private residential property needs to be regulated in
order to properly protect the character of residential
areas. The proposed amendment will contribute to the
ability of the City to regulate such sales; therefore,
the ordinance amendment should be approved.
If this alternative is selected, City staff will begin to
document sale activity on private residential property
and will notify those property owners that commonly use
their property as a sales site of the new limitations.
2. Motion to deny adoption of proposed amendment to the
zoning ordinance.
If Council does not agroo that a present or future
problem exists with regards to this issue, or if the
amendment does not clearly address the issue, this
alternative should be selected.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission and City staff recommend that Council
select alternative #1. There are many homes in residential
zones along highly traveled routes. This ordinance would
eliminate the temptation of using these residential properties
as sales lots, thereby protecting the residential value of
adjoining properties.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Nora.
-10
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
6. Consideration of ordinance amendment pertaining to Council and
Planninq Commission meetinq times. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
During the process of entering the City ordinances into our
word processing system, the City Council should amend the
ordinances in regard to Council and Planning Commission
sections that refer to the time of regular scheduled meetings.
The amendment would coincide with our present practice of
starting regular Council meetings at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30
and also the Planning Commission doing the same.
In addition, the Planning Commission ordinance had previously
indicated that all members shall serve without compensation;
but for the past few years, the Planning Commission has been
receiving a $50 per month compensation for attendance at
meetings. These changes are merely housekeeping items in that
the City Council has previously adopted these changes by
resolution or motion at a Council meeting but should be
formally adopted through an ordinance amendment.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the ordinance amendments as proposed to indicate
that Council meetings start at 7:00 p.m., Planning
Commission meetings start at 7:00 p.m., and members
receive compensation at $50 per month.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed ordinance amendments.
6
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT
SECTION 2-1-1 AND 2-1-2 PERTAINING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BE
AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
2-1-1: COMPOSITION: The Planning Commission shall consist
of five (5) members appointed by the Council. No
member of the Planning Commission shall hold any
other public office the City.
All members shall be appointed for a one year term; however,
said term may be terminated earlier by the Council. Said
terms are to commence on the day of appointment. Vacancies
during the terms shall be filled by the Council for the
unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member shall
before entering upun the discharge of his duties, take an oath
that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office.
hI i-x�em!}ers aMa3 l-�efvtra+l GAou� cempea�eat lop,
All members who
attend at least one monthly meeting shall receive compensation
of $50.00 for that month.
2-1-2: ORGANIZATION; MEETINGS: The Commission shall elect
a chairman from among its appointed members for a
term of one year and the Commission may create and fill such
other ottices as it may determine.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one (1) regular
meeting each month. This meeting shall be held on the aoGond
first Tuesday. Regular meetings shall commence at aw,reo
tirbr6yocaleoac-F7�d0}�.a� seven o'clock (7:00) p.m. Hearings
shall be heard as soon thereafter as possible. Tho Planning
Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business
and shall keep a record of its resolution, transactions and
findings, which record shall be a public record.
Passed by the City Council this Ilth day of March, 1991.
Mayor
City Administrator
r
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT
SECTION 1-5-1 PERTAINING TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIMES BE AMENDED
AS FOLLOWS:
1-5-1: MEETINGS
(A) Regular meetings of the Council shall be held an the
second and forth Monday of each calendar month at seveft
seven o'clock (7:00) p.m. Tim
4ny regular meeting falling upon
a holiday shall be held on the next following business
day at the same time and place. All meetings, including
special and adjourned meetings, shall be held in the City
Hall, unless the notice of the special meeting designates
a different location.
Passed by the City Council this 11th day of March, 1991.
City Administrator
Mayor
:514 b 6 ro &-/-(Y/PjL /,. ,
I
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
7. Consideration of amending personnel policy. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Presently, our personnel policy, which was adopted by the
Council in May of 1990, indicates that employees who take time
off to attend to family members who are sick are required to
take vacation or leave without pay if the illness does not
involve the employee personally. This section should be
amended to correspond with a recently passed state law that
requires employers with twenty (20) or more employees to allow
an employee to take sick leave benefits for the purpose of
attending to a sick child. This new law was effective
August 1, 1990, and it is recommended that the attached
revision to Section 13-7 (B) be adopted.
To correspond with the new state law, employees who have
worked for twelve (12) consecutive months may use personal
sick leave benefits provided by the City for absences due to
an illness of the employee's child for such reasonable periods
as the employee's attendance with the child may be necessary;
on the same terms, the employee is able to use sick leave
benefits for the employee's own illness. The present language
would remain the same in the case of an employee being absent
to attend to other members of the family.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the amendment as proposed.
2. Do not revise the policy - this would result in our
personnel policy being in violation of state statutos.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of present section pertaining to sick leave benefits and
copy of proposed language change.
7
EXCERPT FROM PRESENT PERSONNEL POLICY
iii. The request for reinstatement is made not later
than ten years after the granting of the leave.
Upon reinstatement, the employee shall have the same rights
with respect to accrued and future seniority status,
efficiency rating, vacation, insurance benefits, sick leave,
and other benefits as if he/she had been actually employed
during the time of the leave.
6. Child Care Leave - Leaves of absence without pay for up to
three months may be requested by any married or unmarried
employee who, upon the recent birth or adoption of a child,
elects to pursue full-time child care duties. Employees may
request a partial child care leave which would, in essence,
reduce them to part-time employees. Employees requesting and
being granted a child care leave shall not use this leave to
pursue or engage in other employment. Such outside employment
shall be prima facie evidence of termination without benefits
from the City. During this leave, the employee can maintain
City insurance coverage provided that the employee pays the
required premium during the period of the leave.
7. Sick Leave -
A. -Ail regular, full-time employees shall be entitled to be
paid accumulated sick leave at the rate of one (1) eight-
hour day or equivalduL for each r..onth of continuous
service. Sick leave will be granted in not less than one
hour units, which is to mean that if any time less than
one (1) hour is used, one (1) hour will be charged.
Maximum accumulation shall be one hundred (100) days,
except that employees who have accumulated in excess of
one hundred (100) Jaya as of the adoption of this policy
may accumulate up to, but not exceeding, 150 days.
B. Sick leave shall be granted only in case of necessity and
actual sickness or disability injury to the employee,
Including pregnancy related sickness or disability to the
employee, or for dental appointments, optical
appointments, and physical examinations. Dental
PILES\PERSONN.POL
Pago 15
EXCERPT FROM PRESENT PERSONNEL POLICY
appointments and physical examinations must receive prior d�1�
approval by the employee's supervisor. In the case of
attendance to members of the family, employees are
required to take vacation or leave without pay for that
purpose.
C. No sick leave will be paid to employees while actually
working either for the City or others.
D. A doctor's certificate may be required for sick leave
absence; however, if any sick leave exceeds three (3)
days in duration, a doctor's certificate must be provided
which certifies that the employee is sick or injured to
the degree that prevents him/her from performing his/her
normal duties; and upon return to work, the employee must
provide a doctor's certificate which states that his/her
physical condition is such that it will allow him/her to
perform his/her duties without qualification. All
doctors' certificates required by this paragraph will be
obtained at the employee's expense.
E. Sick leave without pay may be granted by the City after
earned sick leave with pay has been exhausted.
F. Employees who are unable to return to work within six (6)
months due to illness or disability shall be terminated
for medical reasons, except that the employer may extend
such absence in the event the employer's doctor provides
a certified statement that the employee will be able to
resume his/her duties on a specified date. In the event
of termination, the employee shall be considered to have
left employment in good standing.
