City Council Agenda Packet 03-27-1995AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIIL,
Monday, March 27, 1895 - 7 p.m.
S
Mayor: Brad Fyle
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault
1. Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 13, 1995.
�! Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
5. Public Hearing --Consideration of resolution accepting bids, awarding
project, and ordering project - Southwest Area Utility Extension (Project
95-01C).
6. Consideration of accepting Police Commission report which studies the
merits of contracting vs. establishment of a local police department.
7. Consideration of accepting plans and specifications and authorizing
advertisement for bids - Cardinal Hills Phase V.
8. Consideration of resolution accepting feasibility study and authorizing
preparation of plans and specifications for completion of School Boulevard
from Fallon Avenue to Highway 25.
9. Consideration of adopting terms of sale - Outlet A, Country Club Manor.
10. Consideration of approaches toward marketing and sale of Eastwood Knoll
property.
11. Consideration of amendments to the City ordinance governing trees by
requiring additional tree plantings on double -fronting lots.
12. Consideration of appointing City representatives to Monticello Senior
Housing AIlianoe Board.
13. Consideration of an application for a one -day gambling license - Ducks
Unlimited Banquet
14. Council Update --trunk storm sewer access charge.
15. Consideration of bills for the month of March, 1895.UIQsA c N
16. Adjournment
J
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 13, 1995 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
2. Anurpval of min>Vrtgk of the svec ial meeting held February 27 and the
regular meeting held February 27. 1995.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Brian Stumpf to approve the minutes of the special meeting held
February 27 and the regular meeting held February 27, 1995. Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Consideration of adding items to the aeendfk.
None.
4. Citizens comments/netitions. requests. and complaints;
None.
5. &r lic Hearing --Meadow Oak Pond Outlet Project 93-12C. AND
8. (p derayion pf k resolution accepting bid and awarding contracts -Meadow
Oak Pond Outlet Proiect 93-12C.
Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing.
City Engineer Bret Weiss explained that the storm sewer project is being
proposed to drain the Meadow Oak development area, which was originally
planned to drain into ditch 33; however, in the early 1980'9 the County
prevented additional drainage from flowing into ditch 33, which has
resulted in overflow of ponding areas in the Meadow Oak development. He
noted that the City has studied options for draining the 244 -acro area; and
in the summer of 19%, the Council chose to design the storm sewer project
down Gillard Avenue along with street improvements to Gillard. Weiss
noted that since Gillard Avenue is near the end of its useful life and in in
poor condition, it was felt that replacement is needed.
Weiss went to report that the bide received in August 1994 were much
higher than the original construction estimate, and the State and County
had not agreed at that time to participate in the project; therefore, Council
chose to reject the bids and re -advertise in the spring of 1995, including an
Page 1
Council Minutes - 3/13/95
additional 5 cubic feet per second capacity. The City received ten bids on
March 3, 1995, the lowest from Barbarossa and Sons, Inc., for $327,199.45,
which includes $82,595.45 for the Gillard Avenue street construction. The
engineer's estimate for this project was $320,130, and notices were mailed
to the affected property owners indicating an approximate storm sewer
benefit of $1,550 per acre and $7.77 per lineal foot for street benefit. He
noted that an assessment hearing will be held once the project is completed,
and residents will be notified of the proposed assessment amount.
Residents of the proposed project area questioned why some of the
surrounding city and township areas were not included in the project
assessment. The City Engineer explained that some of the surrounding
areas drain in the opposite direction of this system and will be handled by a
different outlet, and other areas will have systems designed by the
developer, who will also install the improvements.
A letter and petition was presented by Gillard Avenue residents. It was
their view that the storm run-off from their area does not contribute to the
problem in the Meadow Oak development, and they requested that Council
provide some relief to the Gillard Avenue residents in the form of a reduced
assessment. The City Engineer explained that once the Gillard Avenue
area is fully developed, there will be standing water if a storm sewer system
is not put in place.
Another question raised by residents was why present and new homeowners
weren't notified that this project would be forthcoming since the City has
known about it for quite some time. Assistant Administrator O'Neill
responded that the City is asked to complete assessment searches when
properties are sold, and the City could have reported that there "might" be
an assessment, but he noted that there is no legal requirement that the
City notify all residents in advance of the public hearing that there may
possibly be a project assessment in the future.
Mayor Fyle then closed the public hearing.
Councilmomber Herbst requested that the proposed Orrin Thompson
development, consisting of approximately 80 acres south of the Oak Ridge
development, be included in the assessment area sines its storm water will
eventually be discharged into this system. The City Engineer noted that
the arca could be included in the prgjoct, and access charges at the time of
development would then reduce the City's amount of the project cost.
Public Works Director John Simola stated that an agreement has been
reached with Ocne and Lois Bauer for extension of the storm sewer system
through their property, and Council is asked to table award of the project so
that staff can continue to work with We State fbr additional funding.
Page 2
Council Minutes - 3/13/95
After further discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Brian Stumpf to table award of the Meadow Oak storm sewer
project to allow staff time to obtain additional funding from the State of
Minnesota. Motion carried unanimously.
Continged ppblic hearing on vropgked modificatign of Redevelopment Plpn
for groiect No. 1,modificatioq of TIF plans for Districts 3-1 throueh 1-18.
and adoption of TIF elan for District 1-19 (Mississippi Shores).
Economic Development Director 011ie Kuropcliak reported that the public
hearing for adoption of the District 1-19 TIF plan was continued from the
February 27, 1995, meeting to allow for completion of the senior housing
project financial package. She noted that all public hearing notice
requirements have been met, and the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution on February 7, 1995, stating that the proposed senior housing
project and TIF plan are consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city
of Monticello.
Steve Bubul, Bond Counsel, explained that the Senior Housing Alliance
plans to construct a 48 -unit senior housing facility at an estimated cost of
$3.3 million. The project will be financed through revenue bonds issued by
%the City, along with tax increment financing and a cash donation of
$100,000 &am the Hospital Board. The land will be sold to the Alliance for
$175,000. In regard to the revenue bonds, Bubul assured the Council that
the City will not be liable, as they are not general obligation bonds and will
be secured by rents f%om the project. The estimated tax increment of
$42,285 is based on a $1,850,000 estimated market value and is sufficient to
cover the TIF budget.
No comments were received from the public. Mayor Fyle then dosed the
public hearing.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to adopt the resolution adopting the plan for TIF District
No. 1.19. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95.18.
6717rltmi =63 -41,01 ITTEwli
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchek reported that this is a
continuation of the public hearing opened on February 13, 1995, for
adoption of a housing plan and program for issuance of multi -firmly
housing revenue bonds in conjunction with the senior housing project known
as Mississippi Shores. She noted that all public hearing notice
requirements have been met.
Page 3
Council Minutes - 3113195
Mayor Fyle noted that he spoke with Jerry Shannon of Springsted, Inc., the
City's Bond Consultant, and Shannon confirmed that if the City adopts the
resolution for issuance of these revenue bonds, it does not become a liability
for the City.
There being no comment from the public, Mayor Fyle then closed the public
hearing.
Councilmember Stumpf noted that he would be more comfortable if the
term "multi -family" could be replaced with the term, "senior" ho . i,�g
revenue bonds in order to avoid any confusion as to the intent of the
housing project. Attorney Steve Bubul stated that the terminology on the
resolution can be changed per Stumpfs request.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Tom Perrault to adopt the resolution adopting the housing plan and
program for issuance of senior housing revenue bonds. Motion carried
unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95.17.
Considgrjttign of ordering a public hearing for storm sewer improvements
within Meadow Oak subdivision.
Public Works Director John Simola reported that Gary Sandman, property
owner of Lot 6, Block 2, Meadow Oak Third Addition, is requesting that the
City correct the drainage problem in the Maplewood Circle area so that the
conditional occupancy can be removed Item his home.
Simola explained that when the second addition was developed, the City did
not have a survey requirement and dirt was pushed west into the easement
abutting the easterly line of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Meadow Oak Third
Addition. When the Maplewood Circle tote were being developed, it was
noted to the builders by the Building Official that the lots must be graded
properly to obtain proper drainage. The owners were given conditional
occupancies until the final grading was completed, but the builders and
home owners were requested to escrow funds to complete the grading-,
however, last fall it was noted by the Building Official that the grading was
not completed in a way to allow the water to flow out of the Maplewood
Circlo lots.
During a neighborhood meeting held with City staff, it was discovered that
the escrow funds had been released even though none of the homes had
received final occupancy. Staff suggested to the property owners and
builders that they collectively hire a landscape contractor to grade the
easement and share the cost. Since they were unwilling to do this, they
Page 4
Council Minutes - 3/13/95
were also informed that they could petition the Council for improvements;
however, this approach would be much more costly and would result in
assessments to the benefiting property owners.
Gary Sandman of 2750 Maplewood Circle stated that he knew nothing
about the drainage problem on this lot when he purchased the home six
months ago, and it was his view that the City should correct the problem by
removing the material from the easement so that the drainage doesn't
collect on his property.
Mayor Fyle noted that he would be willing to call for a public hearing
however, he preferred that the residents jointly correct the situation rather
than the City performing the work as a public improvement and assessing
the benefiting properties. The Public Works Director also noted that the
public works department could regrade the area and ask the home owners
to re -seed, which Councilmember Herbst felt would be a fair compromise.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Brad
Fyle to deny calling a public hearing for improvements and request that
property owners work together to solve the drainage issue. Councilmember
Anderson noted that the City could act as mediator for a neighborhood
meeting in an attempt to help resolve the situation. Voting in favor: Brian
Stumpf, Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Clint Herbst, Tom
Perrault.
10. Consideration of final plat auuroval - Eastwood Knoll,
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that after a year of reviewing
preliminary sketch plans, a final plat fbr the 30 -lot Eastwood Knoll
residential development has been completed. The final plat at this time
does not show the north/south road connecting to Meadow Oak Avenue;
however, once Lot 2, Block 3, Meadow Oak Estates has gone through the
tax forfeiture process through the County Auditor's office, Wolfsteller noted
that it appears the City will be able to obtain the title and can then connect
the road to Meadow Oak Avenue.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to approve the final plat as submitted for the Eastwood Knoll
residential subdivision. Motion carried unanimously.
It was the consensus of Council to discuss restrictive covenants and
marketing issues for this plat at the next regular Council meeting.
Page 5
Council Minutes - 3/13/96
11. Consideration of a resolution acgentine bids and pwardine contract for
improvements to Eastwood Knoll - Proiect 94-02C.
City Engineer Bret Weiss reported that on March 10 the City received 19
bids for improvements to the Eastwood Knoll subdivision. The bids ranged
from a low of $319,761.16 from Breitbach Construction of Elmsa,
Minnesota, to a high of $414,972. The engineer's estimate for the project
was $362,026.
Weiss noted that a reference check of Breitbach Construction revealed n
firm with 30 plus years of experience in general contracting with a solid
reputation in the building industry but with limited experience in sewer
and water construction. This limited amount of experience typically results
in higher -than -normal engineering and inspection costa; however, based on
the $20,000 difference between the first and second bidders, the project
could afford slightly higher engineering and inspection charges. Therefore,
Weiss recommended awarding the contract to Breitbach Construction.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brian
Stumpf to adopt the resolution accepting the low bid and awarding the
contract to Breitbach Construction of Elrosa, Minnesota, in the amount of
$319,761.16. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 96-18.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the Monticello Country Club is
interested in obtaining the small trees that would be disturbed by the
construction project.
After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to allow the Country Club
to remove the small trees that would otherwise be disturbed by the
construction project.
12. Consideration of a resolution approving plans and acecific0tionq e
fluthgrizin advertisement for bids - Klein Farms residential subdivision.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the City Engineer has
completed preparation of the plans and specifications for the Klein Farms
residential subdivision as directed by the Council. The developer has
indicated that he will provide financial guarantees to the City covering all
expenses leading up to the award of the contract.
Page 6
Council Minutes - 3/13/95
O'Neill outlined the remaining steps to be taken prior to completion of the
project. Monticello Township will consider signing the joint resolution for
annexation at its meeting on March 20, the bid opening is scheduled for
April 7, and consideration of adopting a negative declaration of impact on
the EAW will be considered on April 10 along with consideration of the
developer agreement and final plat.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to adopt the resolution approving plans and specifications
and authorizing advertisement for hide for the Klein Farms residential
subdivision. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 95-19.
13. Consideratior�,f ratifvina EDA aonointments.
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reported that on January 9
the City Council appointed Councilmember Tom Perrault to fill the EDA
seat vacated by the resignation of Patty Olsen last year. At that time,
Council also established a policy that all commissioners must be a resident
of the city of Monticello, which left another vacant seat on the EDA.
Koropchak noted that interviews were conducted on March 7, and it was the
view of the interview committee that both candidates were well qualified.
After discussion, it was the recommendation of the EDA to appoint William
Demeules as commissioner of the EDA with a term expiration of December
2000.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Tom Perrault to ratify the appointment of William Demeules as
commissioner of the EDA with a term expiration of December 2000. Motion
carried unanimously.
14. Consideration of aoorovine immce of eambline license renewal American
-
Legion Club.
City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the American Legion Club is
requesting approval of their gambling license renewal fbr operating pull -
tabs at the club. As in the past, a financial report has been provided to the
Council showing where charitable donations are being made within the city.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Tom Perrault to accept the Legion Club financial report as presented and
adopt the resolution approving the application for renewal of the license for
the Amorican Legion Club. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 95-20.
Page 7
Council Minutes - 3/13/96
16. Consideration of purchase of small cony machine for city W.
City Administrator Wolfsteller noted that a few years ago the City
purchased a small copy machine for the service counter area at city hall to
more easily accommodate customers; however, the copy machine was needed
by the deputy registrar department when they moved to their new office in
September 1994. Staff is requesting that Council consider purchasing a
Sharp Model 2114 copy machine Brom Marco Business Products of St. Cloud
in the amount of $2,249.28 to replace the one moved to the deputy registrar
office.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Brian Stumpf to approve the purchase of a Sharp Model 2114 copy machine
from Marco Business Products in the amount of $2,249.28. Voting in favor:
Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault. Opposed: Clint
Herbst.
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reported that the EDA
yearend financial statement shows a beginning fund balance of
$636,814.08, revenues of $73,741.63, and expenditures of $680 for a year-
end
earend find balance of $709,876.61. She noted that the yearend EDA
financial reports were approved by the EDA at their March 7, 1996,
meeting.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to accept the EDA balance sheet; statement of revenues,
expenditures, and changes in fund balance; 1996 cash flow projections; and
the annual activity report as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
17. Conaideratio of year-end reports for UDAG and SCF$G.
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reviewed the current
GMEF loans and noted the 1996 sources of funds available to the EDA
through the GMEF total $477,032.20. She also noted that although the
total available is $477,032.20, the annual GMEF appropriation is $200,000.
No action was required by Council.
18. Other matters.
A. Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that since the School
District is beginning its planning for facilities expansion and the City
is mvising its comprehensive plan, perhaps the City should be
represented at the School Board meetings to try and work
Page 8
Council Minutes • 3/13/95
cooperatively on community facilities. He noted that according to the
Planner's tactic report, lack of joint City/School District planning is a
concern.
Council agreed that it's important for the two jurisdictions to work
jointly, and Councilmember Herbst volunteered to attend the School
Board meetings as a City representative.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 9
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
8. Public Heartna—Consideration of resolution aocenthm bids,
gwardina ogntrack. and ordering oroiect • Southwest Area UtHity
Extension (Proiect 95-010. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
City Council is asked to conduct a public hearing on the improvement and
consider accepting bids awarding contract and ordering improvements
which calla for development of a lift station and extension of sanitary sewer
and watermain from the present location at Sandberg Road to Gould's
Chevrolet and D & D Bus Company. In November of 1994, the City Council
reviewed a feasibility study and associated finance plan calling for
development of a sanitary sewer and watermain system which would be
extended from present position at Sandberg Road to D & D Bus Company.
Prior to this action, City Council had received petitions from D & D Bus,
Gould's Chevrolet and Gehardt Everson. Two other properties affected by
the project include Stuart Hoglund property and the Milton Olson property.
The finance plan supporting the development is being updated based on the
bid tab and will be presented at the meeting. Please note that all of the
parties that are involved in this project have reviewed the original finance
plan and none have indicated an objection to the plan. It appears that
everyone recognizes that the need for sewer and water systems to be
extended into this area is necessary at this time and that the original
proposed assessment amounts are consistent with the added value that will
be created for each property when the project is completed. The updated
finance plan being presented on Monday will reveal slightly higher costs
than expected for the lateral sewer and water improvements.
As an update to previous actions, the Township Board did sign the joint
resolution allowing the annexation of the Gould Chevrolet property and D &
D Bus Company. Therefore, the City is now in position to assess Gould's
and D & D Bus properties as well as the Milton Olson property and
Gehardt Everson property for their share of the cost of the improvements.
The fifth property that remains in the township (Stuart Hoglund property)
may not be assessed for the benefit received until such time that the
property is annexed into the City. At such time as the Hoglund property
comes into the City, a separate assessment hearing will be conducted and
the Hoglund property will then be nit aced its share of the cost of the
improvement project.
This project consists of a trunk lift station and a short piece of trunk sewer
constructed on Marvin Road which will temporarily discharge into our
existing sanitary sewer system in the area and the construction of lateral
Council Agenda - 3/27/96
sanitary sewer and storm sewer to service 2 properties located in the City,
Gould Chevrolet, and D & D Bus, as well as 26 acres of the Hoglund
property. Only a temporary trunk watermain connection is being proposed
at this time.
The engineer's estimate for the project was $161,029.26. City staff and the
engineer built an alternate into the project to make use of the existing
pumps and control panel from our lift station near the reservoir as that one
is in need of upgrading this year.
On Friday, March 24, 1996, the City received eight (8) bids for the project.
The bids range from a low of $163,163.03 to a high of $263,027.66. The low
bid was received from Bonine Excavating, Inc. of Elk River, Minnesota.
They also offered us an alternate or discount of $12,600 to delete the
pumps, electrical connections and control panel from the project so that we
could reuse the ones form the reservoir lift station. Refurbishing the lift
station pumps from the reservoir, installing the used control panel and
complete wiring is estimated at a cost of around $6,000 to $6,000.
Consequently, we could realize a savings in the neighborhood of $6,000 or
$7,000 by reusing those existing pumps. The pumps, however, being
provided with the new lift station would have a greater capability and last
longer before they are upgraded than the old reservoir lift station pumps.
As of the date of the writing of this memo, I have reviewed the need for the
drainage and utility easements with the affected property owners. All of
the property owners have indicated that they will sign the easement
documentation, thereby paving the way for installation of the utilities.
Please note, however, that in the event the easements have not been signed
by the time the Council meets, that any action that Council takes to order
the project would have to be contingent on the City obtaining signed
easements from all of the affected property owners.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to accept bids awarding project to Bonine Excavating, Inc. in
the amount of $163,163.03 and order improvements for Southwest
Area Utility Extension contingent on acquisition of all necessary
easements.
Under this alternative, City Council remains comfortable with the
finance plan and project concepts discussed in November, 1994. If
4
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
this alternative is selected, City staff will make sure that easements
are obtained and that the project commences on a timely basis. At
such time as the project is completed, a separate assessment hearing
will be held for the purpose of defining the final distribution of WAS
to the benefitting property owners. Please refer to the attached chart
for an update to the finance plan that was approved by Council in
November. The new plan shows the updated figures based on the bid
received on Friday.
Motion to deny bids awarding project and order improvement -
Southwest Area Utility Extension.
This alternative should be selected if the City Council is no longer
comfortable with moving forward on this project. There does not
appear to be any new information at this time that would cause
Council to change its direction on this matter. If one of the property
owners is reluctant to grant easements necessary to complete the
project, then such a position might have an impact on the Council's
decision. In my discussions with the property owners, this does not
appear to be a possibility.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative Al based upon the bids being within the
engineer's estimate and based upon the information concerning use of used
pumps at this location. Staff would recommend saving our pumps from the
reservoir project for spares and install new pumps at the Marvin Road lift
ststion. The City Engineer and staff are reviewing the components of the
low bid to dotermino tho portions to be paid by the City and property
owners. This information will be provided at Monday eveninqfs meeting
after all of the bids have been verified and summarized.
Copy of bid tabulation; Copy of preliminary financo plan; Copy of resolution.
BID TABULATION
FOR
SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT NO.9601C
FOR THE CRY OF MONTICELLO
WRIOKT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
=5 OPENM W AAL
=150.669.09
3296.9e1.00
Wth 2k low
322A,288.ee
$211.288.881
I
I
$189,789.90
I
3179,7e9.90I
$191,753.80
CONTRACTOR.
1Aaro Atlphat Inc.
NOTED
SECUL
IAnrican Cast bon Pipe Company
1
$162.910.61
$263.027,58
1Bwbarossa & Sone, Inc.
18onine ExeevetlnA,Inc.
x
x
IBurachv6bConstruction. Inc.
x
x
IG.L. Contracft, Inc.
x
x
lHydro Ertgbwwmg
11niand Ub* Consruotlon, Inc.
I.I.R. Ferche. Inc.
IKedlee Excavating
1Kuoehis Underground
x
x
11-andwehr Construction, Inc.
IL.etow Construction, Inc.
x
X
IMingsr Constuctbn. Inc.
1Munk4ml Butidare, Inc.
INcr"IsComtructbn
x
x
IGua* Flow Symons, Inc.
IR.L. Lenon Excays**. Inc,
x
x
IRandy wanes Cxcavating
1Redsmm Commuction C..pmry
x
x
IRyen Construction, Inc.
IS.J. Louis Construction, Inc.
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
OPReOfl.Dlal VERM
ARSOMATE4 81C.
BID W/DEDUCT
3189,169.09
=150.669.09
3296.9e1.00
3290,961.001
322A,288.ee
$211.288.881
I
I
$189,789.90
I
3179,7e9.90I
$191,753.80
3180,805.801
I
$108.02236
I
$180,022.981
$17Z910.81
1
$162.910.61
$263.027,58
1
7
$161.029.25
I HEREBY CERTFY THAT THIS 8A TRUE AND CORRECT
TABL"TION OF THE BW A6 RECEIVED Ol:
DATE: Mwdl 24, IM
eY:
Bill — A,— We"P.E.
05M Roisa No. 55Q.00 _ 9ndo Conweed Figme
0
PRELIMINARY FINANCE PLAN
SOUTHWEST AREA TRUNK SEWER AND TRUNK WATERMAIN
711u�p�ernac-
��azll—
117)12. oZdt�J .
PROJECT EXPENSME SUMMARY
Uh Staoon Lamm "Tors
lateral
am Fame Sawn Wamr
water
TOW
Arra %fth Eowm Eae.
EMMM
Coe
Prapn
$18,700
Irenorl
Emmrae $101.000 578300 5120.000
530,000
::70,300
'Tn nk Fa lateral Trus
Lateral
Total
Sen Ban AwM Fee
Ben. Asm!
Fees
sow Sean Wamr
Wamr
88.000
PROPERTIES
Olson
4
$5.000
$3.700
W
$8.000
$18,700
Irenorl
3
$8250
85,700
$3,123
58.000
$21,070
OouNa
51
$8,375
$5,700
$3,188
88.000
$21,283
D am! D BW
46
$5.750
$5,700
$2.875
$8.000
520.325
1loo.ow
25
$312.50
$5.700
515.825
58.000
858,575
Trunk lea
Asso uronts
881.823
828500
$24,813
63D,000
$137,838
City share
$18,375
80
825,188
80
$141,583
'Wow,""
AH%
0%
79%
0%
51%
ITOW amt
1
$101,000
8211AW
$120,000
$30,000
8279.500
SP1 I TOW
$101,000
83.500
50
$30,000
$159,500
IN= I Funds
$101,875
Poom of IDtd phase I Inprmwnwft hr10a0
by asmarraft or W had 1sa
84%
hltrmt Ram
7.5D%
Tamyoon
10
SmYtay ewer ous Ise a ooW at Om o1 use.
•• Tr1nk watt syomm lr "ernon0 n01 recon" 0 oft Ona.
Rap ~t7 Aran cop is bop system aaoas t mq.
"'Clry sora b be ratmorao de paymea of sus Oa asaocAM x181 kmra *wdo mmt
NOTE. Ptma3 I hatls Wduds h aunt manuaemrda Wr phase 11imis er 1n smron and
loan main oDaM to Olson a Everaw, Thea mets a9 W assessed Well acsrl ue.
F I L E 0001. W K4: 03/24/95 0
RESOLUTION 95•
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID, AWARDING CONTRACT, AND
ORDERING PROJECT ON SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITY EXTENSION
AND APPURTENANT WORK
PROJECT 9"IC
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 23rd day of January, 1995, fixed a
date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of a lift station and extension of
sanitary sewer and watermain from its present location near Sandberg Road to Gould's
Chevrolet and D & D Bus Company; and
WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was
given, and the hearing was held thereon the 27th day of March, 1995, at which all persons
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvements to the Southwest
Area Utilitiy Extension, Project 96-01C, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according
to law, and the attached bids were received complying with the advertisement; and
AND WHEREAS, it appears that Bonine Construction, Inc., of Elk River, Minnesota is the
lowest responsible bidder with a bid amount of $1133,163.03;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed.
The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into
the attached contract with Bonine Construction, Inc., in the name of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, for improvements to the Southwest Area Utility Extension and
appurtenant work according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the
City Council and on file in the office of the City Administrator.
The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all
bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successAil
bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of March, 1995.
Mayor
City Administrator
Re: Southwest Area Utility Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 95 -OIC
City of Monticello
OSM Project No. 5562.00
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Bids were received for the above -referenced project at 10:00 a.m., March 24, 1995, and were
opened and read aloud. A total of eight responsive bids were received. Bonine Excavating,
Inc., 12669 Meadowvale Road, Elk River, Minnesota 55330, submitted the lowest bid in the
amount of 5163,152.98 The bids were checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated.
The Engineer's Estimate was $161,029.25.
We recommend award of the contract to Bonine Excavating, Inc., in the amount of
$163,152.98.
The Bid Tabulation and Bid Extension are enclosed.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYEKUN
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
eaa [J.(; -
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Project Manger
Enclosures
,.wumtc,vu icon,ttrnw,n mn
caw opponWy r„ra■+
Orr
wwkn
&
Inc.
March 27, 1995
300 Park Place East
5775 e: ayaata Boulevard
slinneapORS, MN 55116.1228
612-595-5775
I-804753.5775
FAX 595.5774
Mayor and City Council
Engneers
City of Monticello
Architects
Planners
P.O. Boz 1147
surveyors
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362.9245
Re: Southwest Area Utility Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 95 -OIC
City of Monticello
OSM Project No. 5562.00
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Bids were received for the above -referenced project at 10:00 a.m., March 24, 1995, and were
opened and read aloud. A total of eight responsive bids were received. Bonine Excavating,
Inc., 12669 Meadowvale Road, Elk River, Minnesota 55330, submitted the lowest bid in the
amount of 5163,152.98 The bids were checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated.
The Engineer's Estimate was $161,029.25.
We recommend award of the contract to Bonine Excavating, Inc., in the amount of
$163,152.98.
The Bid Tabulation and Bid Extension are enclosed.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYEKUN
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
eaa [J.(; -
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Project Manger
Enclosures
,.wumtc,vu icon,ttrnw,n mn
caw opponWy r„ra■+
y
BID TABULATION
FOR
SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT NO. 95-01C
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
BIDS OPENED: 10:00 A.M. ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
March 24, 1995 & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONTRACTOR
ADDEND.
BID TOTAL TOTAL BID
NOTED
SECURITY BID W/DEDUCT
Bonin Excavating
X
•5183,152.98 •5150,652.90
R.L. Larson Excavating
X
•S172.910.80 •5162,910.80
Kuachle Underground
X
$189,769.34 $179,769.30
Latour Construction, Inc.
X
$191,755.80 $160,605.80
i
Northdato Construction
X
$196,022.38 $160,022.30
G.L Contracting
X
5224,288.68 5214,288.60
Burschville Construction
X
$238,361.00 $230,361.00
Redstone Construction
5253,027.13 5253.027.13
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
$181,029.25
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS
AS RECEIVED ON:
DATE: M!0 44. 1995
BY: �4 lj --
Brat A. Weiss, P.E.
OSM Project No. 5562.00
-Denotoo Corrocted Figure
�luuaotnulwr,u
Extension of Bids
SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT NO. 95.01C
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Bid Date: March 24, 1995
10:00 A.M.
" Denotes corrected figure.
Peg 46
ENGINEER'S
LOW BIDDER
2ND BIDDER
3RD BIDDER
ESTIMATE
BONINE EXCAVATING R. L. LARSON EXCAVATING
KUECHLE UNDERGROUND
Tam EM:
111111,0292%
Tar aa: '1163.152.95 Tar BIa ••6174.910,810
ram Did:
ae9a�a4
Itan So" No DmAPI a,
Ctmntlt7 ,A111
U'a PAC.
140 Ta"
U4 PM
own Tar
1k111 P,b
Ma Toe-
LAM P,to
1410 T
1 2011,50.111' WATERMAINOUCT IRON Cl 52
10yLIN FT _
I7.00
_ 24.tl
N,A0P.90
13_00
-_
C1.3 0.00
14.00
62,%2000 1
_----
22611.50S'WATERMAIN•DUCTMON CL52 1
117e'LIN FT
1%.00+
_2,10001)
617A700
45.71
1%.101
117,717.80
15.00
{17:e70,00�
J 2011.50310'WATFRM_A_IN_-0UCTIR_ONCL S?
"OLIN FT
17.00
6611000
__- _20,3%7.00
3020
$1,21200
20751
6!9000
%10".501 REMOVE 10• DIP WA7ERIWN
I
37 LIN FT
'-'I-
_
4.0
{112.00
3.10
6102.70
J 00
-620,00
20_00
_22.00_ _--
--
10.00
_
5' 2811.50]1r WATER MAIN -DUCT IRONCL2
- -
"u LIN cr_-_-
939.00--a.e"o00
_
3%31_
_
_69301"0:
_ 23.70_
93,365.40
_ _
23.0063
-".00-
cM.0o tl
--- -- -
-- a 26I1.502HVDRANT _
--
-
--
- t
2 EACH
--41EACH --
_-
1900.0
-
2,000
1=111)
2.0540
1.30000 _ _
62.000.00
1,30000
/2,000,00
72111 t,5a�P}G''OATE VALVE AND 00X-
3_75.00
11,60000
3110
62.0 .00
400,00
61.010.00!
_
2011.80'L1. OATS VALVE AIM -BOX _ ---
_ -_--
2�EACH - _
_ -60.00 _
-70.00_
_
{1.00000
501.10
_$1.406,0
$1.00290
_slow
579.00 -. -
_ {1.151.00
_
_510.00 _
_ 61,10000
9:46t1._0417_OATEVALVE AND 00X -
_1+EACH-
{7500
_814 to _
_ $9,1.10
_M10_
fM5_00
_ 1600
_1111000)
,0_201, 6021• CORPORATION STOP _-.y-�
- 1,EAZN__
_75'0
9350
13201{
6,330
_310�__W.m
-_
_ _w0u
M400�
112011.5021' CURB STOP A BOX I
EACH
6800
49401
$49,40
750_
25.00
675.0
1220tt.502,11_.-TVPEKCOPPCRPSIE _ - -_
_1
30LINFT
__0.0'
7.0{1
2100
1015
$304.50 $304.50
610
_
�Sm.00
_ _75,0
130 _
--{]n000�
17:2011. rCOR ORATION STOP � - -
,I ACH -
-60.00I�..
.• 6800
,42.00 -_$14200
{100.00
_ ,3500,
6135A0
_
1412011.50rCURB STOP $BOX --- -
-
-- 1{EACII
4000
200
IA]0
1111070
_,0000
180,0 -
-
_• $16D.0
--_-20.00
170.0 --_
_
6110,0{
r
152011,50r TYPE. K COPPER P9'E
tOLIN F1
17.0
{1300
1355
$13550
260
3600
21100
602011, 1CONNECT TO EXISTWGWATER MAIN
1ICACH
700
9300
4100
$4100
4200
µ2O0
_-
0500
66%00
111 9311. 1 POLYBTYRENEINSULATION
30icor0
49930
$00000
12.35
63m5o
_
2500
_
250.00
20 Do
"DO 00
~93.175.0
111201, nODucTSLE moN rITTINoe
i
2125,LD
n0
µRUW
1.151
92.44775
Loo
--
-
194
2,250
19.2'2t1 W1AGGREGATE nA--P. CLAMS 4
80JON
Sao`
6400
e601
{51400
110
{24.00
1000
Saw 00:
2DIV II. REMOVE 1 RrPLACE DIToWY I
o71CO VD
7.501
650250
1375
SM 45
37.30
$2.400.10
33,00
2,91100
21 DIV 11• DAM 1
31EACH
5001
{1,5000
0011
100
1Do
93-00
001
10,031
tOROUNDWATER
22 DIV 14 UTILITY CON'JTRUCT,ON
11LLWP CUM
1,00.0
61,000
51301
$5170
17,500
6172050
001
$001
$POND
P7 4577 GILT rCNCE,KAW DUTY _
1
1501LW R
QASj
W760
2051
5:101.50
70}
_ _ 8450.0
9.16
_
µ1480i
142575 COOOWD
I
70 GO TD
176
112260
20'
614750
S0
M0.0
70
210.01
461II575601GECDINO _-
,,4'ACRC
110000
{IR00
0160;
117360
1,000 -
--- 111900.0
--950Do --
11,1400
20,4106301ICLCAr1IN0
I
,
061 AM
7,a00
{1,6000
1,0720
6%700
3,000
{1,6000
6,0000
2,0001
972;75!73WOOD r10En BLANKET
50 CO YO
20
11,000
1.351
110750
1.951
/20.0
40
11,000
I TOTAL SCHEDULE AI WATERVAW
I
I
S RA00
^I
655,729,
I
1619531.70
5".229841
Peg 46
Extension of Bids Bid Date: March 24, 1995
SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITY 10:00 A.M.
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT NO. 95-01C "Denotes corrected figure.
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ENGINEER'S LOW BIDDER2ND BIDDER 3RD BIDDER
ESTIMATE GOWCE EXCAVATING R. L LARDE
SON EXCAVATING KUECHLE UNRGROUND
TOM W. $161,02073 Totaled '11163,152.06 OWOW: •1172,010.60 TeW Bid: 11169,769,64
It- Spee No Do4ttp1 Ou." LA* 1616 PAs Ilan Te Lk d Pro It- i tAN Prlp a- lr 4 t1N1 PA. Wln T
I I I I 1 I
'SCHEDULE e: SANITARY SEWER I I I I
202621.5116•DIPCLAb852•FORCEMAW 118 f.
FT 13.60 61,6661x1 25.14__$2.017.40 _ _16.40_41,87000 _ 17Ad {1.072.00
29_1.51114* PI PE SEWER6D_R 408ERVK:E PI_ 20LINFT -_7.00_ ___ $14000 ~20,031 "W.Go _ _1680 _ _ _{33200 2300_ _6480.00,
- 3D 2621.5116' DIP CLASS S2 • POLY LINED _ ^_ 130ILN FT - 17.00 _ gR10,00 _ _32.57 S4z:MA0 _ _23,60' 43,088,00 2000 112,00000 ,
317071.5110 PVC PIPE SEWER 6OR266CRVICE-_60+LW FT _ 1000_ _ 4000,00 _ 21.00 {1,765,40 _ 13.60 _ now _ 2400_- _ -$1,64000,
32 2621.St 1 10' DIP CLASS 53 • POLY LNED _ _ _ _ _- 450tLN FT _ 20.00 _ _ 10.000.40 39.36 117,712.00 26.60 $12,570,00 _ 37.00 _ _ 916.650,00
332621.61110• PVCPIPE BCWER_SOR 20 _ 7171LN FT `_15.00_ 110,76500 25.69 $10,410.73 QSAD _ $17,025.00 22.00 _$15,77400
642W5.54115'RGP CLASS N SEWER PIPE 173 LIN Fl _25._00 64.364.00 41.15 $7,110,05 34,75j, $0,011.75 4600 67,05800
35 7871 607 10• X 4• WYFS _ - _ � 1�FACH MOD SM 00 0720, 16720 61001 $7100 nm _ _ 9nm
30,2621.IG%6_ •WYEB_ EACH _ 7000 921000 72.101 9210.30 62. $150.00 _ 9300 624000,
_ WA tt 00 4
_ 3720712 POLY OUCT0.E IRON FITTING _ � 1761 L0 _ 3,00 $moo 2.051 Sm.75 3001 _ - {52400 1.31 _ _�64
50
39201.5020MCTILC IRON Fn_TINGS _ - 6001L0 200 41,00000 1.301 6650,00 090 _ 640000 1.36 188000
_ 332021.600 LW DESIGN 402" 6TANDARD _
Q5,015 LIN FT 12500 $6,2'1.25 103301 iD,622.07 10].70 $6.64039 17600 $8,377.30
402621.5�A1HOE616N 402646 WATERTIGHT 20.351LN FT 150,00 3.057.60 1641. ".001.13 017.48 64.473.72 21000 64.273501
4t'DIV11• 'CONNECT TO CXISTIIVG LIANIgIE 11EACH 30000 "0000 512.501 951250 20000 920000 611000 _ 11MOD
4i2105 54;GRANULAR FOUNDATION MATERIAL 78TON 10,00 9760,00 001 $0.75 001 60.75 001 9076
43 DN 11• LIFT STATION t ''LUMP GUM 76.00000 171,000,00 ...00 $47,73200 66.024.601, $50.424.60 8313W 00 $63,50000'
TOTAL OCNEDULE Bt SANITARY SEWER; I $117,74075 I $107,380.77 1 1111,557.50 1144,64000
1 I I $000 I 1000 I $000 6000
I
DABS DID TOTAL SCHEDULE A AND O I 6161,02920 I $1113,192.01 6171.01080 I 111$0.no34
I I I I $000 , 6000 I 6000 I $0.00
DEDUCT{ I I I $000 {19,60000 610000,00 I 610,000 ODI
6000 j 60 OD j 6D.00 I 60001
GRAND TOTAL WIDEOUCTI I I 116/37025 $I50.Cg 00 w1 $107,01090 j $170.703DI
Extension of Bids Bid Date: March 24, 1995
SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITY 10:00 A.M.
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT NO. 95-01 C " Denotes corrected figure.
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
4TH BIDDER
STH BIDDER
STH BIDDER
7TH BIDDER
LATOUR CONST.. INC.
NORTHDALE CONST.
3. L CONTRACTWO
DURSOWUE CONST.
TmlBla
6191.76560
Tow
$190,02.36
rowlBid:
9224I.M66
fete)Sick
11926.361.00
I1rn Sp40 No Deomlollon
OamUN LIM
k" Ptln
Orn Tar
Unh Pdco
Iwm Tot-
1441 loll.
tem Tols
W * Rd".
Orn T
I
IWLINR_
74.701
14.76_
12,656.40
1940,
93.300000
_ 1000
L7.700.000
_1,4011.000e•wATERMAIN-0UCTIRONa52
22611.503 WA6�TCRMAN•DUCT MON CI$2
I
t170'LIN FT _
_ _
77.50_137.37{00
_94.4000
_ _71.1014.007_40
71.70
{z3.60t.6o
17.50
t_4_O.a1s.000
r�3 2611.5031 WO WO A' TERMAOFDUCT IRON CL 52
I
4D'UN FT
30.70
91"00
6817.9
$2.101.00
7100
0640.00 1
417101.501 REMOVE IO•DIPWATERMAt1
�__
33'.LNFI
640
{184.60
_7032
500_016500
_04.10
1367.00
15.00
_
sm..l,
_ 6176_11AM17•WATER►WN-0U_CTIRONCL67
142 LN FT
34.7094.656.40
__
7364
WSOq
_11.00
70.70
64.14640
77.00
13Au T;
'----
0 7011502 HYDRANT
.-
7 EACH
1.40000
17.60000
1,140.64
07.370.00
1?10.30
1.100.01
_ _ _
770t1_5070_OATE VALVC AND DO%
EACH
_
34073
{1.55107
_ _
_$2.67100
375001t.600.00�
_67,700.00
62011.507/• GATC VALVE AND DO% _
_' _4
-iii-�- 2{EACH-.•_
_33500 __$1.34000
_ 4750011
_ _ 6040.00
_
_ 517.17
11,074.34
_401.30_$1,97.70
_634.50_
11.100.00
_
_ 47500
07011.50710• DATE VALVE AND BOX
I
1EACH?16001?___$77500_
700321700.37
617.40
WAD
6moo_
6400.001
10MIWIVCOAPORATIONSIOP
EACH
3091
686.00
7794
633._44
4.10_
40.60
9,00
0040
F tt 7011.59 CURD GTOPA 00%
IIEACN_
_
6900
_
949
_
161,70
63.40
{9.60
- -_
_. 76-00
12'2011.5031 • TYPE K COPPER PIPE_
30 UN FT
_ _6000111
$51000
007
SM 10
12.00
SM 00
14.00
"40'00 �
` 132011.50 YCORPOAAT10NDTOP
_ _1740
_
WSW
131.01
$171.01
_
157.30_
619.30
126,00._
_`
14,261 1.607 Y CURB STOP A BOX_
_ _
. _-11EACH
1jlEACH_
_--
.135.00 _
$105,00
11622
1100,27
_
6167.00
150.00_
_ _112500
116000
lk2o,503r TYPE KCOPP'ER PIPE ___--_-
-_
_
LNFT_
_10500
Isis
_
_107.9
16.10_11114020.00
_
142611.607{ CONNECT TO COSTING WATER MAIN_•
_10
11EACH
_4050
1.743,.1_.
_ _6706.00
1,000
_/161.50
00
$1,000237.40
W7.40
3W 00
_070000
6300 001
_
_61,74500
,00
_
17201 t.6034• POLYSTYRENE INSUlAT10N __-_
_-
3681+Cp YD Y
-
14..1_
_ 9470.00
16.67
tm 10
2050
"16.00
11.00
9450,00!
16 2011 620 DUCTILE MON FITTNGS-
4175 l0
1.16
$2,W 75
IA1
1.40
gt17.6D
I.OD
68,14600
1 501 AOGREOATE SAGS CLASS 1
0 ON �-
_
_ 7.9
6000..
13.75
_CL767_9
11.100.
12.40
6012_01
_
16.00
11,200.001
_!0,2711 _
20�DfVO• REMOVE 1 REPLACE DIT DWV
_
17i6G YD _
{
_ __ 14M
_
6091..
_
10.35
_
61,39 45
! 2130
_ IIII.M.10
_
40 OD
_�_ 12.060 001
71DN IF�OROUNDWATER DAM__-______
3EACH_
74200
12,GOm_
350.
5.0m.00
+
---_
-66.140.
_6145000
__05070_-92476.10
_615.000..1
22DIV14 I!ONDUTILm CONSTRU-CnDN
1LUMP SWI
a,Im mt
5'm Go
6047640
1.46100
_ 61./94.00
10,00000
1.,000,.1
73 2573 U7 CILT FENCE,HEAVY DUTY
00,LN FT
1.751
676740
4.7b
641250
740
6370..
3,00
M:A.I
1_
_
_
24 2570 003 SODDING
+
70 GO YO
525
6347 50
0.50
$2900
3,30
_ 6731,03
3,50
_ 924500
25 25)5 901 CEEDNO _
;
1.2 ACRE
1,03000
61y6Dm
1.375.00
01,05000
1.301.
61,660.00
_14500#
_ /1.074.40
2e 7101601 CLEARNO
o6 ACRE
3=00
11."000
3,15040
11.936.00
3,270 00.
RAW 00
61"001
_
77 2576 623 WOOD FIBER SLAW"
I
500ir.0 YD
1 301
6650.
264
11=01)
270
_61,ps.
11,730.00
6.601-
- $11700.1
TOTAL 6CNEDWIIN
6 Al WATEAM
,
1
120,091 AS
"7,4T 65
80,1142.00I
871,45001):
/
Peps
40
Extension of Bids Bid Date: March 24, 1995
SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITY 10:00 A.M.
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT NO. 95.010 "Denotes corrected figure.
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PBg1 4 6
4TH BIDDER
5TH BIDDER
STH BIDDER
7TH BIDDER
LATOUR CONST.. INC.
NORTHDALE CONST.
3. L CONTRACTING
GUHSCIMLLE CONST.
Tole) Bid:
6101,753.00
Tall Bb:
{100,022.00
TaW BW:
$224265.65
fatal 010:
{230,]01.00
Itam Sp% No Domnptkn
I
0-6ly Lhi
UNI PriceIlam
Totr
LIM Price
I
Ore Tot-
Urw Pon
I
tum Totem
Un8 Prke
I
Serf -T
• I SCHEDULE 0: SANITARY SEWER I
I
I
I
I
I
2E 2021.5110' DIP CLASS_ 52 • FORCEMAIN
I10;LW FT_
20,00
10.25
62,120;00
15.00
{1,140.000J
`_
20'2021,51 1'4' PVC PIPE SEWER SDR M SERVICE PI
20 uN FT
1000
_631]04.00
{]20.00
_
10.01
{210.20
_10.401-92,220_440
24.70
04W_00
20,00
MOD 00
30 2021.3116' DIP CLASS 52 • POLY LINED
190 LIN FT
20,00
63.744.00
]7.01
84,011_30
43.40
4,042.00
_
22.00
$2.650.00
- ---T- - -
20 SERVICE PI
- 1 -
OOLW FT
-
-_
--
$1,020.00
- - ---
11.05
-_ ._
$715.0_0
-
_ 25,00_
tt.7�a.00
90,00
81,800.00
_]1_2521_111a:PPVCPIPEBEEW_ERSDR
32 2021.51110- DIP CLASS 53 • POLY LINED_- -
44114 FT_
_17.00
95.OD
{10.110.00
52.3]
{27.540.50
55.00
00,00
W.5MAD
33 26511.311 I W P_VC PIPE SEWER SDR 20
_
-- - 7171LM FT_
-p
-173
27.20 _
_510,50240
_ IS 02
_
{13,403.44
_ _ _
30.30 _-620,175.10
_025,155.00
_ _
42.00
RT0,714.00
_
512305.84tt5'RCPCA39N6EWER PIPE
-- - - - - -
LIN FT
00
{7,4]000
40,00
{7.023.00
52.30
63,047.00
0500
_ {11.70400'
35 2521.50210' z e WYES
1XEACH
11200.
6112 OD
0700
{07.00
170.70
$175.70
10D.00
j
3a 2D21.50210. x e' WVES --_
_
31EACH
114WI
634200
0303
$270630
175.00
100.00
_5/oo.ao
_{5]0.70
_5]ODOoi
37 2821.6D2�POLY DUCTILE IRON FITTING
1751LB _.