G. In the event an employee is unable to resume his/her
duties without qualification due to injury or illness,
the City may re -assign said employee to duties, that lie
within the physical limitations of the employee as
described by the doctor, except that ouch re -assignment
will occur if, and only if, such a position is considered
essential to City operations. The City is under no
FILES\PERSONN.POL
Page 16
0
AMEND SECTION XIII (EMPLOYEE LEAVES), V .B. OF PRESENT PERSONNEL
POLICY TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
7. B. Delete last sentence and insert the following:
All regular, full-time employees who have worked for the
City for at least 12 consecutive months may use personal
sick leave benefits for absences due to an illness of the
employee's child for such reasonable periods as the
employee's attendance with the child may be necessary, on
the same terms the employee is able to use sick leave
benefits for the employee's own illness.
In the case of attendance to other family members,
employees are required to take vacation or leave without
pay for that purpose.
,, A 13 i-
0
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
s. Consideration of qamblinq license - Ducks Unlimited Banquet.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Wright County Ducks Unlimited organization has applied to
the State for a gambling license to conduct a raffle as part
of their annual Ducks Unlimited banquet scheduled for
April 29, 1991. As with all gambling licenses, this license
will be issued by the State unless the City passes a
resolution to specifically prohibit the activity.
The Ducks Unlimited organization has held a raffle for a
number of years and I am not aware of any reason why the City
should prohibit the issuance of this license. No action is
needed by the Council unless the City wishes to prohibit this
activity.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of gambling license application.
a
00 ljthumsota tawf kd cambUAg
A w.M For oftk.'Uso tktry
:Application for Exemption from
lawful Gambling license
ra �,,nm urnnaa�eaaarau mer, aa�ran.imoampca� adwae�,.rwua ars ��w�a� �v«�++�m�
Name and-Address gf Organization
oerraemwm _ ar�nopretl.naorwnm.w arnpuprrr..me�nunDrr
smr: v Ov SM Lprrrr I cid
maNa ollorr Rip. Trar.rrrYNgnr -
:il -�' rHrii..Al t::l'y�--�JS�-":1"rC! rzL1i;Fl �rrl'b = •��75 ��'/G '
Type of NdnVMfit Organization - -
' Numtiwr d ysais In atdstorte. r //n Nwlbar d &Uve miabon (mull be apo 18 and ddarj r;'' o
Chk*thaboababw.wIdehbWiaro._lqur- Paoforp rdusw _
r pfratern O.Raligim a va nn . XCOMno"it
Attachpvd d norrW afat a if h shows Mo jonroipanbtion has been wWoN kith imostMC"tlttM yiww
O IRS dulpnalbn, o tnooi; o Ned wkh sac�of Staffe , AtAffahts of pmr i mMmM oWfik bn (dwM4
Gambling Site.
- wm.ot_alo.lMnwlv�a�BltakeM.oe• ,
MIN Swe
«M or . A!►wirtlrlal 4�0`0dt ; I
1YIDe9 of Games - -
Financial Report
o.e., or•r...rr &PON&' - .eoM mmovraw
Cod #A tom. P*—
Bingo
Ratner -
p.ddawhMb
ttpboWs 1.0 II-
'Pu6-u6e,
How id pdI be used: /. _ Otrabm km rfwm tlwv*q egtlpmwn turd
binbadfss seer" Mr6w
ga;ord
1 deals• u stbrrroad o.aw O.mfWq CorsW OM4oii, I drat.. tl hlmnean ara�wwe d aw aerrwtp cones
ba me am"%and' Id . �,�,, i Yrt.l.o.rew rdrrmpYr
's beta + arw a.awv. ~6 SWALa
err
Mcf, , t Aeknomledgement
Ah" rsosirsd t! ow d ft fl4s wptlorlO sAl be maawd br er OitnDsnO ConsW Divbbn ad wtl Moan we tSJN 60
din km er m d rsosbt iM db or oanq. wYu Ilr bre Ipwmma . moiler b �sdllpe� py�tr Fs.eMp A mpy
a"radubt mw be by IM wnoYnp W" Wso �rYdn p d M dtls rM0 N blow, Glln d, err tq dew hwo q
dws a c� 10 dl! ow, ih'.alrmr, "
Totlmshb - -- - _--
Gry
of osuny nnr Tefal.t4➢-mnM
it s r - Af.-
i • Oats goabad - T.a - - , Oar raoeMd
Abu to:
i, Ova"k bl0emhq • ( QMw OM wn
UdMation331111
-- - - SI. P" MN 66146.1716
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
Consideration of purchasing fire door placards for apartment
buildings in the city of Monticello. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As was briefly discussed as an informational item at the last
City Council meeting, we are now presenting an agenda item
requesting the purchase of placards for fire doors within all
apartment buildings in the city of Monticello.
The placards being proposed would be made of plastic and would
indicate in bold letters "DO NOT BLOCK OPEN BY ORDER OF THE
MONTICELLO FIRE DEPARTMENT" and would be posted near each fire
door in a rental dwelling.
As part of National Building Safety Week coming up in April,
the Monticello Building Inspection Department, along with the
Monticello Fire Department, is looking at this as a
promotional item and would like to purchase these placards for
all of the apartment buildings to be placed on both sides of
each fire door in each apartment building.
The City of Monticello does not have a specific rental
ordinance, and as such, I do not periodically inspect rental
dwellings to see if violations are occurring concerning fire
doors being propped open. While the State Building Code does
require a fire door to remain closed, we are only aware of
violations when a resident calls to complain. In some cases,
fire doors are blocked open or have been completely removed or
are in such disrepair that they will not close under their own
power.
The purpose of the City getting involved in purchasing these
notices would be to make the apartment dwellers aware of the
requirement that the doors are to be closed for their own
safety.
If the City Council did not feel comfortable in actually
purchasing and supplying the placards as a fire department and
building inspection promotional function, the City could
purchase a largo quantity (250) and make them available to
apartment owners at our cost similar to our procedure for
supplying handicapped parking signs.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve an expenditure by the City not to oxcood $525 for
the purchase of 250 fire door placards that would be
supplied free of charge as a promotional item.
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
Approve the expenditure but require the apartment owners
to purchase the placards at their own expense estimated
at $2.09 each.
Do not approve the purchase.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff has no formal recommendation for you at this time.
One can look at this issue from both sides of the coin. It's
part of Building Safety Week during which we enforce the
minimum requirements of the 1988 Uniform Building Code and the
1990 Minnesota State Building Code in an effort to promote
building safety in Monticello. The purchase and distribution
of the placards to all apartment buildings in the city would
be done through Building Safety Week in cooperation with the
Monticello Fire Department. The cost per sign is
approximately $2.09. The maximum expenditure per building
would be $25.08 (one sign for each side of the door, six doors
per apartment building).
On the other hand, we could look at this issue and ask why
should the City of Monticello help an apartment owner since
they do receive rent from their tenants. It should be their
responsibility to make sure their buildings are posted or are
within building code/fire code requirements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
w
�F�f' ��',Ce^�
Ott G
c D,
10
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
10. Council update on present car allowance policy and Ci tv
vehicle use. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous Council meeting, Councilmember Blonigen
requested background information be supplied concerning the
present car allowance being granted to the City Administrator
and the use of the City vehicle by the Public Works Director.
In addition, the Council may want to discuss establishing a
policy regarding usage of the recently acquired Dodge Caravan
at City Hall. I will attempt to provide some background on
how, why, and when these policies were established.