- .2.101
{357.80
155
- $276.50
_ _ - 2,20r_
_ 6303.00
2.001
_ 45000
352521.502 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS L
BOO LB
1001
SSW 00
1.10
{503.00
1.50
{750,00
- I.OS _
_ -SMI-00+
39 2621 SDOMH DESIGN 4028.40 STANDARD- _ 1
.- _
00.05 LIN FT -
_ -
- _117,00
_ {7.mm
11080
$7.701.43
00.00
_ b,5]2.95
27500-
{15,16175 1
40,2621.WGMH DESIGN 402SASWATERTIGHT 1
2033tLIN FT
84.080.50
104.99
93.957.55
4.878.71
27000
55.508,25
41 ONII• CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE -. }
I{EACH___
_27000
_ 825001
{4500
50000
_ {50000
__10000
_470.90
8470.00
1,OOD.Ooi -_
61.000Wj,
422105,543GRANULAR FOUNDATION MATERIAL
- _
_ )e TON
_1400}
$1 00
000
0a78630
_13.30
_ 497.60
1900
470001
43 DIV II- UFT STATION
1,LLFWPOUM
4.090001
053,800 00
65,120,00
565,12005
74,547,00
61-4-03.00
14,740.00,
S.740 001
TOTAL SCHEDULE 0, SAHRARY SEWER I
I
I
{199,744175
{17],013,4
I
5199MS$
I
5168,007001
I
I
1
{000
i
{0,00
'
4,00
1
80.001
(SASE 6101 TOTAL OCHEOULB A AND 0 I
I
5101.T5SAD
!
$1966322.36
I
5224,980 65
0278,981.00
2000
i
$0.00
1
0000
I
0000
DEDUCT,
t
$11,150,00
1
516,000.m
I
510,00000
65,0D0 OD,
i
1
{000
I
60OD
I
{000
I
toot
DRANO TOTAL WIDEDUCTt
i
6180,410500
I
{180.022.90
I
$214X'6500
I
rmml001
PBg1 4 6
Extension of Bids
SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT NO. 95-01 C
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Bid Date: March 24, 1995
10:00 A.M.
Denotes corrected figure.
Page 16 f
-6TH BIDDER
REDSTONE
CONST.
Tad OW:
1257,027.56
ft. Span N1 Devpfm
OfadIWY UN1
UN1 AIw
Orn T
I 12111.6075' WATERWIW443UCT WON CL W
T L1' FT
10.41
gA57.e0
I 21201 IM r WATERMA WOUCT IRON DL 52
1178ILD1 FT
_ 41.44
t_2_s.7w.1e
I.Wi{10• W—ATERUMM•DUCT WON CL 52
40 LLN FT_
21.77
_3'2011 --_
-.1}1-2,4.50-11-REMOVE 1C DIP WATERW101
_—_33fUN FT
_ _
7.00___G]1.00
_100.80
_
WATER MAIN.OUCT WON CL 52
1421INFT_
_ _ _ 26.00_
_512011.51Ir
e!Yef 1.502NYDRANT_
f.9ae GO
_gA_M"
_
�7 2011 _ rE V
_DAlALVE AND- BOX -
-
---1-2
EACH
-
_
_100.N
- -
_63.307.38
1'x11 r LVE AND oox
_ —
EACH
70414
61.1ro.a
Olaf t 10' GATE VALVE AND DOX
&Ti-
1
EACH
1,051.55
$1,071.55_
_i —___
TION STOP _-
t0f2611.4- CORPOM-
-
- -_- _ 11EAd1
_
--
_
1_1.84
--07.71--_-17.71
_^_
891.87
_-111x11,6011• CUROSTOP A BOX -
IIEACH
-1021.00
__lajx_t1. _ft1' TYPENCOPPER PIPE
- -- - -- - -
70 LW FT
-
x80
17+x11 7�CORPORATION STOP _
i EACH
105.111
$100.10
Ir 1-1}}1261 (I;2'_DURDerov_aBOX
PIPE
BEACH
IO LM FT
21311_-
0705
$213 61
- u00.q
I 111x11r TYPE KCOPPER _- ..
/----e1x1f_6WCONNECTTO E=TWO WATERMAIN
_ `.
IjEACH___
- _
IT, 2611.605i1• POLYSTYRENE INSULATION
301GOro
_M00_
25,00
_172[1.0[1
$75000
x,0 DI1CTIlE �ROII FITTINDB --
21x'Ln
1.00-
r - ..
I'- -to'
-
_ _
_64ZM,75_
112211.60iADGRE0ATCaASECLAS05
--_x10NIL iREMOVE O REPLACE W DWY - ---
80`TON
en co YO
,6,00
--7000
III-moD-
--$2,01000
91 OIM?-I{OROUNOWATER DAM
0 EACH
1.60000 _
641=00
--$"Am
" O1V M1 (POND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
1.1
I LUMP GUM 27.000 00
00
_ 27 2577 FENCEMEAW DUTY
160 UN FT
000-
$750.00
i 21x70;00001NG
70 CO YO
600'„
Sm 00
x 257, 00LCErowo
IA ACRF.
1,60000
$1,60000
201a101,601CLEARNO
061ACRE
2.60000
$1,26000
d2575523W000 FITIER OLANXET
5001GO YO
700
$1,60000
! I !TOTAL BCNEOL L.$ At WAnPU M
!
$84.0115171
Bid Date: March 24, 1995
10:00 A.M.
Denotes corrected figure.
Page 16 f
Extension of Bids
SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT NO. 95 -OIC
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
8TH BIDDER
REDSTONE
CONST.
ram W.
{257.027.50
Ilam SDaa No D.. Wk.
I
� UNI
I
UNI Plies
114001 T
I
I I I
IOCMEOULE 0, SANITARY {EWER I
I
I
211 2621'51 6' DIP CLASS 52 • FORCEMAW _
i,6 Ft
_21.04
_iT.650.6F�
?D 2021.5114' PYC VE SEWER SDR 26 SERVICE
i' DIP CUSS 52 -POLY LINED_
20 LD1 FT
t20ILIN FT
10.07
_ _ sw 60
M.88020
_2012021'51 _
F;;CPIPESEMIERSDR20SERVICE _ —
_
OD{ILIN FT___
__27.54_
2000
612" OD
_]12021.511'
_72 2_021.61 10' DIP CLASS $3 • POLY LWED
_ 450I19N FT
41,01
610,124,60
17 2621,511,{10 PV'C PIPE SEWER 6DR 26 _
_ 717 LIN FT-
_
42745.54115'_RCP CUSS N SEINER PIK +
172ILW FT
25.77
60,161.20
75/202150 10'x4'WYES
I�EAC11
15424
{15414]
76i2021'5Wi1111 IV x6' WYED_
71EACH
15066 _
1476.60
772021.55pp��ttPOLY DUCTILE IRON FITTING }
- _ _ -
_175IL0
_ _200
_ _{57500
70{2621.51% OUCTILE IRON FITT01D0 1
500f1.0
1.07
661500
_70 2921 M MN DESIGN "M46 STANDARD_ I
M 05 LIN FT
167.72
11 f.077.01
MH DECION402{48WATERTIGM
90.351LOI FT
251.15
$3,110.00_
_40t}2021
411DIV11, CONNECT TO0aSTWOMAN.OL 7_ —_
1'.
72000
1729.00
tl1*105,54 GRANULAR FOUNDATION MATERIAL
.1TON
1000_
{1,12500
471; W TUFT GTATION -
_ - IILUMP CUM
07,006.77
_
{07,000.77
ITOTAL SCHEDULE 0, SAMMY {EWER
{160.75].17
I I ,
6000
I0A{8 SDI TOTAL {CNEDULS A AM S �
{267.02760 I
I 1$0001
IDEDUCT1
60001
60001
I LAND TOTAL W/OCOUCTI
I
8767,027.17 1
IPeg 46
Bid Date: March 24, 1995
10:00 A.M.
Denotes corrected figure.
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
Considerption of accenting a Police Commission report which
studies the merits of contracting vs. establishment of a local police
department. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At a quarterly Police Commission meeting about a year ago, it was noted
that some commission members have been questioned in the past on why
the City of Monticello contracts with the Wright County Sheri Ta
Department for police protection rather than having its own police
department. Since one of the basic duties and functions of the Police
Commission is to provide research and make recommendations to the
Council on matters regarding public safety, the commission members felt it
would be a good opportunity to research and prepare a report that outlined
how the City of Monticello got involved in contracting for police protection
and to support why we are still contracting for police protection rather than
establishing our own local force.
For over a year, the commission has been obtaining data from surrounding
counties such as Anoka, Sherburne, and Carver Counties in regard to the
contracting fee they have with various communities and how that compares
to Wright County charges. In addition to contracting services, the Police
Commission chose to investigate the budgets for the City of Big Lake, City
of Buffalo, and City of Waite Park to be used as comparisons for
communities with their own police departments. The attempt by the
commission was to analyze the cost that may be involved if Monticello was
ever to consider establishing its own police department for providing the
basic 24-hour coverage we now enjoy.
After analyzing the data collected, a brief report was prepared that outlined
the history of Monticello's police protection, presents a summary of budget
data from similar type communities, reviews some of the political and
philosophical considerations of starting a local police department, estimates
the startup and continuing coats of a local police force, and presents
conclusions for Council conaideration. From the information gathered by
the commission members, the report indicates that there does not appear to
be any compelling reason for the City of Monticello to consider establishing
a local police department at this time. It was the intention of the
commission members to be able to present a report to the Council that could
be used as a reference should the question come up in the future by
individual citizens or should the Council be asked to consider a local police
department. While the report is only analyzing current data and cost
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
estimates, it should be a usefid tool for the Council in supporting our
current arrangement in providing police service in a most cost-efficient
manner.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Accept the Police Commission report as presented.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As an ex -officio member of the Police Commission, I believe this report will
be beneficial for the Council to refer to should you ever be questioned on
why a city our size does not have its own police force. While I believe this
has been pointed out numerous times when we are looking at budget
preparation, economically, utilizing the services of the Wright County
Sheriffs Depaitment is still the most feasible method of providing police
protection. Unless problems arise in the future that cannot be solved by the
contracting arrangement, I think it's going to be a long time before it
becomes economical to have your own police force. That's not to say there
won't be other reasons we may want to consider a local police force
presence; but by making this brief report available to those that question
our past practice will certainly indicate that the Police Commission has at
least analyzed the question at this time.
Copy of report.
ANALYZING THE PROS AND CONS OF A POLICE FORCE
THE MONTICELLO POLICE COMMISSION'S
COMPARISON STUDY OF COUNTY CONTRACTING
VS.
ESTABLISHING A LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT
MARCH 1998
Members of the Monticello Police Commission:
Warren Smith, Chairperson
James Fleming, Vice Chairperson
David Gerads, Secretary
Liz Desmarais, Assistant Secretary
Brian Stumpf, City Council Representative
0
The number one question asked of the Police Commission and the City Council
regarding public safety is "Why doesn't the City of Monticello have a local police
department?" The question is really comprised of two specific allegations:
Wouldn't we be better off with our own force from both a wublic aafety voaition
and an gnomic standr A? The factors of consideration in trying to answer
these implications are complex. In a major effort to fulfill our assignment to be an
advisory committee to the City Council, the Police Commission has undertaken a
comprehensive study of these issues to arrive at a determination.
Ci U14 i aALk a65
1. Brief historical background of the police contract.
2. Data from other cities and counties in Minnesota with comparable
demographics to Monticello.
9. Some practical, political, and philosophical considerations of polios
protection.
4. Estimate of startup and continuing costs in establishing a city police
department.
5. Conclusions.
0
POLS9VDY: W17195 Pfte 2
Brief tzistorical backsround of the police contract.
In early 1971, the Monticello Village Council began debating the possibility
of switching to a contract with the Wright County Sheriffs Department for
police coverage. Debate focused on four main considerations --cost,
equipment, coverage, and traffic control. The village had concerns about
controlling all four of these factors. Final approval for the county contract
came later in the year, and on October 1 the new system became operative.
The cost of operating the city police department was $28,000 (in 1970). The
new 1972 county contract was set at $20,400.
At the time of the change, Monticello employed a police chief and one
officer. They were "in uniform 17 hours per day ... including the time it takes
them to complete paperwork" (Monticello Times, August 12, 1971). The
new county coverage gave Monticello 16-18 hours of patrol time in two
shifts_ For the first full year (1972), the contract was for 6,840 hours.
Monticello was the third city to sign on with the Couaty for polica services.
The cities of Waverly and Cokato had begun contracts with the County in
1970.
The original county contract was renewed again January 1, 1972, and has
been continually renewed since then by succeeding City Councils.
POLS=Y: 3117/88
CHART ON CONTRACT HISTORY
I= Amount &=
1972
$ 3.66
6,840
1976
6.00
6,604
1977
7.28
6,604
1978
9.00
6,604
1979
10.60
8,604
1980
11.60
6,604
1981
12.60
6,604
1982
13.26
6,604
1983
16.62
6,604
1984
16.60
6,906
1986
17.00
6,906
1986
18.00
81906
1987
18.60
6,906
1988
19.60
8,906
1989
19.76
6,906
1990
20.60
8,906
1991
23.60
7,321
1992
26.00
7,321
1993
28.60
9,176
1994
30.60
9,17
1998
32.00
9,1786
Pap a
2. Data from gther cipes and counties in Minnesota with comparable
demographics to Monticello.
In order to look at the cost of running a city police department, the Police
Commission chose to study our two nearest neighbors (Buffalo and Big
Lake) and at least one other city of similar size (Waite Park). In addition,
we wanted to see how other similar county sheriff departments compared
costwise to the services offered by Wright County. For that we received
data from Anoka and Carver Counties. (Information was also received from
Sherburne County; but because Sherburne County only provides a contract
with one small city, it doesn't appear to offer much for comparison sake.)
The following charts present the information that was gathered. In the
categories that list itemized expenses, it was difficult to determine whether
"apples were being compared to apples." While the Police Commission spent
a great deal of time discussing the validity of specific expenses, it was
generally agreed that the bottom line "total expenditures" represents
reasonably accurate figures with which to make comparisons.
One particular line item was analyzed in detail, and that was whether fine
money has a significant impact on lowering actual net operating costs of a
police department. Right now, under the'county contract, the City of
Monticello gets no money from fines, nor does the City pay any expenses for
prosecution. In reviewing the information from other surrounding
communities, it appears that, generally speaking, the fine monies generated
are offset by the legal cost of prosecuting the offenses. For example, the
City of Buffalo estimates it will generate $26,500 in fine revenue, but it
expecte to spend $20,000 in court/prosecution/legal costs. The net result is
not a large revenue source for the City of Buffalo ($6,500) in comparison to
their overall budget. Likewise, the City of Waite Park expects to collect
$56,000 in fines but will spend $42,000 in legal fees.
Generally speaking, it does not appear that fine money by itself can be used
as a substantial source of revenue to offset operating cost because legal fees
absorb most of the revenue generated.
In analyzing the Ane money that is currently being generated in the city of
Monticello that is returned to the County, we are averaging approximately
$25,000 in revenue. If this is an accurate reflection of what we could expect
with our own police department, then it also could be assumed our legal
expenses to obtain this revenue would likewise be $20,000 or more.
It should be noted that the annual polios budgets for those communities
with their own departments do not include any costs for general
administration by city hall.
POL =Y: 3117/98
1
Pot's 4
When comparing contracting versus a city department, some other
"nonvisual" behind -the -scenes activities should be kept in mind, including:
a) investigators for difficult crimes
b) backup for emergencies
C) additional patrols for special events
d) administration and secretarial services
e) union grievances
f) DARE. (Drug Awareness Resistance Education)
g) Liability concerns
h) training
This study makes its comparisons based upon the 9,176 patrol hours the
City of Monticello has in its current contract The Police Commission
assumed that the City would want to continue operating with 9,176 hours of
patrol coverage. The above list points out that there are significant factors
involved in police services above and beyond patrol time. The result would
be that additional employees would be needed in order for a city police
department. to maintain the current levels of services offered by the county
contract.
POUr=Y: 8/17198
P
Pap 5
CITY OPERATED
POLICE DEPARTMENT
COST COMPARISON SUMMARIES
1994 Budget
DIRECT EXPENDITURES
Estimated annual'patroP hours
1) Personnel
a) Pouoe chief, patrolmen, etc.
(see emolovee breakdown below)
2) Benefits
a) Benefits
b) Clothing allowance
cl Other - tralnino
3) Equipment!
a) New vehlCle(s) ardor annual degree. cost
I b) Lias, all, maintenance
c) Insurance (vehiUe 8 general liability)
I til Other eouto - radlos, Burls, radar, mist)
I e) Office equip - computers, typewriters, etc.
I fl Patrol BUDgllea
4) OH COUSUllding Coats
A) Rant cu hlrikllrtn c"
I b) Lipids% heat, Owe
I c) Supplies - office expense
L --g1 mimallan"uR
Lcs1+o�eQeL>s
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
VOLOTUDY: 3/17/99
BU11010 I BIa Lake l waits Park I M00111081110
13,440 9,080 9,600 9,176
® 3034h
$403,736 $182,600 $273,8751 $279,868
$75,114
544,000
$86,404 I
$4,000
$2.400
$3,316 I
95.400
$1200
NOW I
$31250
$9.000
$17,000
$11,000
$16,750
$34,411
526A00
I
Ss=
$3,300
$2,350
$23.000
$1.150
I
$7.220 I
$2.000 $2,600 $5,908
$16.250 56.100 $1.600 I
$', L454 52900 58.480 I
$2Q,QQQ ti24 000 _2.000 I jl
$mill1 831102111 111MA80
(dor not Ind
tbe_tis aril
Page 5&
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95 Paas 5b
I
I
I i
Buffalo
BNS I.M.
Walls Perk
VESNtate
�1)aid
I 938.0001
$20.0001
(32.7001 524.0001
12) a) Court
SM.000
I I
$50.000
$50.450
b) Parldno lines
El SOO
55001
$6.3601 I
3) Otter - miscellaneous
a) Trainhw costa reimbursement
$2,500
$2,300
I b) Police reoorts (codes)
$500
I
cl Special OoOee services
$2,000
I
M Other, Dare Prooram revenue, etc.
$15,000
I
$4 500
I
I el Sale 01 orooerty
$2.000
I
TOTAL REVENUES
I 984.600 I
276.000 I
01.8101 924Aoo I
ANNUAL NET OPERATING COSTS (1994)
1608,611
$239,620
=on>
•
ro,7er..ao
�.eamn
NIISCJDIT�WA_gp
OF ENWL011EER
lcw
1
1
1
ISer=nt(s)
1
1
fmvesticator(e)
1
I Patrolmen - FT
7314
3
4
[Patrolmen - PT
2
ISecretan(e)
1 l
1
1
wnpw ~(a)urronkl
fi
jT l FT Rim"Win Ded Eftos
I ld
6tf
7
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95 Paas 5b
COST COMPARISON OF CONTRACTED SERVICES
FOR POLICE PROTECTION
1994
(20 NOUR DAILY COVERAGE)
Anoka Sherburne Carver Wright
Cam" Courdv Courmr COW"
Hourly Cost $Uft $24 ma81hr I =M
DOW Serviced Ham Lake
Zlmmemfen 11 Communities
Momiceflo
E. Bethel
only . ToiwnsWU
AlberMfle
Andover
Examples:
Clearwater
(1) Offer
Chanhassen
Chaska
Colrato
Delano
Noivood
Frankfort
Young America
Hanover
fttoda
Maple Lake
Watertown
Cologne
Montrose
Otsego
Hamburg
Mayer
Rockford
St. Michael
Wacofia
South Haven
Lake Two
WaverN
NOTE: Anoka and Carver Coand6s may allow soma of their oonbatf
dAn to kaW some of the fine dollar revenue. but proseaalon cases are also
Ne ro400rtaffily of Nle commawty.
POLOTUDYt 3/17/95
Pape Sa
Some uractical. political. and nhilosonhical considerations of startine a local
police department.
it --Practical considerations included start-up costs in organizing a new
department and budgeting forming a committee to determine procedures in
establishing a new police department, as well as a departmental operating
manual; making decisions on how large the local force would be; siting an
office; drafting an operating budget; purchasing equipment, can, radios,
supplies, uniforms, etc.; setting police coverage, conducting background
checks, liability questions, and arranging for the prosecution process.
County—These things are in place.
There are two significant political considerations to be addressed. The first
is, does having a local force improve public safety? Secondly, is having a
police chief directly answerable to the City Council more or less
advantageous to the community's benefit?
One primary political problem the Police Commission discussed at length
was whether or not public safety is improved because hometown officers are
familiar faces to local residents and business owners. Strange faces make
us wary, unfamiliar faces wearing police uniforms can make us
uncomfortable. It goes without saying that familiarity adds a degree of
comfort. How important is this to public safety? It seems to be a matter of
degrees. Cold and distant officers—no matter who they represent—put
people off. Overly -friendly deputies run the risk of becoming non-objective.
The major point in favor of having local police is that citizens feel that the
force is a part of the community, not an outsider entity that comes in to
enforce the laws. However, it should be noted that it is the taxpayers that
"own" either of the two systems being discussed here—city or county.
On the subject of familiarity, Wright County Sheriff Donald Hozempa,
several years ago, responded directly to Monticello's concern by initializing a
policy that officers patrolling the streets of Monticello consider it a longer-
term
ongerterm position. Currently, the plan is to rotate deputies in and out of
Monticello on a regular, longer-term basis to have a sizable group of officers
familiar with the needs and geographies of the community.
If Monticello were to hire a new police chief and deputies, chances are good
that these people would come from outside of Monticello; hence, the point of
familiarity would be negated. Also, in any department, city or county, there
will always be turnover, as deputies (and officers) come and go. It's also
possible a city police department could become a 'training ground" for
deputies that stay for a short while and then move on to bigger
departments. Another f tctor is growth. As a city's population base
increases, individual identities become less familiar. Rather than being
concerned that officers of the law are recognizable to local citizens, it is
more important that deputies on patrol are fhmiliar with the city.
POLSTUDY: 3/17196 Pop 6
One potential advantage that a local police force may generate is the ability
of the longer-term patrol officers to establish contacts and informants
within a community. Discussions with area police chiefs that the
commission surveyed indicated that they did find this to be beneficial in
their communities by allowing their patrolmen to obtain information for
helping and solving some crimes from informants. This is not to say this
isn't being accomplished through our current contracting arrangement;
however, it is perhaps more likely that a long-term informant type
relationship would be established with a local police department.
From a logistic standpoint, a local police department would provide our
citizens with easier access to files and records such as crime reports and
accident reports that aro now obtainable only through the sheriffs office in
Buffalo. While the commission members have not received any complaints
regarding the current access to this information, it only stands to reason
that a local police station in Monticello would probably be more accessible
by our citizens than making a trip to the county courthouse.
Is it better to have a police chief directly answerable to the Council
Council ... or an independent county sheriff in charge of enforcing the laws?
This is a subjective political question that cannot be answered with
statistics. It is possible that a police chief will try to keep a city council
happy with his or her performance by telling them things they want to
hear, hence, the risk of politica influencing justice. The county system
places police work beyond those particular politics; yet, there is no system
that eliminates politics completely. Under the present county system, the
City is not without a voice because the City is paying the bill and, therefore,
has direct input into public safety matters. Indeed, the establishment of
this Police Commission was to create improved communication and broader
understanding between the County and the City. The track record of 24
years has been exemplary. There have been no major disagreements
between the City Council and the Sheriffe Department, and the County has
always responded to tho City's needs, working together to forgo solutions to
public safety problems.