In 1981, the Council held their annual special meeting to set
the salary and benefits for non-union employees for the
upcoming year. The Administrator at that time was Mr. Gary
Wieber. As part of the salary discussions, the Council
considered substituting employee benefits for part of the
salary increases for the upcoming year. One of the benefits
discussed was the establishment of a car allowance for the
Administrator in lieu of mileage reimbursements. In 1981, the
Administrator was reimbursed $50 per month for miscellaneous
local mileage incurred in his job. It had been pointed out by
the Administrator that many communities had been providing the
Administrator with a City -owned vehicle or providing a monthly
car allowance in lieu of such vehicle. At that time, the City
Council was not in favor of the City owning and providing a
personal vehicle for the Administrator and opted to increase
the monthly car allowance to $150 per month for the
Administrator, which was to cover travel within a 50 -mile
radius of Monticello. Mileage expense incurred by the
Administrator outside of the 50 -mile radius was still
reimbursable at the $.25 per mile rate.
Generally speaking, non-union employees were granted a salary
increase in the 10-1/28 to 118 area. The car allowance
Increase for the Administrator amounted to $100 per month,
which equaled approximately 4.38 of his current salary. The
Administrator was granted only a 6% increase in actual salary,
making the actual salary increase plus car allowance equal to
the salary increase percentage granted to other employees. In
effect, the car allowance did not provide the Administrator
with a salary package that was higher than other employees.
Similar discussions occurred regarding the use by the Public
Works Director of the City -owned pickup. Since the Public
Works Director often responds to emergency calls and resides
3.8 miles east of Monticello, the Council determined that it
would be in the City's boat interest to allow the Public Works
Director to take the pickup home for faster response time to
an emergency call In that the vehicle carried some Bpocialized
tools and safety equipment. Therefore, the Public Works
Director could often respond directly to the emergency site
rather than use up valuable time in getting a vehicle out of
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
storage. In addition, the City would not be required to
provide storage space for the vehicle. The Council at that
time also realized that there would be a benefit to the Public
Works Director in having a City -supplied vehicle for personal
commuting use, and it was my understanding that the use of the
City vehicle was part of the 1981 wage package for the Public
Works Director, and its cost to the City at that time was
determined to be between $300 to $400 annually. In reality,
the use of the City vehicle by the Public Works Director and
the increase in the car allowance for the Administrator were
not over and above normal salary increases but were in lieu of
actual dollars in pay.
When salaries were discussed by the Council in 1983, Mr. Tom
Eidem was the Administrator. In establishing the
Administrator's salary for 1984, the Council was receptive to
adjusting Mr. Eidem's salary to a level that the former
Administrator would have been making in 1983. Mr. Eidem had
requested the Administrator's car allowance be increased from
$150 per month to $300 per month based on car allowances that
were being granted to Administrators in other communities. At
that time, a survey of 68 metro area communities indicated
that 51 communities either supplied a monthly car allowance or
a City -owned vehicle for the Administrator's use. In
establishing the Administrator's salary for 1984, the target
salary of $40,000 annually was discussed. The final motion by
the Council established the Admir:istrator's salary at $38,000
annually with the car allowance being increased from $150 per
month to $300 per month. These two adjustments equalized the
salary package of the Administrator to what the former
Administrator's salary would have been in 1984. with the
adjustment in the car allowance, all mileage expenses incurred
by the Administrator were to be covered by the car allowance,
whereas previously, the monthly allowance only covered mileage
within a 50 -mile radius.
Since 1984, the car allowance amount has not been increased
nor included in the calculations for determining percentage
increases thereafter. Tho same would be true for the Public
Works Director. Although the car allowance is part of the
Administrator's total salary package, percentago increases
granted annually aro based on the salary only and do not
include increases on the car allowance amount. Additionally,
the City has saved approximately 116 to 129 annually on social
security and PERA contributions related to those allowances
and benefits.
Upon the resignation of former City Administrator, Tom Eldem,
in Juno of 1987, the City Administrator position was then
offered to mo. Mayor Grimsmo and Councilman Blonigon had
recommended a salary of $43,000 for the position. Although
the salary was loss than the former Administrator was oarning,
the Mayor recommended that the allowances and benefits remain
unchanged. Councilman Blonigon disagrood with the car
12
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
allowance benefit, but the Council unanimously approved the
salary and benefit package for myself at $43,000 plus the car
allowance, etc.
The basic policy of establishing a car allowance for the
Administrator is very common in cities and other agencies.
Enclosed you will find a recent (December 1990) survey of 19
communities and agencies and the car allowance policies in
effect. The average car allowance provided for the City
Administrator is $290. In addition, some communities give a
car allowance for the following positions: City Engineer,
Assistant Engineer, Finance Director, Planner, Park Director,
Assistant City Administrator, City Clerk, Liquor Store
Manager, Economic Development Director, and Public Works
Director.
This basically provides a history of how and why the car
allowance benefit was created and how the usage of a vehicle
by the Public Works Director was established. To summarize,
in 1981, the City Administrator's salary was adjusted to
reflect the addition of a car allowance as part of the total
salary package, and this was also the case in 1983 for the new
Administrator, Tom Eldem. I have to also assume this was the
intent in 1987 when I assumed the position of Administrator in
that if my predecessors had not received a car allowance
benefit, the base salary for the position would have been
higher, and as such, my beginning salary would also have been
higher than $43,000. This assumption is based on the fact
that the previous Administrators accepted the car allowance in
lieu of part of their salary increases.
Over the past three years, I have averaged approximately
$1,800 in mileage and expenses related to my position. While
this is only based on 4.25 per mile, car allowances are
intended to more accurately reflect the cost of vehicle
ownership, maintenance, gas, oil, etc., which can be higher
than the current 4.25 figure. I believe these expenditures
would have been similar for the past Administrators. If the
Council should now decide to eliminate the car allowance
benefit for the Administrator's position, I feel that
approximately half or $1,800 should be added to the base
salary to coincide with the, salary package previously
establishod in 1981, 1984, and 1987.
In regard to the Public Works Director's vehicle usage, the
samo principal is true. Since it is my understanding that the
Public works Director received a benefit in 1981 that was
valued at $300 to $400 annually in lieu of salary for the
personal commuting use of the City vehicle, if he should no
longer be allowed to use the vehicle for commuting purposes,
a salary adjustment should also be made for this benefit
reduction.
13
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
With the recent purchase of the Dodge Caravan for City Hall
usage, the City Council may want to address whether this
vehicle should be allowed to be taken home by the Building
Inspector or remain at City Hall during the evening hours. An
advantage of allowing the Building Inspector to take the
vehicle home in the evenings is that he would supply storage
for the vehicle if the Council feels that it's important. On
the other hand, if the Building Inspector used the vehicle for
commuting purposes, it may limit the availability for other
City Hall personnel to use this vehicle, as the Building
Inspector would not have a personal vehicle to use for
inspection purposes if the vehicle was taken out of town.
Previously, the Council indicated that in order to maximize
the usage of the new van, employees that needed the vehicle
for a longer trip were to use the City vehicle whenever
possible; and during those times, the Building Inspector would
be required to use his own vehicle. It would be hard to
expect the Building Inspector to use his own vehicle if he
commuted to work with the van, as he would not have access to
his own vehicle. To rely on the Building Inspector to do
Inspections by utilizing the city bus transportation to me
seems to be very inefficient and is not what I understand the
Council would like to see. As far as the vehicle being stored
at City Hall, I do not see this as a problem unless the
Council feels that it would be subject to more vandalism. It
should also be noted that if an employee is allowed to take a
City vehicle home, the City has to add $1.50 per day for each
one-way commute to that emplovee'a gross earnings on his
annual W-2. This is presently being done for the Public Works
Director. This is not an increase in his salary and a direct
City cost, it is an amount that has to be added to the
employee's gross annual wages for income tax purposes.
Because of this, the Building Inspector may not even want to
take the vehicle home knowing that a minimum of $3.00 per day
will be added to his gross pay for income tax purposes.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Roaffirm the previous policy established allowing
the Public Works Director to utilize a City vehicle
for commuting purposes as originally established.
Modify the present policy in some mannor.
Establish a policy on the usage of the recently
acquired Dodge Caravan and indicate who the primary
user is.
Assuming the Building Inspector is the intended
primary user, Council may want to indicate when and
L if the vehicle will be used by other City Hall
employees; and if allowed, the expectations of the
Building Inspector in utilizing his own vehicle
when the van is used by other City Hall employees.
14
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
Consideration of a policy allowing the Building
Inspector to use the van for personal commuting
purposes and storage.
Prior to establishing this policy, the Council will
have to indicate who the primary user is and if
used by other City employees how the Building
Inspector will accomplish his inspections when the
van is not available if he does not have his own
vehicle at work.
Review and/or ratify the present policy on the car
allowance benefit established for the City
Administrator position.
Modify the car allowance benefit in some manner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
I believe I have explained how the car allowance benefit and
the Public Works Director's usage of the City vehicle was
originally established and how it relates to a total salary
package for those two positions. While I am not speaking for
the Public Works Director, I would be opposed to the car
allowance being modified if it Is reduced and the reduction
was not included in my base salary, as I feel strongly that
this would in effect be a pay cut in that it was a part of the
total salary package since 1981. I believe that the Public
Works Director also feels the same way in that the personal
use of the vehicle was equivalent to a $300 to 4400 salary
benefit in 1981; and if eliminated, a salary adjustment should
be made to compensate for this loss. In regard to
establishing a policy for the new van, there would be a
benefit in allowing the Building Inspector to use the vehicle
for personal commuting in that the City would have storage
provided; but this would also likely result in loss usage by
other City employees in that the Building Inspector would not
have his own vehicle available to do city inspections if the
van was out of town. I believe initially the Council was
receptive to the idea of maximizing the use of the van
whenever possible; and if the van was in St. Cloud or
Minneapolis, the Building Inspector would, In all likelihood,
have to use the city bus transportation in order to do
inspections. If the van remained at City Nall during the
evening hours, it is assumed that the Building Inspector, when
it was necessary to do an inspection, could use his own
vehicle for the few times the van would be gone.
SUPPORING DATA:
Copy of Council minutes of December 7, 1981; November 14,
1983; and July 13, 1987. Copies also of agenda information
pertaining to those Council meeting salary meetings; Survey of
car allowances for City Administrators.
15
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MOtrfICELLO CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 1981 - 6:10 P.M.
1 ,
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan elonigen, Ken Maus
Phil White.
Members Absent: None.
The purpose of this meeting was to review and set the -salaries for
1982 for all non union employees.
After holding a review session with each non union employee, except
for administrative staff clerical personnel, a motion was made by
Phil white, seconded by Ken Maus to adopt a salary schedule as follows:
Employee Monthly Salary
Karen Hansen
$ 920.00
Walt Mack
$1,729.00
Roger Mack
$1,771.00
Mark lrmiter
$2,044.00
Loren Klein
$1,7]).40
John Simola;
$2,201.00
Rick wolfsteller
$1,908.00
Gary Mieher
$2,942.00
As part of the same motion, a monthly car allowance of $150.00 was
allowed for Gary wieber in lieu of mileage for travel within a 50
mile radius of Monticello and John eimola was allowed the use of
a city vehicle to be used for going to and from work. clerical ad-
ministrative staff salary set for the top range from $6.49 to SF.82
an hour. Voting in favor was Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Arve Grimsmo, Phil
White. Opposed was Dan Alonigen.
Meeting adjourned. /'
t"y elir�or, City Adminiotrator
Co-
MEMORANDUM
T0: Council Members
^/ A
FROM: Gary Wieber, City Administrator �( DATE: December December 2, 1981
SUBJECT: Special meeting for salary review - 6:30 P.M. Monday,
December 7, 1981.
Enclosed, you will find a schedule of personnel to be interviewed by the
City Council along with a sheet indicating the monthly salaries since 1975
and the recommended salaries for each individual for 1982. These recom-
mendations were based on the following factors:
- Present salary
- Salaries of comparable positions with other cities
- Performance
- Cost of living (According to the Department of labor, the Octo-
ber CPI Index for the twin city area has increased from 255.5 to
291.6 or an increase of 14.13%)
Please note that the meeting starts at 6:30 P.M., although the first inter-
view does not take place until 6:45P.M. This will allow some time to dis-
cuss with the Council their receptiveness to substituting employee benefits
for salary. You will note on the salary sheet, I have a list of possible
employee benefits. Some members of the Council have indicated they would
be receptive to granting a combination of employee benefits and salary
increases rather than just salary increases. It should be noted that the
recommended percentage Increases are based on a total package, whether that
would be salary or a combination of salary and employee benefits. For
example, the Council may be more receptive to giving an employee a ton per-
cent increase in salary with a two percent increase in employee benefits
as opposed to a 12% increase in salary.
There arc advantages to both the city and the employee in receiving a
certain portion of an increase in employee benefits rather than salarv.
The City does not have to Qay social security taxes. P6RA or workmens
compensation. (The exception would be severance pay). The employee beno-
fits, since these benefits will not be taxable to him, again with the ex-
ception of severance pay.
.The following is a detail of each of the employee benefits posed as pon-
sibilitos:
I. Severance pay for one half (i) of unused nick days accrued
after 1-1-82.
Currently, nonunion employees do not receive any benefit for unused sick
leave when they terminate their employment with the City of Monticello.
The accrual of nick days is allowed up to 30 days. Union employees are
1 granted an accrual of 100 sick days, of which i are reimbursable if they
have not used them upon termination. Based on a salary of approximately
$22,000, thin benefit would be worth 1.25%.
0
Memo - All Council Members
Decemher 2, 1981
Page 02
2. Medical expense allowance.
This would be a self insurance program that would set aside $20.40 for
each employee, per month. Any unused amount for each employee could be.'
used towards legitimate medical expenses including dental, eye glasses,or
portion of medical expenses not picked up through insurances, etc. The
reason for setting the figure at $20.40 a month is that this is the same
amount that Bankers Life Insurance currently charges for a dental plan.
The actual figure could still be indexed to the Bankers Life figure, but
could be set as the Council sees fit.The advantages to setting up a
self insurance program such as this,as opposed to obtaining the insurance,
are as follows:
- No overhead costs incurred for insurance agents who obviously
make a profit from the premiums.
- Each individual is able to accrue the same amount per month
and there is a direct relationship between benefits earned
and benefits received.
- Since the amount would only accrue up to a certain set dollar
figure per month, there would not be any problem with potential
liability in excess of this amount. For example, if an individual
incurr-d a dental bill of $500.00, but hnd only accrned unusnd
medical expenses of S80.00, the balance wW ld have to be paid
by the employee.
- Payment by the City would be reimbursed directly to the medical
provider rather than the employee and would have to be documented
by a statement or invoice.
.3 ;kTCar-Alloiranco:
Quite a few cities and other governmental units reimburse certain individuals
for use of a personnel vehicle. For example, the School District of Monticello
reimbursed Shelly Johnson $3,000.00 for the previous school year, although 1
am not aura what that fee has been act for in the current year. This allow-
ance would be in lieu of a mileage reimbursement and would be beneficial to
tho employee in that any reimbursement received over and above the expenses
actually incurred from mileage would be non taxable income. Again, it is a
benefit to the city since it does not have to pay the various payroll taxes
on this type of expenditure.