EFitimate of start -un and continuing costs in establishing a new city police
denartment.
Beyond comparing operating costs of different systems, a significant factor
in analyzing whether it would be feasible to rovert back to a city police
department is the start-up costs involved. Obvious items would include
purchasing automobiles, radios, radar equipment, guns, telephones,
computers, fixmiture, office equipment, and other normal supplies for the
department personnel. While much of this cost would be a one-time
expense, the amount would be substantial. It is estimated that the cost of
purchasing and equipping five patrol care (which would be the bare
minimum of care needed) would be well over $100,000.
POLBTUDY: 9/17188 Page 7
Dispatching costs were not considered to be a startup factor because under
current conditions, all dispatching is handled by the County for both City
departments and County contracts.
Another significant concern is space. The establishment of a local police
department would likely result in the City building or acquiring additional
space for the police department. Current government facilities would not
appear to have sufficient space for a police department. Either city hall
would need to be expanded, or a separate facility would have to be rented or
purchased. Although the cost is unknown, it would probably add hundreds
of thousands of dollars to the initial start-up cost if a facility was built for a
police department.
In addition to start-up cost, it can be anticipated that annual operating
expenses will be comparable to a city the size of Waite Park, which would
add more than $100,000 to the present cantract.
Conclusions.
No system employed by the City Council is going to eliminate crime, stop
speeding, and guarantee complete public safety. That's a fact of life. The
question before us is about degrees—whet weighing the factors of cost and
effectiveness, what is the best system for the best price to fight crime,
monitor traffic, and ensure public safety in Monticello? Upon e: rninin�
and considering the information available to us, the Monticello Police
Commission makes the following statements:
1. The present system of contracting for police services with the Wright
County Sheriffs Department is clearly the most cost-effective means
available to the City of Monticello for providing public safety.
2. The hopes of the 1871 Village Council—that switching &am a local
police force to the county system would improve effectiveness and
lower overall oosts-•have been generally confirmed by the track record
of over two decades.
3. Not only is the county system a more aosWffective system for law
enforcement than a local police department. but Wright County's
rates are competitive when compared to simila neighboring county
systems.
4. At the present time, all things considered, there are no compelling
reasons for the City of Monticello to cora u establishing a local
police department.
6
POIS=Y: 3/tM Pap 8
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
7. Considpratiou of ri2solution acgeptinq nL�ns and goecifications and
authorizbw advertisement for bids • Cardinal Hills Phase V. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Council is asked to consider taking the next steps toward development
of the 34 -lot subdivision known as Cardinal Hills Phase V which consists of
approving a resolution accepting plans and specifications and authorizing
advertisement for bids. As you recall, the preliminary plat was approved on
February 13, 1985. On February 27, the feasibility study was accepted and
City Council ordered plans and specifications. Assuming that the Council
accepts the plans and specifications and authorizes advertisement for bids,
the bid opening is scheduled for April 21, 1995, with final approval allowing
project to proceed occuring on April 24, 1995. On April 24, Council will be
asked to consider adopting the development agreement, accepting the bid,
awarding the contract, approving the final plat, and ordering the project.
B. AI,TERNATIVF ACTIONS:
4ev
�L Motion to adopt resolution accepting plans and specifications and
I authorizing advertisement for bids.
GAs noted earlier in previous agenda items, the developer has
committed to paying all City costs associated with the project
engineering and planning. At such time as the project is ordered,
then the engineering and planning related costs will be folded into
the improvement costs and included in the project assessment roll.
Council should select this alternative if it wishes to allow the project
to continue on its schedule toward completion.
Motion to deny resolution accepting plans and specifications and
authorizing advertisement for bids.
This alternative should be selected if the City Council finds the plana
to be unsatisfactory or if the developer withdraws from the
committment to place on deposit via a letter of credit the amount
equal to all city expenses incurred prior to the time that the project is
ordered.
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTING DUA.
Bret Weiss will be in attendance to provide details regarding the plans and
specifications. (Copy of resolution to be provided at the meeting.)
aZ
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
Consideration of resolution aSeenAff feasibility stuLiv and
authorigina oregMLIon of nl�ns and sqgGj@catlons for completion
of School Boulevard fiom Fallon Avenue to Highway 21. (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, a few months ago City Council authorized preparation of a
feasibility study outlining the coats associated with development of School
Boulevard from Fallon Avenue to Highway 25. The time that the work was
ordered, it was required that the developer provide a cash deposit with the
City in an amount equal to complete the study. The developer did provide
the deposit and the work has been completed accordingly. City Council is
asked to review the feasibility study and associated underlying funding
program and consider authorizing preparation of plans and specifications.
The section of School Boulevard proposed for construction with this project
will link Cardinal HillaUttle Mountain School area with Highway 25 thus
serving to provide an alternative route for traffic to and from the growing
areae to the south and southeast of the body of the town. The roadway will
help to divert residential traffic from industrial areas and help to separate
industrial from school and residential traffic patterns. Under the finding
program as proposed, the new section of School Boulevard being constructed
will be financed in the same manner that the existing section was financed.
The finance plan calls for the City paying 20% of the total coat. This coat
represents roughly the expense associated with oversizing the road to serve
the community at large. As you know, School Boulevard will be a major
thoroughfare that must be wider than a normal street to handle regional
tragic, thus the need for oversizing and the justification for having the City
pay a portion of the coat of tho road. The remaining 80% of the roadway
costs will be paid by the developer and levied as an assessment against each
side of the property. See the feasibility study for detail regarding the
assessment program. The feasibility study also outlines watermain and
sanitary sewer improvements necessary to allow development of the Ocello
development area. As you know, the Ocello area is earmarked for a
combination of regional shopping, business campus, industrial, and
performance zone mixed uses. The watermain and sanitary sewer systems
aro sized accordingly. The feasibility study outlines the proposed method
for assessing and f coding the various project elements. This information
will be reviewed in detail at the Council meeting.
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution accepting the feasibility study and
authorizing preparation of plans and specifications. S/} -r
This alternative should be selected if Council is satisfied with the
overall design of the project and comfortable with the finance plan as
outlined. This motion should be contingent on the developer
providing the funds necessary to complete the plans and
specifications. With this money in hand, the City can move forward
on preparation of plans and specs, confident that the City can recover
its costs in the event that the developer halts further progress on the
project.
2. Motion to deny a resolution accepting the feasibility study and
authorizing preparation of plans and specifications.
This alternative should be selected if City Council is not comfortable
with the project design or concerned about project financing.
C_STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the resolution as proposed. Under this
alternative, the developer will be required to provide the City with a letter
of credit or cash deposit in an amount equal to the cost to complete the
plans and specifications. Developer is also aware that at such time as the
project is commenced, he will be required to pay to the City an amount
equal to 60% of the total project cost in the form of a letter of credit which
the City will hold to guarantee payment of the annual assessments levied
against the benefitting properties. In the event the developer fails to pay
assessments, the City can draw from the letter of credit in its full amount to
pay for 60% of the project costs. It is the view of City staff that the value of
the land after improvements are installed is in excess of the financial
liability to the City, which is essentially 40% of the project costs. It is our
view that the City is adequately secured by the collateral of the land that
the City can obtain through tax forfeiture in the event of nonpayment of the
assessments and via the letter of credit provided by the developer.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of feasibility study presented by OSM. (Other supporting data to be
presented at the City Council meeting.)
oZ
55-03 C
FEASIBILITY REPORT
SCHOOL BOULEVARD
GRADING, STREETS, UTILITIES
AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT NO. 95-03C
S.A.P. NO. 222-105-01
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MN
MARCH, 1995
ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS
300 PARK PLACE EAST
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416.1228
(612) 595.5775
RE
OSM Project No. 5579.00
u
March 21, 1995
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
Re: Feasibility Report
School Boulevard
Grading, Streets, Utilities and Appurtenant Work
City Project No. 95-03C
S.A.P. No. 222-105-01
Monticello, Minnesota
OSM Project No. 5579.00
y
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Transmitted herewith is a Feasibility Report covering grading, streets and utility
improvements for School Boulevard.
We would like to discuss this report with all interested parties at your convenience. Please
give us a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
Th>l.*-A.J't- --
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
City Engineer
Enclosure
nm
lun"m%nvaumnraun
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE SHEET
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
CERTIFICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
TYPE OF WORK .......................................... 1
II.
REASON FOR PROJECT ................................... 1
M.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ................................ 1
IV.
TIMING ................................................. 2
V.
SCOPE ........................................... 2
A. Sanitary Sewer 2
B. Watermain 2
C. Storm Sewer 3
D. Street Construction 3
E. Site Grading 3
F. Bituminous Walk 4
VI.
FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION ..................... 4
VII.
ESTIMATED COSTS ....................................... 4
VIII.
RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENT/PERMITS ...................... 5
IX
ASSESSABLE AREAS ...................................... 5
X
ASSESSMENTS ........................................... 6
XI.
PROJECT SCHEDULE ..................................... 8
OSM Project No. 5579.00 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
:' 1ahao r
Pretiminary Cost Estimates
APPENDLX B
Figure 1 • Location Map
Figure 2 • Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Construction
Figure 3 • Proposed Storm Sewer and Street Construction
Figure 4 • Proposed Storm Sewer and Street Construction
OSM Project No. 5579.00 /r
CERTIFICATION SHEET
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am
a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota
�.� A 6�
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Date: March 27, 1995 Reg. No. 20753
OSM Project No. 5579.00 C!'Page 1
SCHOOL BOULEVARD
GRADING, STREETS, UTILITIES
AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT NO. 95-03C
S.A.P. NO. 222-105-01
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MN
1. TYPE OF WORK
This report examines the construction of streets and utilities associated with School
Boulevard from Fallon Avenue to State Highway 25 and the construction of a trunk
watermain line along County Road 117 from Dundas Road to School Boulevard, all located
in the south half of Section 14. (See Figure 1) The work, as proposed, includes site
grading, street construction, extension of sanitary sewer and watermain, construction of
stormwater drainage facilities and appurtenant work.
11. REASON FOR PROJECT
This report was requested by the city staff in response to a petition for a public
improvement project for the area.
Illi. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The proposed project provides for the construction of School Boulevard from Fallon Avenue
to State Highway 25 (approximately 5,400 feet). In addition, the project provides for the
installation of trunk watermain along County Road 117 from Dundas Road to School
Boulevard and includes complete utilities along School Boulevard from County Road 117
to State Highway 25. A lateral watermain will also be installed along School Boulevard
from County Road 117 to Country Lane to provide looping to the Klein Farms project. The
OSM Project No. 3379.00 Page 1
trunk sanitary sewer system along School Boulevard will be an extension of the trunk line
that is proposed to be installed through the Klein Farms development (City Project
No. 95-02C.)
IV. TIMING
It is anticipated that the entire project will be constructed in a single phase. All of the
utility construction and one lift of bituminous will be completed in the fall of 1995. The
final lift of bituminous will be installed in the summer of 1996.
V. SCOPE
A. Sanitary Sewer - This project proposes to extend a 15 -inch diameter trunk line along
School Boulevard from the stub at Country Lane to State Highway 25. The stub at
Country Lane is scheduled to be constructed during the summer of 1995 as pan of
the Klein Farms project. The 15 -inch diameter main will be terminated at State
Highway 25, but will allow for future extension to the south and west to conform with
the City of Monticello Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. Eight -inch diameter
lateral sanitary sewer stubs will be constructed from the trunk line along School
Boulevard to provide service connection to the Monticello Business Center. Six-inch
diameter sanitary sewer services will be extended to each of the proposed
commercial lots within the Monticello Business Center. (See Figure 2)
B. Watermaln - The watermain service for this project includes the extension of a 16 -
diameter trunk line located at the intersection of Dundas Road and County Road
117 to the south, terminating just south of School Boulevard. From the intersection
of School Boulevard and County Road 117, a 12 -inch diameter trunk line will be
extended to the west along School Boulevard through the Monticello Business
Center, terminating at State Highway 25. An eight -inch diameter lateral line will be
extended from County Road 117 along School Boulevard to the east connecting to
the watermain stub at Country Lane which is proposed to be installed as part of the
OSM Project No. 5579.00 ® Page 2
Klein Farms project. Hydrants will be spaced to accommodate the commercial
zoning through the Monticello Business Center. Six-inch diameter watermain
services will be extended to each of the proposed commercial lots within the
Monticello Business Center. (See Figure 2)
C. Storm Sewer - The storm sewer for School Boulevard, between Fallon Avenue and
County Road 117, will be incorporated into the Klein Farms System. The Klein
Farms storm sewer was sized to accommodate the School Boulevard contribution.
The storm sewer for School Boulevard, between County Road 117 and State Highway
25, will accommodate the street right-of-way and will discharge temporarily into
ponds located along the proposed street. As development occurs in the area, the
storm sewer system as described in the State Highway 25 Storm Water Study will be
constructed. Due to the uncertainty with the proposed development, it was decided
that the pond construction and storm sewer outlets would be designed and
constructed at a later date.
D. Street Construction - The proposed bituminous street section is a "-foot wide face-
to-face section with B618 concrete curb and gutter. The street section will consist
of four inches of bituminous courses, eight inches of Class 5 aggregate base, and one
foot of select granular borrow. The proposed roadway is eligible for Mn/DOT State
Aid funding from County Road 117 to State Highway 25 and will, therefore, be
designed to meet the appropriate standards throughout the project length.
The developer has requested a wider entrance at State Highway 25, with a possible
median and landscape plantings. Several concepts will be discussed at the council
meeting to receive council input. Cedar Street stubs will be constructed both north
rind south of School Boulevard for future use.
& Site Grading - The street grading for School Boulevard between Fallon Avenue and
County Road 117 is being completed as a part of the Klein Farms Development and
was addressed with that project. Grading for School Boulevard, from County Road
117 to State Highway 25 will be completed with this project and will include only
OSM Project No. 5579.00 Page 3
minor grading outside the street to accommodate drainage. The overall site grading
will be completed with the future development as prospective buyers surface. Minor
grading to facilitate reasonable drainage will be completed. Ponding will be
developed according to the storrnwater study and is dependant on development.
F. Bituminous Walk - An eight -foot bituminous walk located on the north boulevard
will be constructed from Fallon Avenue to State Highway 25. This walk will be
similar to the existing School Boulevard walk and will be included as a part of the
street cost and assessed accordingly.
VI. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION
From an engineering standpoint, the project is feasible. This project includes the extension
of trunk sanitary sewer and watermain lines that will provide service for future development
to the south and west, as discussed above. It is the recommendation of Orr-Schelen-
Mayeron & Associates, Inc. that the City undertake a construction project as outlined
herein.
VIL ESTIMATED COSTS
Detailed cost estimates can be found in the back of this report in Appendix A. The
following estimated project cost includes a contingency factor and all related indirect costs.
Indirect costs for street and utility construction are estimated at 28% and include legal,
engineering, administrative, and fiscal costs. A summary of these costs follows.
OSM Project No. 5579.00 T Page 4
v
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
County Road 117 School Boulevard
From Dundas Road From Fallon Avenue From County Road 117
to School Boulevard to County Road 117 to State HlOway 25 Total
Sanitary Sewer
m
547,000
5171,000 S2K000
watermain
111101000
$16,000
5119,000 5245AM
Storm Seger
11n
553AM
5135,000 5188,000
Street
so
11733.000
5303,000 S536AM
Total
$110.000
11349.000
11728.000 111.197M
Vlll. RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENT/PERMITS
The right-of-way and easements will be acquired with the acceptance of the final plats for
IQeln Farms (east of County Road 117) and the Monticello Business Center (west of County
Road 117). The Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permits
will be acquired by the City after completion of the plans and specifications. A permit from
the Wright County Highway Department will be required for working within County Road
117 right-of-way. A permit from Mn/DOT will be required for working within State
Highway 25 right-of-way. UPA will be contacted for permission to construct the facilities
within their easement as well as the appropriate gas companies.
Ix ASSESSABLE AREAS
The areas that benefit from these improvements and which are proposed to be assessed for
these improvements are as follows:
OSM Project No. 5579.00 0 Page 5
Fallon Avenue to County Road 117
Klein Farms (Phases 1 and 2 and future areas located on the south side of School
Boulevard)
From County Road 117 to State Hifta 25
Monticello Business Center
X. ASSESSMENTS
Funding for the project will come from assessments to the benefitting properties, Trunk
Funds (for oversiring) and the Mn/DOT State Aid Account. A summary of the Estimated
Funding Breakdown for the proposed School Boulevard improvement is listed as follows:
School Boulevard -
Fallon Avenue to
County Road 117
Saniuery Sewer
Waterman
Storm Sewer
Streets
School Bouleesrd -
County Road 117 to
Stou 1110"y 25
Sanitary Sewer
Walermain
Sloan Sewer
Strew.
County Road 117 -
Dundas Road to School
Boulward
Total#
OSM Project No. 5579.00
ESTIMATED FUNDING BREAKDOWN
Monticello
City of Monticello
Business Center
Klein Farms
Orersising
Total
so
$32,000
$15,000
$07,000
so
$16,000
$D
$16,000
SD
$42,400
$10400
$53,000
so
$186,400
$46.600
5233,000
$126,000
$D
$45400
$171,000
$112,000
so
$7,000
$119,000
$108,000
so
S27XO
$135,000
VVgQp
SO_
9%600
$303_0Do
S7f1 RSn
$609,150
S20_RSn
$297ASo
tfifl'IOn
SM.ID0
Slln tltll
111.11117400
Page 6
A description of the proposed method of assessment for the School Boulevard improvements
is as follows:
Sanitaa Sewer. Project costs associated with the oversizing of the sanitary sewer in this
area (8" vs 15") will be paid for by the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fund. The developer will be
responstWe for the payment of the eight -inch diameter lateral benefit for the extension of
sanitary sewer along the developable property to his property boundary.
Watermaln: All project costs associated with the watermain construction in this area (8") are
considered lateral costs and will be paid by the developer.
&Iat<CUA_&lQnn_SMr
The proposed street and storm sewer in this area will be designed according to the
standards of a collector street. It is the City's policy to assess 80% of the project costs for
the construction of a collector street to the adjacent properties. The remaining 20% of the
project cost associated with the collector street will be paid by the City. This is based on
the City paying for the regional benerit of the street with greater than the residential
standard of 36 feet.
Snnitn[y Sewer. As was the case for the proposed sanitary sewer construction to the east,
the project costs associated with the oversizing of the sanitary sewer in this area (1(" vs 15")
will be paid for by the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fund. The developer will be responsible for
the payment of 10•inch diameter lateral benefit for the extension of sanitary sewer through
the developable property.
OSM Project No. 5579.00 / X Page 7
a Watermain: Project costs associated with the oversizing of the watermain in this area
(10" vs 12") will be paid for by the Watermain Trunk Fund. The developer will be
responsible for the payment of 10 -inch diameter lateral benefit for the extension of
watermain through the developable property.
,Streets & Storm Sewer. As was the case for the proposed street and storm sewer
construction to the east. it is the City's policy to assess 8091b of the project costs for the
construction of a collector street to the adjacent properties. The remaining 20% of the
project costs associated with the collector street will be paid by the City. Mn/DOT State
Aid Funding will be available for the street construction in this area. This is based on the
City paying for the regional benefit of the street with greater than the standard 36 feet.
Watermain: This section of watermain between Dundas Road and the Klein Fauns' north
boundary will be paid by the Watermain Trunk Fund. The watermain from the north line
to School Boulevard will be partially paid by the trunk fund for costs greater than a 10 -inch
DIP. The 10 -inch DIP cost will be split between Klein Farms and Monticello Business
Center.
XI. PROJECT SCHEDULE
Present Feasibility Report .................................. March 27, 1995
Order Plans & Specifications ................................ March 27, 1995
Approve Plans & Specifications and Order Ad for Bids ............. April 24, 1995
Open Bids ................................................ May 19, 1995
Award Contract ............................................ May 22,1995
OSM Project No. 5579.00 (i) Page 8
APPENDIX A
OSM Project No. 5579.00 I
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
SCHOOL BOULEVARD (FALLON AVENUE TO COUNTY ROAD 117)
Item
Unit
STREET
Estlamted
Na
Description
Quamlty
1
Aggregate Base Class 5
6,200
2
Type 31 Base Course Mixture
1300
3
Type 41 Wearing Course Mbaure
1,500
4
Bituminous Material for Tack Coat
615
5
Concrete Curb and Gutter 8618
5,400
6
r Bituminous Walk
21,600
7
Pavement Markings
5,300
8
Type III Barricades
2
9
Silt Fence -Heavy Duty
200
10
Sodding
2,000
11
Seeding
2
12
Boulevard Trees
50
OSM Project No. 5579.00
g' Page 9
Unit
Total
Ualt
Price
Amosml
TON
5530
534,100.00
TON
$21.00
S31,5W.00
TON
S23.00
$34,500.00
GAL
S1.00
$615.00
LF
5530
529,700.00
SF
SL00
521100.00
LF
$0.20
51,060.00
EA
S250.00
5500.00
LF
5230
5500.00
SY
S225
S4,300.00
AC
51,200.00
52,400.00
Trees
5250.00
12,500.00
Sub Taal
$173,475.00
5% Contingency
58,673.75
Sub Total
SMZ148.75
28% Indirect
551,001.65
Total
52.73,000.00
g' Page 9
I
a
Item
Na
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
SCHOOL BOULEVARD (COUNTY ROAD 117 TO STATE HIGHWAY 25)
Description
Select Granular Borrow
Aggregate Bax Class 5
Type 31 But Course
Type 41 wearing Course M'uaure
Bituminous Material for Teck
Coat
Concrete Curb and Gutter 8618
2' Bauminous walk
Pavement Markings
Type 111 Barricades
Silt Fence -Heavy Duty
Sodding
Boulevard Trees
OSM Project No. 5579.00
STREET
Estimated
Unit
Total
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
7,800
CY
53.00
M400.00
5,700
CY
MAD
W.SKOD
6,150
TON
MSO
534.925,00
1,500
TON
521.00
S31 500,00
1,500
TON
$23.00
534500,00
600
GAL
$1.00
S600M
5,450
LF
MSO
529.975.00
20,700
SF
S1A0
520.700,00
2,600
LF
5020
S5MM
4
EA
S250A0
Sl=.OD
200
LF
5230
=500,00
1,900
SY
5223
54.275,00
2
AC
SIAD.00
52,40000
50
Tree
5250.00
51250MOD
Sub Total
5225.295.00
5%
Contingency
511,264.75
Sub Total
$216.559.75
284b Indirect
566,216.73
Tocol
5303,000.00
ON
,S( � Page 10
Item
Na
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
SCHOOL BOULEVARD (COUNTY ROAD 117 TO STATE HIGHWAY 23)
Dexrlprion
W RCP CL V Sewer
8' PVC Sewn SDR 35
1S x 6' Wyes
* Service Pipe SDR -26
* Dia Manhole (0.10
Extra Depth Manhole
Granular Foundation Material
8' Outside Drop
OSM Project No. 5579.00
SANITARY SEWER
EsUmnted
Quaintly
Unit
220
LF
100
LF
10
FA
600
LF
7
FA
It=
LF
400
TON
2
TA
Sub Total
5% Contingency
Sub Total
28% Indirect
Total
Unit
Prke
535.00
31SD0
$15.00
SLM.00
385.00
57.00
S1,000AD
Total
Amount
S88.7D0A0
SIAW,00
52.000.00
39,000.00
58,750.00
512,937.00
52,800.00
32,000.00
3127,487.00
36,37435
3133,86135
S37.1386
317000.00
(D9 Page 11
Its
Na
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
SCHOOL BOULEVARD (FALLON AVENUE TO COUNTY ROAD 117)
Description
W RCP CL V Sewer
* PVC Sewer SDR35
* Dia Manhole (0.10)
Extra Depth Manhde
Granular Foundation Material
Connect to Odsting Stub
8' Outside Drop
OSM Project No. 5579.00
SANITARY SEWER
Estimated
Qoaaft
Unit
600
LF
40
LF
3
FA
67
LF
10D
TON
1
FA
1
E4
Sub Total
5% Contingency
Sub Taal
29% Indirect
Total
Unit
Price
$35.00
SMOD
$1,250.00
585.00
f8S0
5500.00
SI,000.00
Total
$3,750.00
S5,69S.00
5850.00
5500.00
111,000.00
534,915.00
51,745.75
536,660.75
SIDX9.25
$47,000.00
Page 12
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
SCHOOL BOULEVARD (COUNTY ROAD 117 TO STATE HIGHWAY 23)
WATERMAIN
hem
Estimated
unit
Taal
Na
Description
Quantlty
Unit
Ria
Amount
1
Ir DIP Watermain
2,550
LF
$19.00
548,450.00
2
8' DH' Watermain
80
LF
$15.00
$1,200.00
3
6' DIP Watermain
930
IF
$14.00
$13,020,00
4
12' Gate Valor and Bot
4
EA
5800.00
$3,2.00.00
S
8' Gate Valve and Bo:
2
EA
5550.00
$1,100.00
6
6' Gate Vane and Box
19
EA
5375.00
$7,123,00
7
Hydrant
9
EA
SI -W.00
512,150,00
8
DIP Fittings
2,500
LBS
S1A0
52,500.00
Sub Taal
588,745.00
5% Contingency
54,43725
Sub Taal
$93,18213
28% Indirea
573,817.75
Taal
5119400.00
OSM Project No. 5579.00 �Q ) Page 13
PRELIMINARY COST ES77MATE
SCHOOL BOULEVARD (FALLON AVENUE TO COUNTY ROAD 117)
WA7ERMAIN
Item
Estimated
Untt
Total
No.
Desalptlom
Quantity Unit
trice
Amomt
1
8' DEP Watennain
643 LF
SLS.00
$9,675.00
2
S' Gate Valve and Boa
2 EA
S550,on
S1,io0.00
3
Comes to FxieinS Stub
1 FA
SSODAO
SS00.00
4
DIP Fittiogt
700 IBS
SL00
f700.00
Sub Total
511,973.00
5% Contingency
5395.73
Sub Total
S12,5/5.75
28% Indirect
53,426.25
Total
$16,000.00
OSM Project No. 5579.00 Page 14
I
Item
Na
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PRELIMINARY COST ESTDL►TE
COUNTY ROAD 117 (DUNDAS ROAD TO SCHOOL BOULEVARD)
Deaaiptlm
16' DIP Watermain
6 DIP Watermain
16' Butterfly Valve and Box
6' Gate Valor and Box
Hydrant
Connect to Fxdeting Stub
DIP Fittings
Saeding
OSM Project No. 5579.00
WATERMAIN
Quantity
Unit
2,(150
IF
40
LF
3
to
2
FA
2
FA
3
FA
1.500
LBS
2
AC
Sub Taal
5% Contingenq
Sub Taal
28% Indirect
Taal
Unit
Prke
S31M
514.00
33,OOOA0
5375.00
$1,350.00
5500.00
$1.00
51.200.00
Total
$9. W.OD
S750A0
52,700.00
51,500.00
31-W.OD
52,40D.00
581.960.00
540AW
S86A%M
$24.096.24
5110,000.00
UPage 15
I
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
t0
11
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
SCHOOL BOULEVARD (COUNTY ROAD 117 TO STATE HIGHWAY 25)
Dwlptlon
12 RCP CL S
1S RCP CL 5
Iz RCP CL 3
36 RCP CL 3
47 RCP CL 3
Coaswa Manholes - 7r DIA
Camtruct Catch Basins
4VZ RC FES
Random Rip Rap
Har Bale
SID Fence
OSM Project No. 5579.00
STORM SEWER
EeNmated
Unit
Total
Quantity
Unit
Pelle
Amount
60
LF
52040
$1,200.00
330
LF
1..`'1.00
5719m40
370
LF
52340
58,53040
360
LF
56640
523,760.00
300
LF
57240
536,00040
S
FA
(2,000.00
5100040
8
FA
585040
$6,800.00
2
FA
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
40
CY
540.00
51,60040
60
FA
$6.00
360.W
200
LF
5230
50040
Sub Total
51471040
5% Contingency
$5.03530
Sub Total
51474530
28% Indirect
$29,25430
Total
$13340040
(v Page 16
I
I
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
11
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
SCHOOL BOULEVARD (FALLON AVENUE TO COUNTY ROAD 117)
Description
lY RCP CL 5
>S Rt;v r,. 5
IB' RCP CL 3
21' RCP CL 3
24' RCP CL 3
Constmet Manholes
Construct Catch Basins
24' RC FES
Ramiom Rip Rap
Silt Fence
OSM Project No. 5579.00
STORM SEWER
Eatlmated
Unit
Total
Quonft
Uolt
Price
Amount
200
LF
$MAO
S4A00.00
1OO
1.12
$2100
S2,IMM
400
LF
$=
$9,200.00
12
LF
$27.00
$324.00
60
LF
$31.00
51,8611.00
7
EA
51.250.00
$8,750.0D
13
EA
SSSOAO
511,050.00
1
E4
SIAOD.00
51,000.00
15
CY
540.00
5600.011
200
LF
5250
500.00
Sub Total
539,384.00
5% Contingency
51.969.2D
Sub Total
541,353.20
28% Indirect
S11578.9O
Total
SMA0 -00
r
/� � Page 17
APPENDIX B
OSM Project No. 5579.00 ()?
O.o.n erDat. Icce— No or
Ac6.l.s
*.Co. 3/2vaS 5579 YYY N�cn •
ar..w.. ran.,.. n..r.. se--
�r..w.� • wrr rrw
N
SCHOOL BOULEVARD �0"a ftli
GRADING. STREETS. UTI IES
AND APPURTENANT CORK
CITY PROJECT NO. 95-03C
MONTI CELLO. MINNESOTA
- PRO✓ECt IOCA tION
NO SCALE
LOCATION MAP
111
' \ 0
Ir WATERUM
aT"
PROPOSED T W.TEXI M
"l, R10105[D O• LMiNR'� Vy� `�\ �O'•� P R•TERM \ \
6a.e B7• Om. Cowa. w.
K,OA. 3n- ! U79
/ \\ I I
SCHOOL BOULEVARD Isco T,w
GRADING. STREETS. UTILITIES
AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY VRDJECT NO. 95-OSC
MONTICELLO! MINNESOTA
EOEMD
PRM= S.MTMP, SEWER
PROPOSED WATERM0
PROPOSm KLEM /.RIO ,OMRON
t UT@N.M
i
i
PIIOIOSCD O' S.MT.RY SEWER
Iyv..
PROPOSED
SANITARY SEWER. WATERMAIN 2
CONSTRUCTION
r � � 4.�, Q t �,lp•O
r r \
TED ART >r
Q \ \ t
r r 1\ a
on mow=
pow= IV SIM am
\�� T itatMo
TEW ARY man= 11M SMR
1TRCV
lM0m= tY 11Cb S['RR fgel"Tm
VA
�•t•O GRADISCHO110
NG. SipEETS. UTILITIES
• Mf00
11.6-0. LSti13 1171.00 •joci•tn, tno AND APPURTENANT 5DRls
..,�....�.......�.�.. clr. PROJECT No, 9s-o�c
be:.� ;,, MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
t
o,wq tA• I T9••
PROPOSED S
STORY SEWER AND STREET CONSTRUCTION
ova
x
i Pkamn $up PAR4 A�fW
Lmoms cm rY orno "mrou4 n• 1"m to
pam-m it, srm us"
aaMBy 4xr 4a...w 04.r SCNOOI 80UlEVARD
lY,`iraoo a GRADING. STREETS. UTILITIES
ROD. Sl2V45 SS>4.tb Njoolatn.lac AND APPURTENANT .DRK
PROJECT NO. 95-OSC
........ r . a..,..+.. r.,.. CITY
M....�. ►+••+.. MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA
z
W,m
6LSAU
NIOP4'.ID $loft %mot
%may
cmm "TION
�O'p" Teo I
riT.'.
PROPOSED 4
O'�" T,* STORY SEWER ANO STREET CONSTRUCTION
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
8. Considergt!on of adoadns terms of sale • Outlot A. Country Club
Manor. (J.0.)
A, REFERENCEN�ACKGROUND:
As you recall, a few weeks ago Council directed City staff to complete
negotiations with David Hornig on the sale of Outlot A, Country Club
Manor. Staff met with Hornig on two separate occasions to discuss the
matter. We have made progress but have not "settled" on terms at this
time. However, we feel that discussions have come along far enough to
justify placing this item on the agenda, hereby bringing it to a head.
Council is asked to review the terms proposed below and present it to
Hornig as a "take it or leave it" proposal or direct staff to negotiate further
with Hornig or withdraw the land from the market. The basic terms of the
staff proposal are as follows:
Purchasq arise. The original purchase price was $282,000. Due to
the fact that it has taken almost a year since the original deal was
struck and no development has occurred, it is recommended that 7.5%
interest be added to the coat of the land for the time period from June
of 1894 to the time that it is expected that the land will be sold. This
interest expense amounts to $21,150 which could be added to the
total coat creating a new purchase price of $303,160.
Sieh Revenue. This city currently obtains approximately $8,860 per
year in sign revenue for the billboards on the site. The purchase
agreement should require that the signs be allowed to remain on the
portion of the site unaffected by the phased development. The
revenue from the signs should remain with the city until the signs
are taken down.
.and oavment The payment of the principal amount for land used
in development must occur at the time of development. In other
words, when the first phase is developed (4 acres) the land included
in this phase would be paid for at the time of development. Up until
the time of development, the developer will make interest payments
to the city at a rate of 74455. The interest payment would be adjusted
based on the land remaining after each phase of development.
I
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
B. ALTERNATIVE A IO S:
Motion to approve terms of sale concepts above. I1 65
I am not sure to what extent Hornig will support the termsIabove. It
is my understanding that he may expect to get the sign revenue as
part of the deal. It is my view that his original proposal did not
include reference to obtaining the sign revenue; therefore, this money
should remain with the City.
In our discussions, Hornig did support the concepts under item #3
above. He is willing to make interest payments to the City to retain
the land. I am not sure if he is willing to pay the higher land price
under item 01 above.
�1�led
Motion to withdraw the property from the market.
There are factors at work that have developed since the original deal
was put together that could cause Council to rethink selling the
property at this time. For instance, the rate of new housing starts
continues to increase which is placing additional pressure on the city
to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant. Development of an
additional 74 housing units as proposed by Hornig will use additional
wastewater treatment plant capacity that the City might otherwise
wish it had available for single family housing development. One
way to preserve capacity would be to wait to allow development of
Outlot A until alter the upgraded wastewater treatment plant is
online.
Land values continue to increase in the area. During the sale delay
period, a property near the site that is zoned for both multi -family
and business uses sold at a price approximately twice the value per
acre that Hornig offered in the original proposal. Therefore, it is
likely that the City will reap a higher price for the land if it elects to
wait and sell the land later.
It is true that the City has holding costa associated with keeping the
land. Annual holding costs are estimated at $21,160 if we assume a
71h% rate of return. To offiet this coat is the sign revenue which
amounts to $8,860 year.
oL
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
3. Motion to modify terms of sale as outlined above based on additional
input from the developer.
As noted above, the developer may not support all of the terms
outlined under alternative Al. Council may wish to modify the terms
above based on additional input from the developer.
Hornig had a chance to tie up the land a year ago and elected to delay
obtaining control of the land until his financing came through. During this
delay, factors have come into play that could serve to modify the City's
position with regards to the sale of the land. Therefore, it is our
recommendation that the City hold on to the land at least three more years
for reasons outlined under alternative 62. It would be our second choice to
provide Hornig with a "take it or leave" option as outlined under alternative
01. At a minimum, the City should seek terms that provide the City with a
good financial return along with control over the property as it is developed.
r �i13_�75�!_Il �CHJ:VIL.
3
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
10. Considerption of anoroacheq toward marketing and sale of
Eastwood Knoll omoerty. (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Rick requested that I assist him with the completion of the Eastwood Knoll
project due to the fact that he is interested in purchasing one of the lots.
Rick is concerned about the conflict of interest issue and understandedly
does not want to be involved establishing lot pricing.
Following is a quick summary of various alternatives for marketing and sale
of the Eastwood Knoll property. Please review the information and come
prepared to give City staff more specific direction as to the approach you
would like to take. Once one of the alternatives below is selected, staff will
begin the process of finalizing the restrictive covenants and other
documentation necessary to support your decision.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Direct staff to prepare sales approach based on "creating a market."
Under the "create a market" approach, the goal of the City Council
would be to maintain home values at a range higher than the
predominant market in Monticello. This means that homes will have
to start at a beginning price of approximately $140,000 and up.
Under this alternative, Council views the prospect of developing
higher valued homes as a greater priority than the goal of recovering
City investment in land and utilities. If Council is interested in
avoiding competing with existing builders, this would be a good
alternative as all of the builders except for Prestige Homes are
building homes to satisfy different housing markets.
Administration of
If it is the goal of Council to maintain an upscale neighborhood, then
it is suggested that under this alternative the City should sell lots
only after building plans have been approved by a committee or
subcommittee of the Council that could be made up of a couple of
councilmembers plus a staff member. Requiring plan approval prior
to lot sale is a standard practice among developers that strive to
maintain or develop an upscale neighborhood. Under this alternative,
tho subcommittoo would keep Council involvement in actual sales of
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
individual lots to a minimum; thereby, expediting the sales process.
The committee selling the lots would base decisions on the general
direction given by Council.
Council may wish to consider allowing builders to buy lots under
contract with the City with payment for the lot made at such time as
the homes are actually sold. This again is a standard practice among
land developers.
Under this alternative, the actual pricing of the lots would be done by
the subcommittee.
Jeffs Concerns
Council should be aware that the construction activities will result in
the land looking much different after development than it does today.
Installation of a 36 -ft road and removal of major oak trees at the
entrance to the development will impact the aesthetic values of the
property. Therefore, the City should be careful when assigning
restrictive covenants that could possibly prohibit the City from selling
the property for construction of homes with lesser values. It may
make sense to establish minimum market values in the protective
covenants after the grading and development has occurred.
IM
Under the "create a market" approach, staff will need to spend a
considerablo amount of time mnrkoting the property and negotiating
individual sales. Although I think we are capable of doing it, we are
not familiar with this aspect of land development. Given the
workload that we are under, I can foresee problems in expediting
sales if this is left competely up to staff. As an alternative to having
staff complete all the sales activity, it may be prudent to contract
directly with a real estate firm to market and show the property
under the direction of the Council/staff subcommittee. Under this
alternative, the City would select a real estate company via a request
for proposal process. This alternative will cost the City about 10% of
the revenue fFom each lot sale but will save the City by speeding up
the rate of sales and by reducing the amount of staff time necessary
to market the property.
oL
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
Direct staff to sell property under the "follow the market" approach.
Under this alternative, the City Council's priority would be to obtain
cash for land in order to recover our investment as soon as possible.
Under this alternative, Council would have to be willing to accept
homes in the area selling at a price fiom $110,000 to $120,000 range.
Perhaps the market could support more expensive homes in the
interior of the development Under this alternative, the City could
sell the entire development area, if possible, and thus avoid
administrative hassles associated with marketing and selling
individual lots. In terms of the type of homes that we would expect
in this area, just visit the Oakridge development area and you will
see the type of housing that is likely to occur on Eastwood Knoll.
From an administrative standpoint, this is the least expensive
alternative, because it is likely the City can recover all of its
immediately simply by selling the entire development area to the
highest bidder.
C� _ • Jam! NO
Unless Council has changed its views, staff recommends alternative 01.
The property was purchased and developed in large part to create a
neighborhood for upscale homes for the sake of the community despite the
financial risk. In terms of implementing the sales activity, staff
recommends asking realtors to submit proposals for marketing the property.
It is our view that the price of the commission, though cutting into our
profit, is well worth paying when one considers that City staff is at capacity
with all of the projects going on at this time. At such limo that a realtor is
selected, the Architectural Subcommittee would meet with the realtor to
establish the minimum lot values. Council would be informed of the
minimum lot value recommendations and asked to ratify the subcommittee
recommendations. Direct negotiations with buyers would be limited to a
"tako it or leave it" price.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Eastwood Knoll Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions.
EASTWOOD KNOLL
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS
Whereas, the City of Monticello, a municipal corporation under the laws of the
state of Minnesota (the "Developer"), is presently the owner of lots in the
Eastwood Knoll platted subdivision located in the city of Monticello, county of
Wright, and state of Minnesota, according to the plat and survey thereof on file
and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said county and
state (hereafter referred to as "Subdivision") declares that all of those lots still
owned of record by said developer in the Subdivision are, and for the period of
time hereafter stated shall be, subject to the following protective covenants,
restrictions, and conditions, and that every subsequent owner of said lots shall be
bound to said covenants, restrictions, and conditions, and shall accept title subject
thereto.
Land Use pnd Building Tycl. Each lot shall be used exclusively for
residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed, or
permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single family
dwelling, together with appurtenant garage, fence, swimming pool, or
accessory structure.
Architectural Control. No building shall be erected, placed, or altered on
any lot until the construction plans and specifications and the plans
showing the nature, (rind, shape, height, materials, and location/setback of
the structure have been approved in writing by the architectural control
committee as to the quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of
external design with existing structures, and as to the location with respect
to topographic and finished grade elevation. All building plans and designs
shall be reviewed by the architectural control committee for the purpose of
ensuring that the principal street frontage exposure of the building(s) are
constructed of materials such as stucco, cedar, redwood, and brick accents
or a combination thereof.
Quality and Size. Each single family dwelling constructed on any lot within
the developer's property shall, together with improvements appurtenant
thereto, have sufficient architectural characteristics and interior square
footage to create the image of a market value, as determined by the
architectural control committee, of not less than One Hundred Fifty
Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($160,000.00).
All accessory buildings shall be constructed of building materials similar to
those used in the primary structure and shall not exceed 200 aq ft in site.
EASTW2.COV: 3/10/95 page I
Temoorary Structures. No structure of a temporary character or nature,
trailer, tent, or shack may be used on any lot at any time as a residence,
either temporarily or permanently. All structures shall be completed and
finished on the exterior within nine months after commencement of the
excavation or construction thereof, and before the structure shall be used as
a residence. No dwelling shall be constructed of concrete blocks or blocks of
similar type on any lot unless the outer or exterior walls above and below
grade are stuccoed or painted within six months of the time of
commencement of construction.
6. Nuisances. No accumulation of junk, garbage, or debris may be maintained
on any lot. No trailer house, travel trailer, buses, trucks, camper trucks, or
junk cars are allowed to be stored on premises unless properly garaged.
6. Architectural Control Commiylee. The architectural control committee shall
consist of the City of Monticello Building Official and/or a designated
representative of the Developer. The Building Official and/or the
Developer's designated representative shall review all building structure
plans and specifications for adherence to the covenants and restrictions that
relate to minimum building standards along with the harmony of the
exterior design and location in relation to surrounding structures.
7. Tree Preservation. The building plan shall include all survey information
required by the City. The survey shall also show the location, variety, and
approximate size of mature trees located within 35 feet of all construction
and grading activity. The Architectural Committee shall review grading
and site development plans for adherence to the objective of saving as many
mature trees as possible. The Architectural Committee has the authority to
require that reasonable efforts be made to preserve trees. Such efforts
include construction of retaining walls and the like.
8. agog. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions of this declaration awl
run with and bind the land comprising the Developer property and shall be
enforceable by the declarants, the owners, and the respective legal
representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns for a term of ten years 1Mm
the date this declaration is recorded, after which time said covenants,
conditions, and restrictions shall be automatically renewed for successive
periods of ten years. The provisions hereof shall be deemod independent
and several, and the invalidity or partial invalidity or unenforceability of
any one provision or portion thereof as may be determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any of
the other provisions hereof. This declaration may only be amended by a
written instrument signed by Developer and all owners of the Developer
property.
to
EASTW2.COV: 3/11/98 page 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the pasties hereto have set their hands this day
Of 1995.
DEVELOPER
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Mayor
By:
City Administrator
State of Minnesota)
County of Wright )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
. 1995, by Brad Fyle, the Mayor, and Rick Wolfsteller,
the City Administrator, of the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of said municipality.
Notary
VO
EASTW2.COV: 3/10/95 pap 3
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
11. Consideration of pmendments to the City ordinance oovernina trees
by reouirim additional tree m;6ntfim on double iontim lots. (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked by the Planning Commission to consider amending the
tree ordinance by requiring additional tree plantings on lots that front a
street on both the Stunt yard and rear yard. For lots that do not have any
trees whatsoever, the current ordinance requires that two trees be planted
with each new home. Typically, the trees are placed in the front yard. The
amended ordinance would require an additional two trees to be planted in
the rear yard of lots that have street frontage along a rear lot line. See the
attached map showing lots that would be affected by this ordinance
amendment.
In the Cardinal Hills and Klein Farms development area, there are a
number of lots that Stunt an internal street and School Boulevard or Fallon
Avenue to the rear. This subdivision design provides a view of rear yard
residential uses which sometimes consists of an ugly wish -mash of fish
houses, dog kennels, and storage of other miscellaneous items. It was the
view of the Planning Commission that it is not realistic or prudent to
regulate the location of storage in the rear yard of double -Stunting lots
beyond current regulations. They took the approach that introducing
additional trees to these areas at early stages of development would serve to
buffer the impact of the view of items stored in rear yards. Requiring two
trees in the rear yard was viewed as a simple and relatively inexpensive
way to dress up the view from the Boulevard. It is estimated that the
additional tree requirement will add approximately $250 to the cost of
development per lot affected.
In addition to the tree requirement in the rear yard, School Boulevard
construction plans call for tree plantings along the boulevard. The cost of
the trees will be incorporated into the overall project costs and will be
financed accordingly.
For additional perspective on this matter, if you have the time, take a drive
down 7th Street West in the area of Country Club Manor and you will see
the roar yards of double fronting lots 15 years after development. Imagine
this ordinance in place 15 years ago and determine whether or not it would
have improved the area.
t
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
Motion to modify the subdivision ordinance by requiring planting of
four trees per lot for lots fronting on a minor street and a major
boulevard.
The City Council should select this alternative if it agrees with the
Planning Commission reasoning noted above for changing the
ordinance.
Motion to deny approval of m" the ordinance as requested by
the Planning Commission.
Council could take the view that the additional cost associated with
the tree planting will create an additional burden for the
developer/home builder. Perhaps it is the view of the Council that
requiring free planting in the rear yard represents an example of
governmental intrusion Council could take the position that tree
planting/maintenance of yard area should not be overly regulated by
the City. It is up to the homeowner to determine how to landscape
the rear yard.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative •1 for reasons noted above.