4. Switching the day after Thanksgiving for Columbus Day.
The State of Minnesota and various other governmental unite now recognize the
day after Thankagiv ing as a holiday rather than Columbus Day. I have talked
to the employees and they would rather have off the day after Thanksgiving
instead of Columbus Day, and it would be something that the Council could
consider.
a
Memo - All Council Members
December 1, 1981
Page 03
One thing you might note is that in the memorandum to the employees, I have
asked that they review some of their goals for the next year with the City
Council. I feel that this is important in that goals can be commonly
agreed upon and the Council has some kind of indication overall,whether a
particular individual has accomplished their objectives after the year is
completed.
One interesting item of note is that according to the latest League of Cities
survey on number of employees and population, Monticello ranks 17th out of
70 cities reporting for the lowest number of employees per population. In
other words, 76% of the cities reportinq had more employees per population
than t e City of Monticello. Obviously, this is on the plus side, but I
feel that this is not a valid indicator and a more truer indicator would be
the number of employees per budqeted dollar in which Monticello would rank
first. The reason I say this is theta retail store probably would not pay
a manager based on the population of the city the particular store was
located in, but would pay the manager more in corelation to the volume of
business. The closest thing to a volume of business in a city is its
budget as opposed to its population.
(S
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MON TICELLO CITY COUNCIL
November 14, 1983 - 6:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen,
Ken Maus, and Jack Maxwell.
Members Absent: None.
A special meeting of the City Council was duly held at 6:30 P.M. in
City hall on Monday, November 14, 1983.
Members present were Grimamo, Fair, Blonigen, Maus, and Maxwell.
Members absent: None. Also present was City Administrator Eidem.
The Mayor called the meeting to order. The Mayor began with some opening
comments that he was dissatisfied with the results of the meeting of
October 29, 1983, and felt it was in the best interest of the City uver-
all to reconsider their action of that day. He stated that the Council
had agreed to delegate a major part of the salary negotiations with
department heads to the City Administrator, but in the end he felt they
took back that responsibility. Mayor asked Eidem to address his concerns.
Eidem stated that he understood the role of the Council was to make a
budgetary or financial decision; that they must decide how much money
can be spent. Eidem urged that personalities, performance, employee
history, and salary history really shouldn't enter into a financial
decision. Ile noted that it was his assumption that, being hired as a
professional administrator, it should be hie obligation to assign the
individual oalariee.baoed on performance, etc. ' He also noted that,
having no authority over wages and salaries tended to loosen accountability,
thus compromising the effectiveness of his supervision. Eidem added that
certainly the Council would be responsible for final ratification of
salary asoigmneats.
Eidem went on to express one other concern over the action of October 29,
1983. Ito said he thought the 3% figure was not tied to anything external,
that it seemed to come out of the air and be arbitrary and capricious.
He said he could be totally comfortable with any figure so long as there
was a sound rationale for selecting those figures. Historically, he noted,
the Council used C.P. 1. as their rationale and doing the oamo thio year
he was requesting a salary "pool" of $15,000.00 from which ho could then
asaign salaries. Ile noted thio was 5.5% of last year's total calarien
for the same positions, and that he had arrived at this percentage by
utilising the projections of profoosfonal economic forecasters. In closing,
ho re-emphaniaed his concern that whatever figure wan decided upon, it
should have a sound rationale.
Special Council Minutes - 11/14/83
Councilmember Ulonigcn stated his rationale for no increase was that a
great many taxpayers, people who pay city salaries, are getting no
increase, some taking pay cuts, and that responsible government should
respond to those people. lie urged that the Council should be alert to
the conditions of the public and make its decisions accordingly. Council -
member Fair countered that the Council ought not treat its employees
based on the misfortune of others, that because some businesses are
facing troubled times does not justify cutting City employees. Mayor
Grimsmo and Councilmember Fuir also speculated that a substantial number
of people were getting increases because their employers were financially
healthy.
Councilmember Maus stated that, right or wrong, there is often a tendency
for business people to compensate their employees based upon the kind
of success they experienced. He indicated that two prominent Monticello
business people would not be giving any raise this year because their
businesses were not good. On the other side, he noted that HSP and the
school district likely would give in excess of 5%. Maus indicated his
agreement that the assignment of funds should be tied to some sort of
verifiable data, and since the City had used C.P.I. in the past it may
very well be the best to stay consistent for now but.investigate this
matter before next year.
Maxwell indicated that his original motion was intended to be a compromise
figure and that it was not really tied to other external data. He said
he was basically conservativu and felt that performance of some employees
should be carefully evaluated. '
There was some discussion over comparable salaries, with general agreement
that for every comparison favoring one position, another comparison could
be made favoring the other side. It was agreed that comparisons had certain
limitations and must be used cautiously.
Motion by Grimsmo to establish a pool of funds equal to 5% of the 1483
payroll, for the same jobs, and delegate the responsibility of individual
salary negotiations to the Administrator. Motion seconded by Fair.
Under discussion Maus asked Eidem what he saw as tho basic cost of living
increase. Maus said his concern wan would Eidem just give all 5% straight
across the board. Eidem said that while he had not dons formal evaluations
as yet, and hence, was unsure if any merit increases would be warranted,
based on economic indicators he thought 4% - 4.5% would be a suitable
inflationary adjustment. Ho indicated that any money in excess of that
would ba rosarved for merit, position adjustment, bona tido allowances,
etc.
voting in favor: haus, Fair, Grimamo.
Voting in oppoaltions Dlonigen, Maxwell.
- 2 -
m
A
Special Council Minutes - 11/14/83
... The Mayor then turned discussion to the problem of setting the Administrator's
salary. He stated that based on his own research he thought the Council
should consider a salary adjustment and a car allowance. lie noted that
many cities provided either a City vehicle for the Administrator or a
monthly allowance. He stated that he thought the Council should also
address the discrepancy between what the former administrator would have
been earning and what Eidem was earning, being their credentials and
performance were comparable.
Blonigen stated he was opposed to any City owned vehicle being provided
for in employee. Maus asked Eidem what he thought was appropriate.
Eidem stated that comparing with other managers/administrators and with
his predecessor he felt near $40,000 annually would be appropriate with
a car allowance in the $275 - $350 range.
The time now being 7:30 P.M., the Mayor recessed the meeting in order to
convene the regular Council meeting with the condition that this meeting
would reconvene upon adjournment of the regular meeting.
The Mayor reconvened the Special Meeting with Eidem absent. Preliminary
figures and performance was discussed. Eidem was invited to return to
the meeting. Grimnmo and Fair opened discussion supporting a figure of
approximately $39,000 annual salary which would put Eidem at a level in
1984 that his predecessor would have been at in 1983. Maus asked how
Eidem felt about that. Eidem stated that he still thought he should be
at a level equal to what his predecessor would have been receiving. Maus
noted that prior to Eidem'a arrival the Assistant Administrator had
received a salary adjustment to accommodate assuming a number of the
duties done by the former Administrator and, as such, the Administrator's
position wan not the same as it waa under the other person.
Ma well asked how Eiden could be granted a percentage greater than what
the other employees could expect. Maus replied that Eidem was hired at
substantially less than what his predecessor was earning with the express
intention that, based upon acceptable performance, major adjustments
would be made over a period of a couple of years until the difference was
rectified and Eldom was at the appropriate level. Maus went on to say
that in his opinion an adjustment thio year should now resolve any dic-
crepancios and that, barring any substantial changes in the nature of
the job, the Administrator will fall under the same salary consideration
for all employees in ensuing years.
Motion by Maxwell to act Eidem'a salary at $30,000 annually and granting
an auto allowance of $300 per month, noting that this was a position
adjustment rather than a coat of living increase. Motion seconded by
Fair.
Voting in favor. Maxwell, Pair, Grimamo, Maus.
Voting in opposition. Blonigon.
Thera being no further businoas the mooting was adjourned.
Thomas Eiden .