A. SUPPORTING DATA
Maps of Mein Farms development area; Copy of proposed ordinance
amendment; Information from Planning Commission agenda supplements.
FA
COUNTRY CLUB MANOR
AREA MAP
.''°�- _. �j- •- --may 1 l �� � .EEE`... p"'�•J��''r.,`• ��` .
�� 4•m �� ti�N� I C` E L
n i1 • T� � L I �` 1. ''1. �� •�b ,. ` .� • •� �:' ti., \
i
SEC
_. -, - __ .!m------ ,•x:r -\ =S86°5921"C_1n6.48--\ ue. �s 4
1 �--
.. - � 0 ------- /NIGKWAV ' , ... ..���...,.
f _.•!m_ '� eta lx. !am _.•om �'w'�ro ..�lr am �
[. • r •ats:i i -r _1 ..I ,.-rtu••i �i [ 1 3 °•W gib. rn•.i,i. g nr.!•n : I B ,v.!'�[� g .vagi g { nt•o'n 8 1
�{is _;S
rn...• 3;I� 8 I I�cM� InpI
—T-/ •• o• ' _J t —,�;�_ J lii}y,[ ♦ • lit r qr -t-5S 't.r=a�r.•t~a;•t•!!�(—l�� N1 SY86°`•59 21�•EN1 R S`Ir•P•N.f•, v. VI 'u-,t.VeYe�e_[��,�lLo .tt.Y4.1 L
• LL J T
1
r•w•up[•tb'n'•Z ,triYnt9
atrY�r . ttrvYii '.I
185.00- -}� -rn.•_ _.I�• n,u-• �na � 1 r
41.n • I a s I s 3 a
3 t•'•!'!°e �w•is'i • t•1 ^S �59 y o_..MB 88 8 3 R
" ^� .�sr
:s 'i a 50, ,�• *�, �' MtO••• r ; P A R K �t �♦—u»•t'nY • �+ larva'u • ' r tov!'w t�
-t»'• \5 �: q )'', �isSS�I''>i a�t.� '•ti• I'!I g8 4nn I$ N,:Y.•-:M °
-i �t00eM
32 • b4t:, •• �•n yr, w•'tP0,8 j�/ �[9 {•\•, �y. l .. •ti.ir' •t 1.• II
::w•` •l♦
•^. t.O �• •�' 'C .r ; �q6. �}14
o .{•il —���wrre n
\c0G t V' O •A•$d'wm .� im.,gn••, mu1•LSI ,,1�7�.+•,b -ka8 i
rto m— -uu 0=wmi[ L�•l�_, , t 1 ti!'
\9r 'i°�• ��.;,,. 12 �1I 8 i 8r�s !w ,� �i',.fY,��,B. $ �1 a
r P 0 A I I F' 10 C 8 :r� 8 : S. 7 ,,� rp.•;r ♦'f / `y ..saw... '� -
fn
/ ¢6 �.;q�q �••O= 3�� J �•-
rem L•om-J Lw � s�� •w•r [, 1,
C 29drr •C• it '••� rt 4a6h fl 3 13
C. y, •a 29 �� •,n%. • a- -.a nu- `
6 i�ds • ,aieeY1 , ,•,?rV„Iw,, -5 aS+
22 21 Y
•9 2 yO 1
Q�
16
a -j
4 •� ..• ,!. •vdl�•• •,L.ot 00-j._stp _�, �5,, ,.dj �4♦°; _:1 .w r.• g �' r-..a•n•raQ V) eG
26 tv6 �t•'►..�w•s.r�� t�d�i�v 8ai- 1, [1 Iq 6 o n. 9 t 1 a
\ 1
COUNTRY CLUB a° 9 dr I I ! t8 •� ��r 17\,1� i a♦+ I
i • ` 23 8 _ :2. qj v •••8. d y°j' • n5.t l a d
MANOR \ •° -"• ,1J `1�°, '„e p:_ E •.� �.r'd• I :-ll `� ty=rf' (•'wa° 5 L
25
24 'i 18 19 �• I� E�„� 1 ��s 10is
f
k ss
i=n
r7p
�• ♦ to I �� •.
y 0 9ry
@pC4�•S? -
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, M[NNESOTA, DOES E ER�r,t
ORDAIN THAT TITLE 8, CHAPTER S. SECTION a, OF THE MONTICELDD
CITY ORDINANCE PERTAINING T D TREE REQUIREMENTS BE AMENDED
BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING:
8-3.5: REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TREES IN NEW SUBDMSIONS
(A) In new subdivisions, on Tots with frontage on a single right of way, it is
required that two (2) trees be planted per platted lot if no trees are in
existence. For tots with frontage on more than one right of way, it is required
that four (4) Gees be planted per Platted lot if no trees are in erietence. Two (2)
trees must be planted in each yard having street frontage.
(C) Trees required to be planted in subdivisions shall be planted inside the front
property line (or rear/side, if applicable, on double -fronting lath at a distance
not greater than four feet (41 from such line. This tree to be planted if there
are not suitable existing trees in this location.
Adopted this 27th day of March, 1995.
Mayor
City Administrator
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/95
Discuss ontionA for maintai nine aonearance of boulevards alone
double- froutine lots. (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
ordinance amendment that would regulate placement of accessory
structures in rear yards. In response to the draft ordinance, the Planning
Commission indicated that this measure would not likely solve the problem.
It was suggested that perhaps additional landscaping or berming could be
employed to create a visual separation between the boulevard and the back
yard areas. Under this alternative, the developer of the private lots would
be required to build a low berm and plant at least two trees along the rear
yard lot line on each private lot. This planting would be in addition to the
two trees that are already required by ordinance in the front yard area
The City could match the tree planting done by the developer by planting at
least two trees along the boulevard as part of the construction project. The
cost of the trees could be incorporated into the public improvement costs
which are paid by the developer as well. For existing boulevards, the City
could etablish plantings along such boulevards as a priority area for tree
planting.
The plan above for enhancing boulevards would not screen the view of rear
yards but would serve to enhance boulevard areas at a relatively low cost.
The berm requirement would need to be somewhat flexible to accommodate
drainage concerns.
B. ALTERN, ►TIVE ACTION:
1. Motion to direct City staff to prepare amendments to the subdivision
ordinance requiring tree planting in rear yards of douhle-frnnting 1ntA
for review at the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Under this alternative, City staff will prepare the text amendment
and will notify developers that would be affected by the proposal.
Developers would be invited to the next Planning Commission
meeting to provide input to the Planning Commission prior to
consideration of a formal recommendation.
2. Motion to table the matter and seek additional alternatives.
The plan outlined above is relatively simple and may not adequately
address the problem. Perhaps additional research on what other
communities have done is appropriate.
3
Planning Commission Agenda - V7/95
C. STAFF REC01%MNDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1 as a reasonable step toward improving
boulevard area where double -fronting lots exist Staff would like to move
forward on this topic at this time so that the ordinance amendment can be
in place prior to completing the development agreement governing the Klein
Farms.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
None.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/95
Public Hearing—Consideration of zoning ordinance amendments
regulating[ placement of accessory structures (i3toragq jshop&) in the
rear yard of double -fronting lots. Aoolicant. Monticello Plannino
Commission. (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission heard
a report from City staff and called for a public hearing on adoption of an
ordinance amendment that would regulate placement of accessory
structures, namely storage sheds and kennels for properties that have road
frontage on both the front and the rear of the property. Double -fronting lots
are an unavoidable result of development of collector roads such as School
Boulevard that extend along the perimeter of development areas. When
subdivisions are designed, efforts are made to limit the number of double -
fronting lots and to provide for extra lot depth in an effort to buffer the
impact of having a busy road as a rear yard boundary.
A side affect of double -fronting lots that has become a problem in the recent
past is the proliferation of storage buildings and kennels that are placed at
the 5-R setback minimum on rear yards of double -fronting lots. Examples
of this practice can be found along School Boulevard on the west side of the
Cardinal Hills subdivision. Planning Commission is asked to review this
practice and consider adopting an ordinance amendment that would change
the setback requirement to 30 R. I hope to have a video of the Cardinal
Hills area available for your review.
Staff suggested considering adoption of the ordinance for the following
reasons.
There is a concern that placement of storage sheds and kennels in
close proximity to School Boulevard and other collector roads has a
negative impact on the "eye" and present a negative image for the
area and the community. By moving storage buildings away from the
rear edge of the property, visibility of storage areas is reduced, and
the view along the boulevard is enhanced.
Regulation of the location of storage sheds does not sipfficandy limit
or impair the use of the property by the individual property owner. It
only limits where the storage sheds can be located.
A number of cities have identified this problem and established
regulations accordingly. Regulating double -fronting rear yard
setbacks is a common practice among other cities.
0
Planning Commission Agenda . 2/7/95
The Klein Farms plat has a number of double -fronting lots on School
Boulevard and Fallon Avenue. It would make sense to establish
regulations prior to development of the plat.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment regulating placement of
accessory structures (storage sheds) in the rear yard of double -
fronting lots.
As with every zoning ordinance amendment, a motion to adopt the
ordinance amendment must include a "finding" that provides specific
reasons why the amendment is appropriate. The finding must relate
to criteria noted below.
Consistency with the comprehensive plan
Compatibility with the geography or character of the area
Effect on land values
Demonstrated need for the amendment
2. Motion to deny adoption of an ordinance amendment regulating
placement of accessory structures (storage sheds) in the rear yard of
double -fronting lots. 0
Planning Commission should select this alternative if the proposal
does not meet tho criteria for amending the zoning ordinance.
Perhaps it is the view of the Planning Commission that the benefit to
the community that comes from requiring the deeper rear yard
setback is not significant enough to warrant limiting the rights of the
property owner as proposed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 01 for reasons noted above.
i.il0
Report from Steve Grittman; Copy of proposed zoning ordinance
amendment; Copy of present ordinance; Excerpts from comprehensive plan;
Copy of preliminary plat of HIein Farms showing double -fronting lots; Video
presented at meeting.
JrNFE11:36 NRC .1. — 1 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Cj URBAN PLA MMI MO • DESIGN , MARKET R Ca to RCM
1\EIORAMjM
TO:
Jeff O'Neill
FROM:
Stephen dam
DATE:
2 February 1995
RE:
Monticello - Accessory BuilftVVw Sed=b an Doable Frontage Iota
FELE NO:
191.06 - 95.02
The a closed draft ordinance is desigaod to cannot the aesthetic impact of rear yards which am
visible to pasting - an doable $outage Iota. Most typically, such lots will have rw yards
which ase exposed to eollecoor or arterial skeet traffic, and as such, can Dave a aiguiSeamt
Wpm an the traveling public's impre d m of the community. Under the atrsmt ordinance,
several accessory uses are exempted Rom tba omdard tsar yazd setback under Ordinance
Section 3.3 (D]. In the caro of stogle floorage lou, such ....... hapaet only other
properties' rear yards. Wbm tho tea: yards are exposed, the Pkm tug Commkd= c=W mare
an 2—pt to control view cluaer to the tsar yard.
As we have discussed, there is some coneem about the dhcdvmets of am o:&-- such err the
one proposed. If a property owner is iotmt no ch—in g the mr yard, It may be dit6cult to
rsgalate a121clectly. However, this ornibmw would at Lust enstna that the thirty fen a4cidng
the tear lot HoOpublic riga?-way wmW be Roe of aaxssuey bulldoM tad the taa�ot
Ordioaaoe Laagaage prohibit ueoelosed outdocz stange of all but mczmticad av pmmt tad
a flew other items (see Section 3.2 RM.
The Ahamtive approach to this lam would be to attempt to cum a sstemiog requirement for
tear yards on double iiontage Leu. However, this may be impra Wd in ceruin dmadona,
pnd=lady where the aQjotaft msec L bigha than the property to be strand. Mmwva,
an aumcdve seism tray be difficult to ctsato wbm them aro mmt = comtigumtta prvperiy
owners with d!!>ledo opioiona as attrecdva laadslwp n , fhacin;, and other satsming e>rotts.
Flnally. there may be situations where a doable fmnuV to may adjoin other dde or Romt
property lien, mating any accessary building, or an imposing fimee at acteen, a problematic
intrusion an the acighbons' use of paopatty. ( I
S775 Wayzata Blvd • Suite SSS • St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595.9= -Fax. 595.8837
As a resole we hns put together the foUowtog baguge with the gosh of am of adbrccmcnt
and cladty, admowle4q dist ft wM na be the pm*a sohdion in each and cm case. We
WHm that wham uohp cm&dm =Me the =ad for .. - —.., .,* mcamrcm6 the Z=bq
m
Ovdbw's vub= pmccu penahs i... d those ap" ammom
2. In A-1, A-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.
(D] The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requirements:
PRESENT
ORDINANCE 1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sill,
pilaster, lintels, ornamental features, cornices,
eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not
project more than two (2) feet into a yard.
2. Terraces, steps, or similar features, provided they
do not extend above the height of the ground floor
level of the principal structure or to a distance
less than two (2) feet from any lot line.
3. In rear yards: recreational and laundry drying
equipment arbors and trellises, balconies,
breezeways, open porches, detached outdoor living
rooms, garages, and air conditioning or heating
equipment.
4. Solar systems.
(E) Lots of multiple housing unit structures may be divided
for the purpose of condominium ownership provided that
the principal structure containing the housing units
shall meet the setback distances of the applicable
zoning district.
t
In addition, each condominium unit shall have the
minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable
open space as specified in the'area and building size
regulations of this ordinance. such lot areas may be
controlled by an individual or joint ownership.
(P] In residential districts where the adjacent structures
exceed the minimum setbacks established in
subsection (C] above, the minimum setback. shall be
thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference
between thirty (30) feet and the setback or average
setback of adjacent structures within the same block.
3-4: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS:
(A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and
building size requirements to be provided in each zoning
district as listed in the table below.
NONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3 19
NOTES: ti_ bock of map KLE1 ' FARMS
-------------------
I OMOT
:i ' - ���� �i 1r-,({� r —•T -r 1 i I ` Ir
Ix
V.
Ir I � �r • •� - . I
N
•4
WI �� r C • ,I 111 ',�
fl TIOT 0 / 1 i1 a� "i- 2 IIS
I II ' I III 1 \. • . I t I.
ou,lm»
KLEIN FA MS_
PRELIMINARY LAT
PARR WCATION TO HE DETERMINED
�� *4�)
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
12. Considgyation of 13Ppointina City representatives to Monticello
Senior Housina Alliance Bow. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND B6CKGROUND:
As you are aware, the Monticello Senior Housing Board Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws creating this non-profit organization indicated
that the Board of Directors for the Housing Alliance would consist of at
least three members and not more than 12 members. The initial intent was
to have the Hospital District appoint two representatives, the HRA two
appointees, two appointees from the community at large, and the City
Council would also have two appointments. Based on the legal opinion of
both our City Attorney, Paul Weingarden, and the HRA Legal Counsel,
Steve Bubul, it was felt there may be a potential conflict of interest with the
Council members themselves being appointed to the Housing Board of
Directors. As a result, both Shirley and Clint resigned from the Board, and
the question now becomes whether the City Council would like to appoint
some other representatives to the Board on behalf of the City?
While Pm sure the Board can operate without any new appointments being
added by the City Council, the Council may want other individuals
appointed to the Board than those already established by the HRA and/or
Hospital District. Some suggestions that have been discussed in general
conversations I've had with other current Board members include names
such as Mr. Arve Grimsmo, Mr. George Phillips, and Opal Stokes.
Although I have not had any discussions with these individuals regarding a
possible appointment, they are just suggestions for the Council to consider.
Likewise, you may come up with many other names that you would like the
full Council to consider. As I noted earlier, the bylaws do allow the Board
to operate with as little as three members; but if the City Council would
like to have a say in who is on the Board of Directors when the important
issues regarding developers agreements and other issues relating to the
housing project are decided, the Council should consider appointing
individuals soon.
H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Appoint two individuals to the Board to take the place of Council
members Anderson and Herbst who resigned. C p S/}
The individuals suggested above have not been contacted by myself
regarding a possible appointment to the Housing Board; and if one or
more of those individuals was the choice of the Council, it would have
to be subject to their interest in serving.
Council Agenda - 9/27/95
Do not appoint any representatives at this time and let the Housing
Board operate with its current make-up.
Seek applicants interested in serving on Board by placing a notice in
the newspaper.
According to the way the Housing Board non-profit organization was
established, Council representation does not have to be part of the Board for
it to exist. Since the City is technically involved in being the conduit for the
issuance of bonds to finance the project, the Council may want to have some
say on who is representing the City on the Board of Directors.
D SUPPORTING DATA
None.
Council Agenda - 3/27/95
19. eonsiderg%ion of an application for a one -day gambling license -
Duchs Unlimited Bauauet. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Wright County Ducks Unlimited has requested approval of a one -day
gambling license to conduct a raffle as part of their May 8, 1995, annual
banquet. As in the past, the banquet has been held at the Monticlelo Roller
Rink. Before the State of Minnesota will grant a license, the City Council
must adopt a resolution supporting the request or denying the application.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt a resolution approving issuance of the license. S9 -f 8S
2. Do not adopt the resolution supporting the license application.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since the Ducks Unlimited Banquet has been held for a number of years at
the Roller Rink and has always included a raffle as part of the activities, I
can see no reason why the City would not want to recommend approval of
the one -day license.
Copy of application; Copy of resolution.
Minnesota LaudW GambUng I FOR e04F us
€glLr
CKK—
Lo>m Application for Authorization for � TE
M-.WM Ezempdon from Lawful Gambling License
Fit into udradrdPwdoro d wow apptadon ba -"PO -Nd
awdeInatArra"dgvWl e)=ff9MMbaW&c6wbri
Fame and Addrw qforyanisadon�—
Oquam • Iamw Cmer" was arft fa ov C.a1Wup SWWla save r.now
&4,bor s v =tea I X -860[£— 7/
125Y b01f5r vaj &.clam 53- 3i.3
Clow Emdw Ofte, Onmr www waew Tnoxxw agsw Ph" wenewr
4� Aaa/da- (62) �b9—�Ya �!/.wr. 117 (x)27- L7Q,'
7We qfNonVVU Org
Check Ow box below wtYek Irmfictive Your "a of
❑ Fnfrnwl
❑ Vanaa
over napo0l
OamKNO to
fwov d as ran am" wo was pia
A1a..r�eecco �.oQ ��v�C
se.a ey................To it
/oL �iAa.ym ; eg bvzvc- Wouxreecco
Check or boa that kwYdma your pwo/ deorpoP.t
atmw and aOacA • aogr d fhe pod b r pvaexdel►
❑ M d owasm
❑ Cat cubm of Good rwdro bw ew IBnrwod
Se arary of Shawn a
Sn ov
7(Att d pnanl n, ; A apnWb-"w"
_ � SS36
tkra� /lJ/Piorrraaa.wel
no— q/o— nnandd Report swum war orwls
OO.AdM
ewrtq Oabarerbb F`earav rrvaa OW
9in90 ❑
Rales x
Peddewneda ❑
Tfpboerds ❑
Pu0•tebs ❑
1 declare all information submitted to the heiOid 101 w1°" p"tl"w'0 ° ter' w' ° °w"0
Gambling Control Board is true, accurate,
and complete.
I dmWrr 49 WW rYban" WOMMIC On rawOaV Cawa1
Bead U wlw. mar• Wd ampYb.
�J� 24RLfl/� 3'a� -7s
swasow am
m
Loam Urdt gGouernaaeWANrnomtedgment
I � rnrwd rel oar a n apraom Tun swwr�on+a w.r.rad a b o.lery CaWd sora Wd +etyma armw>D ear boat m r
wnpwo.wraab.dw�.drurllwtlw�ar.wv�rr�a.owarMoranMatlds.arb. Aoarraai.am..re•wdrwa
awwp ad Co" sam =rra d wa as m abe... Comoro" don baa O dAa a ram m arbw d• eftwr.
q ha
ar er carr iaw l�
[�i/ctL�D re.anor...
/
3�� alpafwreWtorr warrwp
Towfav b
❑orpnized
ri Ow
AUxh I"
T�wararon
as / or. wulirw m tars M900,00
, w .J; tkn rl�
Thio Iolm t» madw avaBablb flail w4A {26 pamlM be and eopp of
11wt
In ahrn&We fames (les. tu" Proof afncnpmM gWue to:
piM tual0w) upon npwst. ac�
1711 W Rtd. 8 fits. 300 S.
IYflka • Original
Ydow • Bard shanty to
Omwastim to Cal
d edea ww
Rctewft• 6M 55113
Q3)
RESOLUTION 95 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF A GAMBLING LICENSE
WHEREAS, the Wright County Ducks Unlimited has submitted an application to the
City Council of Monticello for issuance of a charitable gambling license to operate a
raffle on May 8, 1995, at the Monticello Roller Rink located in Monticello, Minnesota,
and
WHEREAS, upon review of the organization's activities, the Council is not opposed
to the gambling license being issued by the State Gambling Control Board, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the Wright
County Ducks Unlimited application for license issuance listed above is hereby
approved, and the State Gambling Control Board is authorized to process the
application.
Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of March, 1995.
Mayor
City Administrator
0
Council Update - 3127/95
14. Trunk storm sewer access charge. (J.O.)
As preliminary information associated with a future agenda item, staff is
providing Council with the agenda item on this matter that was provided to
Council some time ago regarding establishment of a trunk storm sewer
access charge. This information is presented to you at this time for the
benefit of the 2 new oouncilmembers that have not reviewed this issue at
length in the past. As you can see, the City Council approved a trunk storm
sewer access charge program some time ago, and City staff has yet to
complete the process of implementing the system. This is to let you know
that staff has not forgotten this item and that, to a great extent, the reason
for the delay was due to taking time to understand the legal issues
associated with the ability of the City to charge an across-the-board storm
sewer access fee.
According to recent court action, the City may have some significant
difficulties in charging a Qat rate for storm sewer access fees. This is
because the Qat rate creates a situation where a property owner with a
relatively small actual cost per acre associated with obtaining storm sewer
access ends up paying for a property owner in another section of town that
might have a higher cost per acre for obtaining storm sewer service. The
court cases appear to say that trunk charges developed by cities must be in
an amount roughly proportional to the actual cost to provide such services.
Obviously, creation of an across-the-board storm sewer access charge for all
property owners to pay may be a fair indication of the average cost, but it is
not likely to reflect what the actual or roughly proportional cost is for each
individual property within the various watersheds in the City. In light of
this information, City staff will move forward on this by identifying basic
watarahcd areas in an attempt to determine the approximate cost per acre
to some each general watershed area with storm sewer service. By
delineating separate watersheds and identifying rough costs per acre, the
City can establish district storm sewer access fees rather than a citywide
storm sower access fee. By linking storm sower access fees to specific
districts, we can demonstrate that the cost per acre for a parcel within a
district roughly reflects the coat to provide storm sewer service to each area.
The City Engineer is currently preparing a table that identifies each storm
water district, the total coat to develop trunk storm sewer for that district,
and a cost per acro based on residential development. Please note that the
cost per acre changes with the change in typo of land use. A multiplier is
applied against the residential equivalent for uses that require greater hard
surface areas.
Council Update - 3/27/95
In summary, some months ago City Council authorized staff to implement a
storm sewer access charge which would be an across-the-board charge paid
by every property owner at the time of the issuance of a building permit.
The amount charged would be the average cost per acre to serve properties
in the developing portions of Monticello. Subsequent to this decision, it has
been learned that it is not possible to create an across-the-board charge;
however, if we cut the City up into watershed districts, we can establish
separate rates for separate areas. At an upcoming meeting, City staff will
be prescndng what wo view should be the various rates for the various
watershed areas. We will be showing you a map outlining the various
watershed districts along with a brief description of the trunk storm sewer
improvements needed in each area With this information in hand, the City
Council can adopt a storm sewer access policy and charge system that fairly
links storm sewer access expenses to fees charged, thereby limiting the
City's exposure to liabilities associated with overcharging certain property
owners for storm sewer areas.
A
Council Agenda - 4/25/94
13. Consideration of reviewing contents for development of storm
sewer funding program. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked by staff and the Councl-appointed committee (Clint
and Patty) to review the attached summary which outlines concepts behind
development of a storm sewer funding program and discuss with staff how
it would be applied to the Hart Boulevard storm sewer project, the Meadow
Oak storm sewer project, and other future projects.
B, ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to grant preliminary acceptance of the storm sewer policy as
r pG proposed and call for necessary public hearings prior to adoption.
C� Under this alternative, Council is basically satisfied with the concepts
behind establishment of the storm sewer policy. City staff would take
the neat step toward implementation, which is to prepare the proper
amendments to the city ordinances. It is recommended that under
this alternative, a public hearing be called for the purpose of
reviewing said amendments.
Also under this alternative, City staff will be using the preliminary
approval as a guideline in negotiating with landowners affected by
the proposed Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet. It is proposed that at
such time we adopt the ordinance amendments establishing the storm
sewer funding program that we also conduct project hearings relating
to the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet. At this point in time, we
have scheduled the hearings on this matter to occur on June 13.
Motion to table the matter.
Council could table the matter if it does not feel comfortable with the
level of information or believes there is an inadequate understanding
of the implications of the policy as presented.
Direct, staff to abandon the concept of development of a storm sewer
access charge and continue to utilize ad valorem taxation and
assessment revenue to fund storm sewer development activities.
Council Agenda - 4/25/94
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed policy has been reviewed by the City Attorney, and it is his
view that it is possible to establish an access charge as proposed; however,
we must be careful to establish a fee based on a close estimate of the actual
cost per acre to construct needed storm sewer facilities. Furthermore, it is
important that the storm sewer projects contemplated under the plan and
financed by the fees are completed on a timely basis, thereby avoiding the
claim that the City is collecting storm sewer revenue for projects that are in
reality never going to be completed. It is the view of City staff that we have
a good handle on the storm sewer projects that need to be completed and
have verifiable cost estimates. We, therefore, believe that we can make a
rational and reasonable connection between the fee charged and the cost of
the service provided.
A considerable amount of time has been spent reviewing and discussing all
of the various implications associated with establishment of this policy.
City staff would be misleading Council if we stated that we have reviewed i
from every single angle and understand every implication associated with
development of this policy. There is a certain level of hesitancy in
recommending approval of the policy and asking for action to move forward
on the matter. On the other hand, it is our view that many of the basic
concerns are addressed in the policy as outlined and that unexpected
implications that might stem from development and implementation of this
policy can be addressed as the policy matures. We feel the basic principals
behind the policy are sound, fair, and supportable in a court of law. Other
cities currently are utilizing similar policies to develop funds for
development of trunk storm sewer; therefore, at this point in time, it is our
recommendation that Council direct staff to take the next step in the
process, which is to prepare ordinance amendments that would allow
implementation of the concepts outlined in the attached storm sewer
funding program description.
Preliminary concepts for trunk storm sewer funding program.
I�
17
PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS
TRUNK STORM SEWER FUNDING PROGRAM
PROJECTED STORM SEWER FACILITY NEEDS
As we all know, Monticello continues to grow at a relatively rapid pace. The
major growth areas are located east of Highway 25 and south of I-94. In order for
the City to accommodate growth, significant investments in storm sewer
infrastructure will need to be made in the neat 20 years in 4 major areas. General
improvement areas and rough cost estimates are as follows:
Meadow Oak: An outlet to the Mississippi River from the Meadow Oak
area will need to be constructed in the near future. The total cost of this
project will range from $250,000 to $300,000. The cost per acre is estimated
at $2,700.
Hart Boulevard: The City has completed its work on the Hart Boulevard
storm sewer outlet, which serves a large area that includes the Oakwood
Industrial Park and Klein farm to the south. This area includes both
developed and undeveloped properties. In addition to the recently -
completed stone sewer outlet, there will be a need to develop other storm
sewer facilities upstream as development intensifies. For instance, at some
point in the future, a storm water pond will need to be constructed in the
open area directly east of the Monticello High School. The cost per acre is
estimated at $1,500.
Chelseq Corridor: The total area of this watershed is approximately 600
acres. It includes the Cardinal Hills subdivision, the middle school, the
elementary school, and large areas of undeveloped industrial land. Major
storm sewer improvements will be needed in order to convey water from
this land mass to the Mississippi River.
Such improvements include 1) development of a storm water pond at the
southeast quadrant of the inner -section of County Road 118 and I-94,
2) development of interconnecting piping conveying water from developed
areas to storm water ponds, and 3) development of a system that will enable
storm water to pass by the ready -mux plant under the railroad tracks, under
County Road 75, and to the Mississippi River. The total estimated cost of
the improvements necessary to handle storm water in this area is estimated
at $2,000,000. The cost per acre is estimated at $2,000.
Highway 251Qak3vood Drijyg: This watershed includes the area south of the
intersection of Highway 20.94. It is bounded on the east by County
Road 117 and on the west by the city limits. This area includes all of
I(jellberg's Mobile Home Park, Posusta Mini Storage property, Comfort Inn,
Silver Fox Inn, Dave Peterson Ford, etc. It is expected that a trunk storm
STSEW.FUN: 4/22194 Page 1 9
sewer will eventually be necessary to accommodate future commercial
development in this area. An estimation of the total cost to provide trunk
storm sewer to this area is not yet available.
Please see the attached map for more detail.
CURRENT STORM SEWER FUNDING PROGRAM
Under our current program for funding trunk storm sewer improvements, a
portion of the total cost of each project is assessed against benefiting properties.
The balance of it is funded via general taxes. Following are some problems
associated with this method.
It is not always possible to obtain a large portion of the total cost through
assessment revenues because it is difficult to demonstrate that the benefit
(increase in land value) is equal to a property's prorata share of the total
cost (assessment amount). In other words, it is not always possible to
completely pay for a storm sewer project through assessment revenue;
therefore, the unpaid balance must be financed through general taxes.
The current program requires development of an assessment roll in
conjunction with each storm sewer project as it is completed. In some
areas, this will become a problem in that there may be a need for multiple
projects, which means that certain properties will be assessed on more than
one occasion for trunk storm sewer improvements (Hart Blvd for example).
Multiple assessments create public relation problems and push the City's
limits with regard to justifying the assessment in terms of added benefit to
the property.
Historically, the City of Monticello has relied heavily on the capacity of the
power plant to provide tax revenue necessary to support certain public
improvements. Although the power plant continues to be a major resource
that the City can draw on to help finance necessary improvements, the
influence and relative capacity of the power plant to help finance
improvements via ad valorem is on the decline.
At the same time that power plant valuation is decreasing, the demand for
public services is increasing due, to residential development. Unfortunately,
the cost to satisfy this new demand exceeds the tax revenue that
accompanies the residential growth. In light of this trend, it is the view of
City staff that the City needs to become less dependent on NSP and position
itself in a manner that would require that a larger share of the cost for
improvementa associated with development be paid by revenues generated
by development itself.
STSEW.FUN: 4/22/94 Page 2 0
During the process of developing the concepts outlined below, the City contacted
numerous communities to see how they fund trunk storm sewer projects. What
we found was a variety of approaches and that there is no magic cookbook formula
for establishing a program for funding storm sewer improvements. The systems
adopted by each city seem adapted to fit their particular environment
BASIC ELEMENTS OF PROPOSED TRUNK STORM SEWER FUNDING
PROGRAM
It is the objective of the program to utilize a combination of assessment revenue
and access charge to fund a major portion of trunk storm sewer development
Wsts. General taxes and/ur G.O. bonding will also be used when sufficient
assessment or access charges are not available to fund the full cost of a particular
project.
HOW IT WOULD WORK
For each trunk storm sewer prgfect, each developed parcel benefiting from
the prcyect will be assessed a share of the total cost (assessment amount
must not exceed benefit).
DEVELOPED PARCEL DEFINED
A developed parcel is defined as a platted or unplatted parcel that contains a
structure or is actively used in conjunction with an adjacent or nearby developed
parcel.
Exception:
In the case of a parcel that has potential for a future subdivision that also
contains a structure (such as a farm house on 40 acres), the assessment will
be calculated based on the minimum lot area necessary to accommodate the
structure. The remaining land area is considered to be undeveloped and
would, therefore, not be included in the formula for calculating the
assessment An access charge would be paid at the time of development of
the area not included in the original assessment
UNDEVELOPED PARCEL DEFINED
Vacant land that is platted or unplatted. Generally, vacant land is considered to
be a parcel that does not contain a structure or is not actively used in conjunction
with an adjacent or nearby developed parcel.
STSEW.FUN: 4/22194
Page 3 a
ASSESSMENT CALCULATION AND APPLICATION
The assessment amount will be calculated based on land area benefited
and the type of land use present on the parcel. This formula for
calculating individual assessments would be the same as the storm water
utility formula that has been adopted by a number of communities.
It is the objective of the program to assess parcels only once for trunk storm
sewer, however, it is possible that some developed parcels could be assessed more
than once due to multiple projects completed over a period of years. As an
alternative to multiple assessments where multiple small projects are projected,
the actual aw.c ;ement could br delayed until after completion of all of the area
storm sewer projects (Hart Blvd as an example). The assessment would include
all of the costs associated with each project with the goal of establishing an
assessment that is approximately equal to the access charge.
ACCESS CHARGE CALCULATION cit APPLICATION
The access charge would roughly equal the total cost per acre to provide trunk
storm sewer on a city-wide basis. As with the assessment calculation, the access
charge for an individual parcel would be calculated based on land area benefited
and the type of land use. This means that land use types that have more hard
surfaces and, therefore, generate more storm water run-off such as industrial
land, will pay more per acre than residential land.
The access charge would reflect the average cost to provide trunk storm sewer on
a city-wide basis. The formula establishing the charge can also be adjusted over
time for inflation and other factors. One factor could include the extent to which
Council would like to allow general taxes to help pay for trunk storm sewer
expenses. Perhaps Council believes that general taxes should pay for 20% of the
total trunk storm sewer expenses. The access charge could be adjusted
accordingly.
The access charge will be calculated based on the total amount of land
encumbered in conjunction with a development project. For instance, the access
charge for an industrial development that occupies only 2 acres of a 5 -acre site
will be required to pay an access charge based on five acres.
Access charges could be reduced or access charge credits provided to landowners
that provide land or storm sewer facilities serving an area outside of the
landowners development site.
Following is a table that outlines access charges in other communities. According
to Bret, it is likely that the Monticello charge when calculated based on needs will
be at a level somewhat below what other cities are charging.
STSEW.FUN: 4/22/84
Page 4 I0
ffIV 1
Apple valley
Chaska
BCottage G oie
p Eagan
pLino Lakes
Woodbury
ACCESS/CONNECTION RATES FOR
STORK WATER DRAINAGE
RESIDENTIAL FEE
$/Square Foot I $/Single Family I CommerciaUInd.
Lot (12,000 SF) I
Fee &/Acre 1
$0.0491
$5871
$3,1951
$0.050
$6001
$3,049
$0.0501
$60G 1
103,100 j
$0.0491
$5871
$3,195
$0.0411
$489 1
$2,779 i
$0.0461
$5511
$3,000
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
It world be an objective of the City to limit the potential of future trunk storm
sewer assessments against properties that pay the access charge at the time of
development. It would also be important to maintain the access charge and
assessment at a similar level.
All undeveloped parcels in sections of the city that will ultimately need trunk
storm sewer improvements shall pay the access charge at time of development.
This is a policy statement that merits discussion. The question is, should e3d$ ng
undeveloped tote in the developed areas (old town) be required to pay the aceeas
charge at the time of development just like lots developed in the now areas?
FUNDING OWLICATIONS
The program is designed to maximize potential assessment and access
charge revenue without collecting revenues that exceed expense&
STSEW.FUN: 4/22/84
Page 5 0
D
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/24/95
11:30:46
Disbursement
Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
C
LIQUOR FUND
17983
02/22/95
FRANCOIS COCKTAIL MI
800178
MISC MIX FOR RESALE
24.00
17984
02/22/95
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I
800019
BEER PURCHASE
3.905.25
17985
02/24/95
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
MISC MIX FOR RESALE
32.49
17985
02/24/95
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
WINE PURCHASE
1.705.43
1.737.92
►C
17986
02/24/95
GLASS HUT/THE
800059
MTC OF BLO/REPAIRS
178.00
17987
02/24/95
GRIGGS, COOPER & COM
800018
LIQUOR PURCHASE
3.999.40
17987
02/24/95
GRIGGS. COOPER & COM
800018
WINE CREDIT
11.68CR
3.987.72
►C
17988
02/24/95
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
WINE PURCHASE
1.682.17
17988
02/24/95
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1.776.38
3.458.55
SC
17989
02/24/95
PAUSTIS & SONS
800103
WINE PURCHASE
50.00
17990
02/24/95
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800180
WINE PURCHASE
872.59
17990
02/24/95
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800180
LIQUOR PURCHASE
2.564.39
3.438.98
►C
17991
02/24/95
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
LIQUOR PURCHASE
3.678.39
17991
02/24/95
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
WINE PURCHASE
177.64
3.656.03
►�
LIQUOR FUND
TOTAL
2.634.45
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/28/95 15 : 0 2 :47
Disbursement Journal
1)
WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C
LIQUOR FUND
17992 02/28/95 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 900040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 675.00
17992 02/28/95 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 559.30
17993 02/28/95 PRINT PLUS
LIQUOR. FUND
1.234.30 "C:
800188 RUBBER ,STAMPS/SUPPLIES 41.38
TOTAL i.i?5 !30
9
0
BRC FINAI+CIAL SYSTEM
03/02/95
16:10:26
Ois4urs?m?nt Journal
WARRANT
OATE
VENDOR
OESCP IPTION
AM -)LINT
MA�OUETTF
BANK MONTI,-E-L_0
17995
0:/06195
BERNICK'5 PEPSI COLA
800001
POP PURCHASE
97.55
17996
03/06/95
OAHLHEIMER OISTRIBUT
800009
NONALCOHOLIC BEER
103.40
17996
03/06/95
OAHLHEIa:z OISTP.IBUT
800049
BEER PURCHASE
13.471.55
13.574.95
17997
031ili6i95
0AY uI5TRI6UTIM1G COM
604010
BEER PUAC ASE
62:..40
17998
03/06/95
DICK WHOLESALE CO..
600011
BEER PURCHASE
1.379.65
17,398
03/06/95
DICK WHOLESALE CO..
800011
LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 37.28
1.416.93 C
17999
03/06/95
DISCOUNT PAPER PRODU
800177
FAX MACHINE PAPER
46.00
18000
03/06/95
FLESCH'S PAPER SERVI
800116
PAPER BAGS/SUPPLIES 129.64
18001
03/06/95
FOSTER-FRANZEN-CARLS
800015
LIQUOR LIABILITY
IN 6.320.00
18002
03/06/95
G & K SERVICE
800129
RUG MATS/MTC OF BLD 48.38
0
18003
03/06/95
GRIGGS. COOPER & COM
800018
WINE PURCHASE
83.10
19004
03/06/95
HOME JUICE
•800136
JUICE FOR RESALE.
49.35
18005
03/06/95
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
900022
LIQUOR PURCHASE
157.29
18005
03/06/95
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
WINE PURCHASE
579.96
737.75
19006
03/06/95
JUDE CANDY F TOBACCG
900021
CIGc ✓z CI.3ARS FOR
PES 173.04
18007
03/06/95
LARSON'$ ACE HARDWAR
800184
MISC SUPPLIES
6.95
18008
03/06/95
MN WINEGROWERS COOPE
800132
WINE PURCHASE
600.00
18009
03/06/95
NORTHERN STATES POWE
800035
UTILITIES
790.07
18010
03/06/95
PAUSTIS & SONS
800103
WINE PURCHASE
472.80
18011
03/06/95
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800180
CREDIT ON WINE
3.21CR
18011
03/06/95
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800180
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1.644.83
1.841.62 •C I
18012
03/06/95
RON'S ICE COMPANY
800041
ICE PURCHASE
70.10
10013
03/06/95
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
800048
BEER PURCHASE
17.127.30
13014
03/08/95
TWIN CITIES FLAG SOU
900048
NEW FLAG
104 74
MAR.OUETTE
BANY MONTICELLO
TOTAL
44.149.07
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/08/95
12:54:22
Disbursement
Journal
')
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT`'
MARQUETTE
BANK MONTICELLO
18015
03/07/95
BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
800002
TELEPHONE CHARGES
274.49
18016
03/07/95
CONSOLIDATED COMM DI
800163
ADVERTISING
40.25
18017
03/07/95
DISCOUNT PAPER PRODU
800177
PAPER & RIBBON SUPPLIE 88.24
18018
03/07/95
GROSSLEI11 BEVERAGE 1800010
BEER PURCHASE
7,212.30
19019
03/07/95
MINNEGASCO
800160
UTILITIES
219.12
18020
03/07/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
800032
ADVERTISING
255.40
18021
03/07/95
MONTICELLO VACUUM CE
800050
VACCUM BAGS & MTC
SUP 16.51
18022
03/07/95
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT
800045
CLEANING SUPPLIES
7.61
18022
03/07/95
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT
800045
MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE 184.60
192.21
*C1
18023
03/07/95
VIKING COCA-COLA BOT
800051
POP PURCHASE
429.48
MARQUETTE BANK MONTICELLO
TOTAL
8,727.99
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/24/95 11:29:52 Disbursement Journal
WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GENERAL CHECKING
38139 02/24/95 SHERBURNE COUNTY REC 523 NOTARY FEES/PAT KOVICH 25.00
38140 02/24/95 SCOTT/LEE .90383 REIMB/MAILBOX DAMAGE 14.90
38141 02/24/95 MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP 399 *FY* 3.332.00
38142 02/24/95 SOUTH CENTRAL TECi17:i eO4 RE3 FEE/SEMINAR/FIRE 295.00
38143 02/24/95 WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEY 632 MAPS/PLAN & ZONING 220.00
38144 02/24/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATERCRAFT/SNOW/ATV R 891.00
38145 02/24/85 ARAMARK 848 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 114.00
38146 02/24/95 C J BROWN BUSINESS S 597 PRINTING/RECYCLG INSET 69.16
38147 02/24/95 CLARK FOOD SERVICE. 897 CITY MALL SUPPLIES 103.43
38148 02/24/95 DULUTH TECHNICAL COL .90333 REG FEE/SEMINAR/FIRE 200.00
38149 02/24/95 EDAM 896 MEMBERSHIP DUES/OLLIE 125.00
381,50 02/24/95 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I 55 MISC PROF SERVICES/WAT 80.00
36150 02/24/95 FEEDRITE CONTROLS. I 56 CHEMICALS/WATER DEP 1.707.15
1.797.15 *C
38151 02/24/95 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE 510 FIRE HOODS/FIRE DEPT 86.00
38152 02/24/95 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC 85 GAS/FIRE DEPT 140.37
38153 02/24/95 LIEFERT/TOM 384 TRAVEL EXPENSE/FIRE 0 258.56
38154 02/24/95 MILEY'S SPRINKLER SV .90384 REIMS/OVERPYMT WATER 250.00
38154 02/24/95 MILEY'S SPRINKLER SV .90364 REIMS/OVERPYMT WATER A 90.000R
38154 02/24/95 MILEY'S SPRINKLER SY .90384 REIMS/OVERPYMT WATER AC 5.85CR
154.15 *(
30155 02/24/95 MN SAFETY COUNCIL 488 MEMBERSHIP DUES/P WOR 106.00
38158 02/24/95 MONTICELLO ROTARY 138 MEMBERSHIP DUES/OLLIE 213.50
30156 02/24/85 MONTICELLO ROTARY 138 MEMBERSHIP DUES/JEFF 226.00
439.50 +C
38157 02/24/95 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS 895 HOSE REEL/SHOP & GAR 127.70
36157 02/24/95 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS 895 CHAIN HOIST/PARKS DEPT 85.19
212.98 +
39150 02/24/95 NUTECH ENVIRONMENTAL 157 WWTP CHEMICALS 1.255.69
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/24/95 11:29:52
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
38159 02/24/95 O.E.I. BUSINESS FORM
38160 02/24/95 O'NEILL/JEFF
38161 02/24/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
38161 02/24/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
38161 02/24/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
38161 02/24/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
38161 02/24/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
38162 02/24/95 ORR- SCHELEN -MAYERON
38162 02/24/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
38162 02/24/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
39162 02/24/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
38162 02/24/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
38162 02/24/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
38163 02/24/95 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU
38164 02/24/95 RELIABLE CORPORATION
38165 02/24/95 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT
38166 02/24/95 TRUEMAN-WELTERS. INC
38167 02/24/85 MEIN/JERRY
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
158 COPY MCH PAPER/ C HAL 182.12
161 PHONE REIMS 41.95
160 ELEC TAPE/WATER DEPT 3.78
160 UTIL MTC SUP/WATER DEP 13.26
160 STREET LITE REPAIRS 151;.43
160 GENERATOR INSTALL H 1.794.30
160 LIFT STATION REPAIRS 43.00,
2.010.77 *CF
162 *FY* 1.457.82
162 *FY* 149.75
162 *FY* 4.281.88
162 *FY■ 1.320.19
162 *FY* 1.226.88
162 *FY* 551.25CR
7.885.27 *C
26 LEGAL FEES/ECON DEVEL 765.00
179 LABELS/COMPUTER C HALL 34.22
289 COFFEE POT/CITY HALL 64.85
207 EQUIP REPAIR DARTS/STR 30.52
395 TRAVEL EXPENSE/FIRE DE 84.00
TOTAL 20.869.59
J
BRC FINpN-IAL SYSTEM
02/28/95 14:35:40
r WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
38168 03/01/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NAI'IUNAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
30169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38169 03/03/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
38170 03/03/95 AUTOMATIC GARAGE 000
38171 03/03/95 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT
38172 03/03/95 DARTNELL CORPORATION
38173 03/03/95 FOSTER-FRANZEN-CARLS
3817h 03/03/95 G & K SERVICES
38175 03/03/95 HERMES/JERRY
38176 03/03/95 JACOBSON/DIANE
38177 03/03/95 K MART STORE
38178 03/03/95 KIPLINGER WASHINGTON
38179 03/03/95 LARSON/LYNOON
38180 03/03/95 LIBERTY COMPUTER SUP
38181 03/03/95 MACOUEEN EOUIPMENT I
30182 03/03/95 MN COPY SYSTEMS INC
38103 03/03/95 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
Oisbursemen* Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
219 DEED & TAX/GILLE PROP 31.65
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/92 F H 262.20
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/92 SCH 225.55
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/NAWCO 225.55
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/91 GO 226.65
7 PAY AGENTS FEEi90 GO 239.50
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/REM/TA 227.20
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/89 GO 226.65
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/88 GO 231.60
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/MATER 261.85
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/SEWER 259.45
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/VEIT B 228.30
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/90 KMA 298.35
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/86 GO 233.80
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/89 GO 246.50
7 PAY AGENTS FEE/90 GO 280.00
7 PAY AGENTS FEF/87 GO 226.65
3.999.80 •" ,
260 TRANSMITTERS/SHOP & G 127.80
822 CMIF GRANT PVMT 1.100.21
656 SUBSCRIPTION/CITY HAL 253.86
61 BOILER POLICY RENEW 2.319.00
851 RUGS/MTC OF BLD/DEP RE 28.41
81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50
92 REIMB/VACCUM & SUP 117.91
460 MISC SUPP/FIRE DEPT 11.43
96 RENEWAL SUBCPIP/C HAL 120.00
807 REIMS/BULLETIN BD SUP 77.61
99 COMPUTER PAPER/C HALL 287.85
104 EQUIP REP DARTS/STREETS 7.44
750 COPY MCH MTC/FIRE DEPT 31.95
105 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1.100.00
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/28/95 14:35:40
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
38184 03/03/95 MONTICELLO SENIOR CI
38185 03/03/95 REGISTRAR OFFICE
38186 03/03/95 SENSIBLE LAND USE CO
38187 03%03/9 5 SOUIHAM BUSINESS COM
38168 03/03/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal 1
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT -)
139 MONTHLY CONTRACT PY 2.833.33
898 SEMINAR/ROGER M h TOM 80.00
863 REG FEE/JEFF C/SEMINAR 75.00
644 AU FUK BIOS/Fw EKPANS 435.00
219 SCERG GRANT PAYMENT 2.760.51
TOTAL 15.906.12
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/08/95 12:55:17
a WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
38189 03/07/95 NORTH HENNEPIN COMMU
38189 03/07/95 NORTH HENNEPIN COMMU
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
899 SEMINAR/WATER DEPT 270.00
899 SEMINAR/STREET DEPT 90.00
360.00 •.