City Administrator
TO: Mayor Grimsmo/ayn{dd City Council Members
1
FROM: Tom Eidem c„r � v
DATE: November 9, 1983
In an effort to expedite the matters stipulated for the special meeting
of the 14th, I am submitting my data to you in advance.
General Salary discussion.
My original understanding of the intent of the meeting on Saturday, the
29th, was to establish a plan whereby the Administrator would be granted
a pool of funds from which raises would be assigned based on individual
performance and negotiation. This method was discussed and agreed upon
in an effort to eliminate the past practice of the Council meeting with
every employee and doing a rather cursory evaluation. This idea came
from the notion that the Administrator, because of daily contact with
the personnel, could more accurately evaluate performance and award
increases accordingly.
Based on this understanding, I came prepared to discuss and request a
pool from which I could set salaries. After considerable research, it
is my opinion that a pool of money be set aside equal to 5.251 - Gi of
last year's salary total. I never intended that this amount (or percentage)
would automatically be granted as increases. My intention was to propose
a basic salary adjustment (cost -of -living, if you will), and thon, if
warranted, grant additional percentage points to certain individuals.
For example (and I am using fictional figures), if you oat a pool of
$15,000, I might only assign $12,000 as increases. Because the money
was not aside, does not necessarily moan it would all be granted. However,
and this relates to my comment about an artificial coiling versus a real
ceiling, there would be the possibility that all funds would be used.
I think that the truly crucial issue is to decide upon a maximum dollar
amount the City can live with.
This then was my understanding of what we hoped to accomplish. What,
in fact, happened was that an informal ovaluation was done without the
amploycos present to respond, and a salary increase was sot. The reason
I don't sea the amount stipulated as a pool is that it does not oven hit
the current level of inflation much lama the projected level of inflation.
It strikes me as difficult to award a 2% coat of living increase when
inflation is running near 4 and projected to be over 5. I could perhaps
- 1 -
8
One other qualifying statement: Of the 30 plus cities surveyed, only
three are within $2.5 million of Monticello regarding fiscal responsibility.
Lastly, recent arbitration awards have ranged from 4.39 to 6.5% according
to MPELRA. Also, the three most recent contracts have been 5%, 39 plus
expanded insurance, and 2% plus $100.
In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that I am not trying to second guess
Council action. i simply feel that actual action ran counter to the
proposed action, and further, that I was not given ample opportunity to
present my data. Clearly, my position has the responsibility to administer
Council policy and decisions, regardless of the content. I, however, also
feel I have some responsibility to the employees. If we wish to have
them do quality work for us, I think we must treat them fairly, evaluate
them openly and objectively, and compensate them justly.
City Administrator's Salary
I will try to keep this brief. My current salary is $35,000 annually.
The enclosed sheets provide a comparison of 37 other cities' fiscal
responsibility and Manager/Administrator salaries. Monticello ranks
4th in fiscal responsibility, 31st in salary (tied with Montevideo which
ranks 34th in fiscal responsibility). Obviously, there are several
cities in excess of $5 million and many below $1.5 million, but I
assumed this range was most appropriate.
while reluctant to bring this up, I wish to refer again to Gary wiabor.
If he were still here and had been granted the same 7.25% increase as
the other employees for 1983, his salary would be at $39,680 currently,
plus a car allowance. Considering that we have comparable credentials,
I think salaries should also be comparable.
I have also enclosed a second shoot of statistics relating to comparable
salaries.
RE: Duties - 1983 has seen an increase in the number of employees,
including the creation of Director of Economic Development. This means
greater personnel responsibility. The HRA, inactive since 1978, was
revived and requires additional meeting attendance and management
effort. Assessing has been incorporated as a City function and will
require added supervision and public contact. Greater budget, population,
and physical size generates greater responsibility and accountability.
REQUEST - I respectfully request that the Administrator's salary be
adjusted to more favorably compared with other management positions.
In addition","I"raqueut that.tho Council set a'monthly auto 'allovancoA
I. 'that would bo�in�liuu of acCuril-miloagotraimburocment�a'Th�J'iu�not�
uncommon. Superintendent Johnson receives $325 monthSs°renponaiblo�
- 3 -
C
for all documentation in accordance with IRS regulations. Data
recorded in the Stanton Report shows that o 66-lfatrotarea;citi!y„
roportin g-229ma - ere receive a, l.Zl:hou`rlca;';,L;I e-dai-%aalmoathlY/,
allowance, and 17 receive the mileage reimbursement. A breakdown of
the monthly allowances is shown on the statistics sheet. A single
monthly allowance would replace the current per mile allowance which,
to date, I have only submitted for trips of approximately 20 miles
or more, round trip. I have never requested reimbursement for use of
my vehicle for business within or near the community.
In closing I wish to re-emphasize that I do not wish to re -open all of
the topics that were presented on the 29th. I merely wish to supply
additional data and . request you reconsider the size of the pool. My
request for the general salary pool is for $16,000, which is a 5.5%
increase over 1983 payroll, excluding new clerical and the Director of
Economic Development. Administrator is also excluded. This amount is
less than 10% of the total increase in the budget and would still leave
total personal services at 19.5% of the total budget, an increase of
only 1.9%. with respect to my salary, I have little more to add. I
am sure I could overwhelm you with data but have no intention of doing
so. I request only that I be given open, fair consideration.
-a-
/0
DATA SHEET
1983 Monticello Administrator Salary $35,000.
�._ 1983 SALARY INFORMATION
• Comparable Salaries - Pvt. vs. Public
(small manufacturing - under $10 million total sales)
C.E.O. (Pvt.) $82,300
Finance Ofc (Pvt.) $43,000
City Administrator $38,738
• U.S. Average - Cities with fiscal responsibility $2,000,000 - $4,999,000
$39,397
• West No. Central Region
Mean Salary $18,222
Median Salary $36,504
• Minnesota
Mean Salary $43,350
•• Minnesota Metro
Mean Salary $40,500
Median Salary $39,800
•• AUTO INFORMATION
Minnesota Metro
22 - Receive 24 hour car.
29 - Receive monthly allowance as follows,
$300-350 3
250-300 7
200-250 5
150-200 9
under 150 5
Noto. These are Metro communities and as such the length on any trip
to Capitol would bo loss than mina.
17 - Receive mileago reimbursement or City car available for use.
• Source - ICMA, Compensation '83
•• Soureo - Stanton Report, 1983
0
Council Minutes - 7/13/87
i
that 60 calendar days upon notice to proceed was inserted into the
specifications. Motion by Bill Fair, second by Warren Smith, to
award the contract for the realignment of Otter Creek Road and the
expansion of the Hiway Liquors parking lot to Buffalo Bituminous
of Buffalo, Minnesota, for the total amount of 538,465.
i
6. Consideration of Adopting Final Report to State on Pay Equity -Comparable
Worth.
City Administrator Eidem presented the final comparable worth/pay
equity report to the City Council. He advised the Council that this
was the report that would be mailed into the Department of Employee
Relations at the State of Minnesota to demonstrate the City of Monticello's
compliance with Minnesota Statute 471.991 to 471.999.
i
Motion by Dan Blonigen, second by Fran Fair, and carried unanimously
t to adopt the,pay equity plan as presented and authorizing the City
Administrator to submit final forms to the Department of Employee
Relations, State of Minnesota.
7. Consideration of Establishing Salary for Now City Administrator.
Mayor Grimsmo indicated that Councilmember Blonigon and he had met
to discuss a salary proposal for the new City Administrator, Rick
Wolfsteller. He noted that during -their discussion there had been
some question concerning the auto allowance that had bean established
for the position in the past. Mayor Grimamo recommended that'Mr.
Wolfetollar be offered an annual salary, beginning August 1, 1987,
of $43,000 and that the allowanceo and benefits afforded the position
of City Administrator remain unchanged at this time.: Councilmember
Blonigen indicated that he had dioagread•with Mayor Grimamo'only
concerning the vehicle allowance question. -It was his contention
that it was overpaying for mileage and that the Administrator should
be paid on the direct mileage allowance.
Resigning City Administrator indicated that he had a lour -year average
of mileage in excess of 10,000 miles par year and that the allowance,
as such, did accurately reflect the use of a personal car for City
business. Eidom noted that the City currently makes additional allowances
for other members of the management staff, over and above the 25C
per mile, and that it would be inappropriate to expect the City Administrator
to accept loan. Eidem noted that the allowance was put into place
to ensure adequate reimbursement to the position of Administrator
for use of personal vehicle in City business. Eidam noted that it
was not intended to be a direct compensation to the individual filling
the position, but rather an allowance for the position as defined.
Motion by Bill Fol%, eocond by Fran Fair, and carried unanimously
to offer Mr. Wolfetollar an annual salary of 543,000 with all other
benefits and allowances of the Administrator'a position remaining
intact.
r
-4-
c_
DECEMBER 1990
SURVEY OF CAR ALLOWANCES FOR
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
City Name 1990 Monthly Car Allowance
Shakopee
$ 250
Prior Lake
275
Chaska
175
Columbia Heights
250
Arden Hills
Car
Chanhassen
250
Monticello
300
Orono
350
Robbinsdale
300
Anoka
300
Lakeville
350
Inver Grove Heights
300
Cottage Grove
250
Ramsey
'0'
Brooklyn Park
325
Brooklyn Center
250
Elk River Utilities
425
Elk River
300
Average $ 290
Monticello School Superintendent, Shelly Johnson, receives
$425/month car allowance.
C/O
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
11. Review concepts on sewer and water assessment for trunk sewer.
(J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Staff requests that Council spend some time studying and
discussing the options for extending sewer services to areas
developing south of the present sewer utility lines. The
issues are somewhat complicated, and Council is not expected
to make final decisions regarding a development strategy. The
purpose of this discussion is to provide preliminary
information and formulate a strategy for future action.
The potential development of 90 acres of school district
property and the potential development of a neighboring 109
acres into single family residential use has created the need
to examine just how the water and sewer lines will be extended
and how the utilities will be financed. The 109 -acre
residential site is located directly south of the school and
is proposed to be developed at a rate of 20 acres per year.
This site is hereinafter referred to as the "Value Plus"
development. One would think that the manner and method of
financing utilities would be a simple, basic engineering
question. Unfortunately, it is not. As briefly as possible
I will attempt to outline some of the basic issues which will
be discussed further at the meeting.
OPTIONS FOR EXTENDING SEWER SERVICES
As you may know, the current plan for extension of sewer
facilities to points south of the city in this area calls for
extension of a deep trunk line from a position currently at
Dundas Road between Fallon Avenue and County Road 117. As you
will note on the attached maps, the planned trunk line is
intended to run through the Klein farm. It is strategically
located in a shallow swalo which allows deep placement of the
trunk line. The deep placement relative to the adjoining land
allows the trunk to servo a largo area using gravity flow.
Unfortunately, the elementary school site and the Value Plus
site are located some distance from the trunk line. Due to
the distance from the trunk line, it appears more economical
in the short run to sorve both of the proposed development
sites with a combination gravity flow/lift station design
shown under option B. This system would connect to the
existing sanitary sewer system.
Following is a more detailed rovlow of both options and
ImplicdLiuns for uach option.
OPTION A - EXTENSION OF TRUNK SEWER LINE
Desion/Cost
Option A calls for extension of a trunk sewer lino to a
position whore both the school and the value Plus development
16
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
sites can utilize gravity sewer service (see map). Under
this plan, there would be no need to install lift stations at
the Kjellberg or Value Plus sites.
This option would cost $343,000. This option opens up a
development area of 440 acres.
An easement to cross the Klein farm would be needed.
According to our conversations with members of the Klein
family, City acquisition of an easement should not be a
problem.
Financinq
There are a number of ways in which this project can be
financed. Unfortunately, none of them result In a quick
payment of a large percentage of the original expense. One
method for financing the improvement could be through the use
of the trunk sewer "area assessment" policy that was
established by a previous Council. This policy was not
established by ordinance; therefore, it is not binding. The
purpose of the area assessment is to finance the cost to
extend trunk sewer service serving large areas. The area
assessment requires that each property that needs trunk sewer
and water service must pay $1,250 for each acre of land that
gets access to trunk sewer. This amount is charged in
addition to other development costs associated with
Installation of lateral sewer services. In this case, if we
stuck to the area assessment policy, the revenue from the
entire 80 -acre school site would be $100,000, and the revenue
from the Value Pius development for the first year if 20 acres
were developed would be $25,000. The total potential revenue
from the Value Plus development amounts tv $136,000. The
northerly 80 acres of the Klein property, when fully developed
under this policy, would result in an additional $100,000 in
area assessment revenue. Again, total cost of the project is
$343,000. Total revenue available after full development
amounts to $336,000. This number does not include an amount
that could be assessed for lateral benefit that the trunk line
provides to property crossed. I will try to got an estimate
of the lateral benefit that could be assessed to supplement
area assessment revenue. Even though revenue almost matches
expenses, the total revenue will not be available until the
property is fully developed, which may take a number of years.
In the meantime, the City must carry the interest expense
associated with the original investment. This carrying cost
would be approximately $180,000 if the school and Value Plus
dovolopmont pay $125,000 right off the bat. The annual
carrying cost on $180,000 at 86 interest is $14,000 per year.
Another option for financing this improvement, mentioned by
Joel Jamnik of the League of Minnesota Cities, would be to
split the entire cost of the trunk line improvement between
the school and the City. Area assessment revenue from
properties benefiting from the trunk lino paid in the future
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
would then be distributed equally to the City and to the
school. This plan would serve to distribute some of the risk.
Under this plan, the school would pay $170,000 up front but
would obtain one-half of future area assessment proceeds until
the net paid by the school is reduced to $100,000, which is
the original school area assessment amount.
OPTION B - EXTENSION OF LATERAL/GRAVITY CONNECTION TO SCHOOL,
SERVE VALUE PLUS SITE WITH FORCE NAIN.
Design/Cost
Under this option, the elementary school would simply connect
to the city system via a lateral connection at Dundas Road.
This 600 -foot extension of sewer line used to connect the
school to the existing system would be a gravity line running
along the Fallon Avenue right-of-way and would cost
approximately $26,000 to construct. Under this Optiun, the
Value Plus development site would be served through
development of a lift station with force main connected to the
sewer line that serves the school. This portion of the project
would cost 113,000. Total short-term cost of option B is
$139,000. Option B looks good in the short run but has some
long-term cost implications. Under option B, two lift
stations will need to be installed, one to serve the Kjellberg
site and one to serve the Value Plus site. The long-term cost
of maintaining and replacing lift stations is an added cost
factor. In addition, the installation of the short-term
system at $139,00 does not eliminate the need to install the
trunk line at some later date. The short-term cost of the
lateral connections in addition to the trunk line cost amounts
to $482,000.
This option opens up a development area of 360 acres --80 acres
less than option A.
Financlnq
The simplest method for financing option B would be to require
the school and Value Plus Homes to share the $139,000 cost to
extend utilities to the Value Plus Homes development site.