38190
03/07/95
MPJ DEPART OF
NATURAL
118
WATER/SNOW/ATV REG
1,091.50
38191
03/07/95
D & K REFUSE
RECYCLI
611
RECYCLING CONTRACT
2.542.75
38192
03/07/95
CUSTOM TRAINING
SERV
.90385
REG FEE/SEMINAR/FIRE
D 50.00
38193
03/07/95
ATG AMERICAN
COMPANY
.90386
CHAIR KNOBS/REPAIRS
16.43
38194
03/07/95
WRIGHT COUNTY
RECORD
254
AOD'L RECORDING FEES
15.00
38195
03/07/95
CELLULAR 2000
OF ST
794
MOBILE PHONE CHGS
9.99
38195
03/07/95
CELLULAR 2000
OF ST
794
MOBILE PHONE CHGS
0.14
38195
03/07/95
CELLULAR 2000
OF ST
.794
MOBILE PHONE CHGS
9.65
38195
03/07/95
CELLULAR 2000
OF ST
794
MOBILE PHONE CHGS
2.33
38196 03/07/95 MN BUILDING OFFICIAL
38197 03/08/95 AEC - ENGINEERS & DE
38198 03/08/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
38198 03/00/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
38198 03/08/05 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
38198 03/08/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
30198 03/08/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
38196 03/08/95 BRIDGEWATER TELtPHON
38196 03/08/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
38198 03/08/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
38198 03/08/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
38190 03/00/85 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
38198 03/08/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
3819A 03/08/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
38199 03/08/95 CENTURY LABS
382OU 03/08/95 CLINE/RICHARD
38201 03/00/95 COMMUNICATION AUDITO
30202 03/00/95 COPY DUPLCATING PROD
30203 03/08/95 CULLIGAN
22.11
729 REG FEE/GARY ANDERSON 15.00
745 •FY• 500.00
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
116.94
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
87.77
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
182.28
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
$0.00
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
213.33
24
TELCPIIONE
CHARGES
373.12
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
59.66
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
63.97
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
132.52
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
51.18
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
438.22
24
TELEPHONE
CHARGES
59.88
1,626.65
276 SHOP & GARAGE SUPPLIE 223.15
458 GAS REIMS/SEMINAR 5.00
38 BATTERY COVER/FIRE DEP 13.89
41 COPY MCH MTC/LIBRARY 54.40
753 WATER SOFINER CMG/RENT 23.11
I
BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/08/95 12:55:17
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
38204 03/08/95 DYNA SYSTEMS
38205 03/08/95 ECM PUBLISHERS, INC.
38206 03/08/95 GLASS HUT/THE
38207 03/08/95 GOULD BROS. CHEV-OLD
38207 03/08/95 GOULD BROS. CHEV-OLD
38207 03/08/95 GOULD BROS. CHEV-OLD
38208 03/08/95 GRANITE CITY IRON WO
38209 03/08/95 HOGLUND COACH LINES
38210 03/08/95 HOLMES & GRAVEN
38210 03/08/95 HOLMES & GRAVEN
38210 03/08/95 HOLMES & GRAVEN
38210 03/08/95 HOLMES & GRAVEN
38211 03/00/95 K MART STORE
38211 03/08/95 K MART STORE
38212 03/08/95 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN
38213 03/00/95 KRAEMER/WANDA
38214 03/08/95 LUKACH /JOHN
38214 03/08/95 LUKACH/JOHN
38214 03/08/95 LUKACH/JOHN
38214 03/08/95 LUKACH/JOHN
38215 03/08/95 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU
38216 03/08/95 MAUS FOODS
38216 03/08/95 MAUS FOODS
38216 03/06/95 MAUS FOODS
38216 03/09/95 MAUS FOODS
38216 03/00/95 MAUS FOODS
38216 03/08/95 MAUS FOODS
38216 03/09/95 MAUS FOODS
38210 03/08/05 MAUS FOODS
Disbursement .Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT J•
50 NUTS/BOLTS/SHOP & GAR 412.32
679 AO FOR DEP REG HELP 160.00
66 GLASS/COUNTER TOP/FIR 250.00
70 VEH REPAIRS%FINE DEPT 165.90
70 VEH REP PARTS/PW INSPE 22.43
70 *FY* 18.09CR
170.24
859 MACH BROOM ROLLER/STRE 85.66
483 HEARTLAND EXPRESS B 4,987.22
86 LEGAL FEES/HRA 1,434.21
86 LEGAL FEES/FAV MAR PRO 55.80
66 *FY* 682.00
86 MISS SHORES LEGAL FEE 985.36
3.357.37 + '
460 CABINET/FIRE DEPT 21.29
460 MISC FIRE DEPT SUPPLIE 22 BE
43.97 +
697 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE 58.58
350 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMS 14.00
327 RETMR/TRAVEI. EXPENSE 10.45
327 REIMB/TRAVEL EXPENSE 10.45
327 REIMS/TRAVEL EXPENSE 10.45
327 REIMB/TRAVEL EXPENSE 10.43
41.70
106 COPY MCH COVER/P WORKS 80.53
108 MISC SUPPLIES/MATER DEP 7.17
108 MISC SUPPLIES/SHOP S G 25.17
108 MISC EXPENSE/PLAN & 20 10.36
108 SUPPLIES/PARKS/CONCESS 19.41
100 MISC EXPENSE/ECON DEVEL 7.26
100 MISC SUPPLIES/CITY HAL 74.58
108 CLEANING SUP/LIBRARY 39.71
108 CLEANING SUP/ANIMAL CO 29.89
213.55
38217 03/00/95 MOA MEMBERSHIP 622 MEMBERSHIP DUES/SHADE 15.0 j
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/08/95
12:55:17
Disbursement •Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT _
GENERAL CHECKING
38218
03/08/95
NORTHERN STATES
POWE
140
!UTILITIES 2,802.33
38218
03/08/95
NORTHERN STATES
POWE
148
UTILITIES 371.82
38218
03/08/95
NORTHERN STATES
POWE
148
UTILITIES 4.476.69
38218
03/08/95
NORTHERN STATES
POWE
148
UTILITIES 1.006.25
38218
03/08/95
NORTHERN STATES
POWE
148
UTILITIES 14.14
36216
03/08/35
NORTHERN STATES
DOWF.
148
UTILITIES 481.71
38218
03/08/95
NORTHERN STATES
POWE
140
UTILITIES 237.03
36218
03/08/95
NORTHERN STATES
POWE
148
UTILITIES 532.31
38218
03/03/95
NORTHERN STATES
POWE
148
UTILITIES 729.33
38218
03/08/95
NORTHERN STATES
POWE
148
KRAMER RENTAL UTIL/JUL 32.19
10,683.80 *C
38219
03/08/95
O'NEILL/JEFF
16Y
REIMS/TRAVEL EXPENSE 73.42
38220
03/08/95
PAGE LINK
703
NEW PAGER & PAGER C 1,089.01
38220
03/09/95
PAGE LINK
703
NEW PAGER & PAGER CHG 361.25
38220
03/08/95
PAGE LINK
;03
PAGER CHGS 24.50
38220
03/08/95
PAGE LINK
703
NEW PAGER & PAGER CHG 361.25
38220
03/08/95
PAGE LINK
703
NEW PAGER & PAGER CHG 361.25
38229
03/08/95
PAGE LINK
703
NEW PAGER & PAGER CHG 361.25
38220
03/08/95
PAGE LINK
703
NEW PAGER & PAGER CHG 361.25
38220
03/08/95
PAGE LINK
703
NEW PAGER & PAGER CMG 361.25
3.280.01
38221
03/08/95
PARK EOUPMENT COMPAN
164
EQUIP MTC PARTS/PARKS 38.02
38222
03/08/95
PETERSEN'S MONT
FORD
165
VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREE 14.91
18223
03/08/95
RECISTRAR OFFICE
898
SEMINAR REG/ROGER MACK 55.00
38224
03/08/95
SENTRY SYSTEMS
188
SERVICE CALL/ALARM SYS 53.25
38225
03/08/95
SETON NAME PLATE
CO
691
LABELS/RECYCLING 136.05
38228
03/00/95
SHELTON COMPANY
269
RECYCLING SCANNER 500.00
38228
03/08/95
SHELTON COMPANY
269
RECYCLING WAND & SU 1.396.33
1.696.33 +
38227
03/08/95
SIMONSON LUMBER
COMP
193
BULLETIN BOARD/FIRE DE 75.13
36727
03/08/95
SIMONSON LUMBER
COMP
183
MISC SUP/STREET DEPT 160.63
235.76 +
38220
03/00/85
SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPOR
185
HAMMER & TOOLS/SHOP 232.12
38220
03/00/95
SOUTHAM BUSINESS COM
844
AD FOR BIOS/MEADOW OA 205.00
38230
03/00/95
TAB PRODUCTS CO.
671
OFFICE SUPPLIES/C HALL 91.53
BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/08/95 12:55:17
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
38231 03/08/95 UNOCAL
38232 03/08/95 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
38232 03/08/95 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
38233 03/08/95 VIKING COCA COLA
38234 03/08/95 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CO
38235 03/08/95 WRIGHT COUNTY JOURNA
38236 03/08/95 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD
38236 03/08/95 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD
38237 03/08/95 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU
38237 03/08/95 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU
38238 03/08/95 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
213 GAS/FIRE DEPT 6.66
524 GARBAGE CONTRACT PY 9.634.39
524 SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 624.92
10.259.31
773 POP/PARKS/CONCESSIONS 193.20
67.0 WATER METERS, ETC/W 2.987.48
233 AD FOR DEP REG HELP 80.88
254 RECORDING FEES/TAPPER 19.50
254 RECORDING FEES/POLYCAS 19.50
39.00 •
875 ALARM SYSTEM MTC AGRMT 19.12
875 ALARM SYSTEM MTC AGRMT 15.98
35.10
512 UTILITIES 9.00 ,
TOTAL 47.335.23 %
A
BRC. FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/13/95 08:57:43
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
32622 03/09/95 POLKA DOT RECYCLING
38223 03/09/95 UNIVERSITY OF MINNES
38223 03/09/95 REGISTRAR OFFICE
38226 03/09/95 SHELTON COMPANY
39226 03/09/95 SHELTON COMPANY
382226 03/09/95 SHELTON COMPANY
38226 03/09/95 SHELTON COMPANY
38239 03/09/95 JACK BENSON
38240 03/09/95 SCHULZ PROP/MARQUETT
38241 03/09/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
38242 03/09/95 U.S. POSTMASTER
38243 03/13/95 ALBINSON, INC.
38244 03/13/95 BERG/JULIE
38245 03/13/95 CENTRAL MCGOWAN. INC
38246 03/13/95 CITY OF RICHFIELD
38247 03/13/95 COMMUNICATION AUOITO
30248 03/13/95 CONTINENTAL SAFETY E
30248 03/13/95 CONTINENTAL SAFETY E
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
170 1991 CHECK VOIDED 1.774.67CR
212 CORECT VENDOR 4 55.00
898 CORECT VENDOR 4 55.000R
0.00 ;
269 -FY- 500.000
269 ;FY• 1.396.23
269 CORRECT CODING 1.396.23CR
269 CORRECT CODINGG 500.00CR
0.00
90387 1995 STATE BICYCLE REG 80.00
902 LAND ACOUISITION/T 55,000.00
.118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 774.50
210 POSTAGE/DEPUTY REG OF 300.00
412 PW INSPECTION SUPPLIE 164.42
905 TRAVEL EXPENSE/COMPUTE 25.20
30 SHOP & GARAGE SUPPLIE 175.13
904 WATER METERS/MATER OE 798.75
38 MOBILE RADIO/FIRE D 3,214.00
256 2 SURVIRAIRS/FIRE D 3,451.75
256 *FY* 3.451.75
38249 03/13/95 GREW/PAT 901 TRAVEL EXPENSE/FIRE 0 218.22
38250 03/13/95 EDUCATION & PROFESSI .90388 TRAINING/RICH LVMER/FI 25.00
38251
03/13/95
FEEORITE CONTROLS. I
58
MISC PROF SERVICES/WAT
46.00
38251
03/13/95
FEEDRITE CONTROLS. I
56
CHEMICALS/SEWER COLL
562.00
808.00
38252
03/13/95
FVLE, BRAD
62
TRAVEL EXPENSE/FIRE D
284.02
30252
03/13/95
FVLE, BRAD
82
TRAVEL EXPENSE/COUNCI
207.74
491.76
30253
03/13/95
GCNCRAL RENTAL CENTE
64
RENTAL MATERIAL/STRCC
107.59
70253
03/13/95
GENERAL RENTAL CENTE
04
RENTAL OF HOSES/WWTP
37.05
145.44
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/13/95 08:57:43
WARRANT GATE VENDOR
GENCRAL CHECKING
38254 03/13/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
33254 03/13/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
38254 03/13/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
39254 03/13/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
38254 03/13/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
38254 03/13/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
39255 03/13/95 HERMES/•JERRY
38256 03/13/95 JOERG/STEVE
38257 03/13/95 KRANZ/JEFF
39258 03/13/95 LARSON'$ ACE HARDWAR
38258 03/13/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR
38258 03/13/95 LARSON'S ACE HAROWAR
38258 03/13/95 LARSON'S ACE HAROWAR
38258 03/13/95 LARSON'$ ACE HARDWAR
38253 03/13/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR
38258 03/13/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR
38259 03/13/95 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
38260 03/13/95 LIEFERT/TOM
3Q?51 Oa/11/q5 MTNNEGASCO
38261 03/13/95 MINNEGASCO
30261 03/13/95 MINNE(,ASCO
38261 03/13/95 MINNEGASCO
38261 03/13/05 MINNEGASCO
38261 03/13/95 MINNEGASCO
38261 03/13/95 MINNEGASCO
38261 03/13/95 MINNEGASCO
38262 03/13/95 MN STATE FIRE CHIEFS
38263 03/13/85 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
38263 03/13/85 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
38204 03/13/05 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
30264 03/13/95 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
102G4 03/13/95 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
Oisbur3,emeo t Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT J.
78 EOUIP REPAIR PART S/ST 258.62
78 MISC SUPPLIES/SHOP & G 35.58
78 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/WAT 10.26
78 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 27.44
78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREE 15.14
78 MISC SUPPLIES/FIRE DEP 26.97
?74.01
81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50
903 TRAVEL EXPENSE/FIRE DE 84.00
900 TRAVEL EXPENSE/FIRE 0 149.80
874 SMALL TOOLS/WATER DEPT 26.60
874 MISC SUPPLIES/WATER OE 35.36
874 EOUIP REPAIR PAF?;/STRT 5.04
874 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP d GAR 15.30
674 UTILITY MTC SUP/WATER 31.94
874 MISC SUPPLIES/FIQE OEP 12.76
074 EOUIP MTC/FIRE DEPT 13.81
140.81
98 REG FEE/CONFERENCE/FIC 30.00
384 TRAVEL EXPENSE/FIRE 0 210.22
772 UTILITIES 207.42
772 UTILITIES 199.06
772 UTILITIES 57.06
772 UTILITIES 84.04
772 UTILITIES 96.74CR
772 UTILITIES 364.12
772 UTILITIES 2.564.96
172 UTILITIES 62.97
3,532.80
493 F CHIEF MEMBERSHIP DUE 65.00
185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1 , 100.00
185 REIMO/CONFERENCE 400.00
1,500.00
136 OFFICE SUPPLIES/P WORK 94.04
136 COPY MCH PAPER' /C HALL 177.58
136 OFFICE SUPPLICS/C HAL 753.02
1 .025.45`) 6
V.-
a
BR-^_ FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/13/95 03:57:43
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
38265 03/13/95 MONTICELLO PRINTING
38266 03/13/95 MONTICELLO TIMES
38266 03/13/95 MONTICELLO TIME;
38266 03/13/95 MONTICELLO TIMES
38266 03/13/95 MONTICELLO TIMES
38266 03/13/95 MONTICELLO TIMES
38266 03/13/95 MONTICELLO TIMES
38266 03/13/95 MONTICELLO TIMES
38266 03/13/95 MONTICELLO TIMES
38266 03/13/95 MCNTICEILO TIMES
3826.3 03/13/95 MONTICELLO TIMES
38267 03/13/95 MONTICELLO-BIG LAKE
38268 03/13/95 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
38268 03/13/95 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
38268 03/13/95 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
38268 03/13/95 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
38269 03/13/95 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS
30270 03/13/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
38270 03/13/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
38270 03/13/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
36270 03/13/95 OLSON & SONC ELECTRI
38270 03/13/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI
38271 03/13/95 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, I
38272 03/13/95 ORF-SCHELEN-MAVERON
30272 03/13/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAVERON
38272'03/13/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAVERON
38272 03/13/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAVERON
382)2 03/13/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAVERON
38273 03/13/95 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
38273 03/13/95 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
38274 03/13/05 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
30274 03/13/95 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
Di!3burs±ment Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
137 MISC FORMS/FIRE DEPT 162.57
140 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 250.92
140 SNOW PLOWING AD 60.00
140 SNOWMOBILE & BLD PER 140.00
140 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES 76.02
140 LEGAL NOTICE/MISS SHO 304.08
140 HELP WANTED/DEP REG 116.20
140 LEGAL PUB/M 0 TRK SEW 219.70
140 LEGAL PUB/P WORKS EXP 120.37
140 LEGAL PUB/SOUTHWEST AR 66.42
140 LEGAL PUB/EASTWO00 KNO 70.11
1,423.82
403 FIRST AID CLASS/RICK 170.00
•144 EOUIP REPAIR PARTS/ST 655.98
144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STRE 608.75
144 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 47.80
144 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GA 272.92
1.585.45
$50 PROF SERVICES/PLAN 5,410.51
160 BLD REPAIR SUPP/LIBRAR 45.50
160 MTC & REP/SEWER LIFT 392.00
160 BLO REPAIR SVP/PARKS 33.21
160 MTC OF EOVIP/SFWER CO 270.39
160 GENERATOR REPAIRS/MATE 86.83
827.93
836 PROF SERVICES/MATER OE 48.00
162 ENG FEES/M 0 TRK SE 1.128.94
162 ENC FEES/KLEIN FARM 6.947.28
162 MISC ENG FEES/BEIM 14.817.83
162 ENG FEES/P W E%DAN 4.500.00
162 MISC ENG FEES 285.00
27.779.05
173 CLEANING CONTR/FIRE OP 50.00
173 CLEANING CONTR/CITY H 400.00
450.00
175 WWTP CONTRACT PAYM 32.928.00
175 *FV* 7,414.74
40.340.02
x.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/ 13/95 08:57 :43
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
38275 03/13/95 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU
38276 03/13/95 QUINLAN PUBLISHING C
38277 03/13/95 SCHARBER & SONS. INC
38278 03/13/95 BETON NAME PLATE CO
38279 03/13/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
38279 03/13/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
38280 03/13/95 Y.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT .�
26 CONSULTING FEES/HRA 112.50
177 ZONING BULLETIN SUBCRI 81.81
229 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARK 123.63
691 FREIGHT/RECYCLING LABEL 9.95
219 SHERIFF'S CONTRACT 24,469.33
219 ADO'L LANDFILL CHGS 5,651.25
30,120.58 *r
224 CONTRACT PYMT 625.00
TOTAL 183.777.55
I
b
Y
f
BFC. FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/20/95 10:50:26
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
33141 03/17/95 MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP
38256 03/17/95 •10ERG/STEVE
38256 03/17/95 JOERG/STEVE
38181 03/17/95 MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP
38281 03/17/95 MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP
38282 03/17/95 MPWA
38283 03/17/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
38284 03/17/95 U.S. POSTMASTER
38265 03/20/95 CLARK FOOD SERVICE,
38796 03/20/95 FLICKER'S T.V. & APP
38286 03/20/95 FLICKER'S T.V. & APP
38287 03/20/95 J M OIL COMPANV
38238 03/20/95 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
38269 03/20/95 MONTICELLO VACUUM CE
38290 03/20/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE
38290 03/20/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE
38291 03/20/95 PAUL A WALDRON & ASS
38292 03/20/95 PITNEY BOWES
38293 03/20/95 PLUMBERY-PURCELL'S P
30284 03/20/95 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU
38295 03/20/85 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COM
30296 03/20/95 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC
38290 03/20/95 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC
38298 03/20/85 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC
30296 03/20/95 UNITOG RENTAL SiRVIC
30296 03/20/95 UNITOra RENTAL SERVIC
30296 03/20/95 UNITOG RCNTAL SERVIC
Disbursement -Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
399 *FY* 3.332.0008
877 CORRECT VENDOR 0 84.00
903 CORRECT VENDOR # 84.00CR
0.00 s
399 REISSUE CK#38141/LO 3.332.00
399 STOP PYMT CK BANK CHG 20.0008
3.312.00 •!
90389 REG FEE/TOM ROSE/SEMIN 80.00
118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 546.00
210 3RD CLASS B11LK MAIL FE 85.00
897 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 72.06
60 CAMCORDER 8AG/FIRE DED 30.89
60 TAPES/BATTERIES/PW INS 79.95
110.84
95 GAS/FIRE OEPT 23.90
98 REG FEE/COUNCIL 30.00
141 VACUUM CLEANER/LIBRAR 275.84
148 UTILITIES 209.43
149 UTILITIES 31.87
241.10 t
830 BLD INSP FEES 782.50
168 POSTAGE MACHINE AGRMT 129.00
251 WWTP RENTAL REPAIRS 192.50
26 LEGAL FEES/MISS SHO 3.850.00
644 AO FOR BIDS/EASTW000 285.00
211 UNIFORM RENTAL 34.10
211 UNIFORM RENTAL 17.05
211 UNIFORM RENTAL 16.00
211 UNIFORM RENTAL 16.00
211UNIFORM RENTAL 07.40
211 UNIFORM RENTAL 48.73
220.36
P