Council could stop there and worry about financing the trunk
line later. On the other hand, in addition to paying the
actual cost, Council could consider requiring the school and
Value Plus Homes to pay both the short-term lateral connection
cost and the area assessment associated with future extension
of tho trunk line. Payment of the area assessment could be
required because the ability of the City to finance the
extension of the future trunk line depends on full
participation of all properties in financing the extension of
the trunk line. Without Value Plus Homos and school
participation, the cost to extend the trunk line would fall on
fewer property owners, thereby making it prohibitively
expensive In the future.
Council Agenda - 3/11/91
In the case of the Evergreens development, the City, under the
development agreement that was never executed, was going to
allow Kjellberg to extend a lateral connection to the line at
Dundas. The deal called for Kjellberg paying the entire cost
of the lateral connection and the area assessment. The area
assessment amount was to be paid through a $200 per home trunk
charge billed at the time the building permit is issued. In
addition, the residents of the Evergreens were to pay a $12
per quarter surcharge on their utility bills to assist further
in the financing of the area assessment debt. A similar
strategy could also be used to finance the area assessment
debt associated with Value Plus Homes.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
City staff requests that Council review the matter with City
staff and work toward identification of additional information
needs and toward possible development of a strategy for
extending and financing sewer and water utilities to the
elementary school and Value Plus Homes site.
The following questions could be addressed by Council during
discussion:
• what mothod should be used to serve the school site?
• Should the area assessment be employed under option A
or under option B.
• If an area assessment is contemplated, should the
school (40 acres elementary school 6 40 acres open) be
required to pay the full rate?
• Other?
C. STAFF RE1,01,121:ENDATION:
None.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Option A map; Option B map.
19
0
w. -m 1 / —m 11 .11
11 41,
311
C4F-- SEA 117
0
2— n,
RD,
ION A
I.TRUTK LINE IS� L rrE
KLEIN FARM;
$200,000 $ o 0
aaalk aaaa.—;�
PROdOSED RESIDEIV�IAL
FUTURE TRU VK
L --j �ALUE PLUS HOMES
$136,000
SERER SYSTEM EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES
OF T IM (OPTION
......----•---i---•-•-• ...... ----------------
TRUNK WIF I $343,000 IFUTURE EXPENSE
GRAVITY LINE TO SCHOOL 1401 NEEDED 1 1:5,100
FO;CEMA1H I HOT NEE 1113,000
3.HOLTHAUS LIFT MID NEEDED
Y-EYERGREENS LATERAL EMNSION I The :oat to coni:'. [.or -room .ja
S. MILE HOME PARK LIFT STATION Optlon A, is a.cro•imatell local to the cost
...............I.--._-.....--... to #-tend I lator4l connection to the Evergreens
SNORE TERM TO1Al COSI I 1363,000 I 1139 . 100 froi Dundas along -ith Installation a lift station.
t, FUTURE TWX UNE
... I .......................... ............... ............
TCTIL COST I 1313,000 i 1607.100
M
.-.___imow
Ij
rI
:4EL 5EA�
t
I Cry I �J
1 Et sF< • '� `tiy ��`�`
PT
�.... r,�..,r R0.
°?A Taw�WIL-Ii."iffl-
:,137 14 LATERAL EXTE`i5I0.
jGRAVITY SYSTEM ` i
1 LITERAL EXTENSIgAj
` KLEIN FARM; FUTURE TRUNK �� SI p}(, 11C `—
^ ' FOV MAI
o
iVERGREENS r
FUTURE TRUNK' t -dRfn STAT16'V I '
LIFT STATION f PROs OSED RESIDENTIAL
�ALUE PLUS HOJES
HOME PARK f '
r—j.
SEWER SYSTEM EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES ( 1 '—
jOP1tON jOPTiCN
( A ( B (
.................... s............... i................ .
SHORT TERN EXPENSE
$• TRUNK LINE ( $313,000 (FUTURE EXPENSE \\
—_—_—, 2,• GRAVITY LINE TO SCHOOL ( NOT NEEDED ( 1:6,100 The cos,, to connect Evergreens to ;runt line vie
3. KOLTRAUS LIFT AND FORTE".AIN ( NOT NEEDED ( VQ,000 Cot'cn A. i4 acoro.imately equal to the cost
`�• EVE.RGREEM6 LA'ESAL EXTENSION ( • j to a+tent a lataral canneCann to the Evercreens
S. MOBILE NOME PARK LIFT STATION ( ( (rryA Dundas along aith installation a lift station.
.................... I ............... I........
._._._.. i
SHORT tE:M TOTAL COST ( 1343.000 j 113i.10O
j ( (
6. FUTURE TPUNK LINE ( ( 1168.000 m
•aaasa.eeana.sa..rean.......(vn.........rn(onausnsa.san u
TOTAL COST ( $313.000 1 1601,100
V
i
r
Beginning Mileage: 34,924.6
Ending Mileage: 34,868.6
Total Milos: 44.0
2 ladder tie down straps: $5.98
Caravan serviced: oil filter: $3.75
City shop oil Blabor
BUILDI:JNSPECTION DEPARTMENT
1988 DODGE CARAVAN MONTHLY REPORT
MARCH 4, 1991, TO MARCH 8. 1991
DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 11, 1991
EMPLOYEE/DEPT.
314
3/5
3/6
3/7 3/6
TOTAL
GARY ANDERSON
2:15
2:00
1:00
5:30 0:15
11:00
BLDG.INSP.
KOROPCHAK
IOLLIE
ECONOMIC DEV.
JEFF O'NEILL
0:15
ADMIN.
MARLENE HELLMAN
0:15
FINANCE
CATHY SHUMAN
UTIL. BILLING
DOTY
1:00
(KAREN
ADMIN.
DIANE JACOBSON
0:15
0:15
0:15
0:15
DEPUTY REG.
WANDA KRAEMER
UTIL. BILLING
KOVICH
(PAT
DEPUTY REG.
!TOTALS
2:30
2:15
1:15
5:30 0:45
12:15
Beginning Mileage: 34,924.6
Ending Mileage: 34,868.6
Total Milos: 44.0
2 ladder tie down straps: $5.98
Caravan serviced: oil filter: $3.75
City shop oil Blabor
Beginning Mileage: 34,628.2
Ending Mileage: 34,924.6
Total Miles: 296.4
4.4 gallons gasoline: $5.00
2 car washes: $4.75 each . S9.50
BUILDh.—ANSPECTION DEPARTMENT
1988 DODGE CARAVAN MONTHLY REPORT
FEBRUARY 11, 1991, TO MARCH 1, 1991
DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 11, 1991
EMPLOYEE/DEPT.
2/11 2/12
2113 2114
2/15
2117 2119 2120 2121 2/22 2/25 2126 2127 2/28 311
TOTAL
GARY ANDERSON
1:45 8:15
1:45 3:15
1:45
:30 2:00 3:00 2:15 1:00 1:30
27:00
BLDG. INSP.
KOROPCHAK
2:00
2:00
IOLLIE
ECONOMIC DEV.
JEFF O'NEILL
0:00
ADMIN.
MARLENE HELLMAN
0:15 0:15 0:15
0:45
FINANCE
SHUMAN
5:00
9:00
14:00
(CATHY
UTIL. BILLING
DOTY
0:30
0:30
(KAREN
ADMIN.
DIANE JACOBSON
0:15
0:15
0:30
DEPUTY REG.
WANDA KRAEMER
0:15
0:15
UTIL. BILLING
PAT KOVICH
0:15
0:15
DEPUTY REG.
TOTALS
6:45 8:15
1:45 5:30
2:00
0:30 2:15 3:15 2:15 2:00 1:30 0:15 9:00 0:00 0:00
45:15
Beginning Mileage: 34,628.2
Ending Mileage: 34,924.6
Total Miles: 296.4
4.4 gallons gasoline: $5.00
2 car washes: $4.75 each . S9.50