The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 06-26-1995AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 26, 1998 - 7 p.m. Mayor. Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held June 12, 1995, and the regular meeting held June 12, 1995. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens commenta/petitions, requests, and complaints. 5. Consent agenda: C N _ SA �c.G 5A. Consideration of a supplemental resolution regarding the issuance, sale, and delivery of the senior housing revenue bonds (Mississippi Shores Project). 5B. Consideration of first phase plan for sump pump inspection. Consideration of purchasing lawn mower for parks department. SD. Consideration of an easement agreement between Wright County and the City of Monticello for yard waste compost facility at Montissippi Park. e. Public Hearing --Consideration to adopt a resolution relating to the modifications of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the TIF Plans for TIF Districts 01-1 through 01-18, and the TIF Plan for District 01.19 (Mississippi Shore). 60$ -f e cl~,v 7. Consideration of a request to amend Section 3.9 E2 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by reinstating options for controlling sign size for properties located in the PZM, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, and I-2 districts. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. * Agenda Monticello City Council June 26, 1995 Page 2 S. Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a sign system where there are three (3) or more business uses. Applicant, Riverstreet Station. 9. Consideration of ordering public hearing for storm sewer improvements to the Maplewood Circle area in Meadow Oak. 10. Consideration of contract with HDR for update of Wastewater Facilities Plan. 11. Consideration of hills for the month of June. 12. Adjournment. `mac C, P- P•4. v Jncoj Stv� MIN13 TES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday. June 12, 1895 - 6 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: None A special meeting of the Monticello City Council was held for the purpose of selecting an engineering firm for the wastewater treatment plant expansion project. Public Works Director John Simola reported that at a special meeting held on May 22, the Council reviewed proposals and interviewed four engineering consultants to be considered for expansion of the wastewater treatment plant facility. At the conclusion of that meeting, staff was dirccted to prepare additional questions and gather additional questions from the Council and Mayor, forward those to the consultants for their answers, and develop a rating structure to be used to evaluate the proposals. In addition, City staff was directed to use this rating structure to evaluate the firms and report back to the City Council. Simola went on to report that on June 1, 1995, a list of questions was sent to the consultants and City Council. Because two of the firms requested a meeting with staff so that they could give verbal responses as well as written responses, staff provided all the consultants an opportunity to meet and be re -interviewed by staff. Based upon the interviews and additional information provided by the consultants and their original proposals, staff concluded that the City should attempt to reach the following goals: 1) creation of a less complex plant which is more easily expanded; 2) creation of a plant that offers less areas in which to produce significant odors; 3) creation/expansion of a plant at a reasonable cost; and 4) creation of class 'A' sludge. It was stafrs opinion that the two alternatives that should be studied further are the oxidation ditch and sequencing batch reactor (SBR). Both of these options offer a facility that would be less complex, less likely to produce odors, would be easily expandable, and more cost-effective than the alternate noted in tho facilities plan. City staff developed a rating structure based on each proposal and subsequent questions and answers, knowledge of the project requirements, experience and ability, interviews, project cost, and ability to work with the MPCA, for a total of 100 possible points. Public Works Dircctor Simola repurtrd that HDR and SEH rated as the top two firms, and ho went on to summariso the proposals from each. Page 1 0 Special Council Minutes - 012/95 It was noted that SEH would evaluate the oxidation ditch alternative and proposed that this system could bre constructed for approximately $9.6 million, which would include class "B' sludge and would have the same odor control cost (and construction of training facilities) as stated in the facilities plan. Simola noted that SEH proposed to update the facilities plan at a cost of $15,000, and also could produce class W sludge for an estimated additional $600,000. SEH also provided additional information on SBRe. It was reported that HDR investigated both the oxidation ditch and SBR alternatives and has confidence in the SBR system. They propose to construct either system for approximately $5 to $8.5 million, which includes production of class °A" sludge, odor control, training facilities, etc. HDR was able to keep the construction cost lower because they designed Chair proposal using as much of the existing plant structures as possible. HDR also proposed to update the facilities plan at a cost of $16,000, $3,000 for processing permit paperwork, and $5,000 to set up a partnering program. Kelaie McGuire of PSG, Manager of the wastewater treatment plant, added that he was impressed with the amount of documentation supplied by HDR supporting their answers to the City's questions. Simola reviewed both the oxidation ditch and SBR systems. Although staff did not have a preference at this time until further investigation, he noted that they do have some concerns regarding the SBR system in that it uses more complicated controls, and is more costly to operate; however, it is less expensive to construct than the oxidation ditch system. It was noted by Council that further investigation of oxidation ditches and SBRs is needed prior to selection of a system. Simola noted that HDR, SEH, and RCM/OSM all rated well and could do the job but that HDR had a slight edge based upon the overall rating system. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brian Stumpf to enter negotiations with HDR for expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 12, 1998 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Pyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: None Approval of minutes of thp, snerial meeting held May 22 and thQ rem filar m 'ngh ld May 22,1995- A 2.1545_A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD MAY 22, 1995, AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Perrault requested that item 3C of the minutes of the regular meeting held May 22 include that he abstained from voting because he is also an employee of Joyner Lanes. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 22, 1995, AS AMENDED. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of adding items to thp 8gn a• I i. M -it ". =.. 111117-3; M = r.r. =-. - 90. Z,—. —TrTm W n. 6 Wn MIN W I J;J r. "MY t7a 0 13 I'M V'." C r -T. -m a a 4.7T.T-7-TMm-Q.v50 i -t f, 1 •.- • - \ -- Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reported that Council previously approved the establishment of Ta: Increment Finance District No. 1.19, a housing district, to assist with site improvement costs associated with the construction of the 48 -unit multi -senior housing facility known as Mississippi Shores. The plan included a budget amount of $325,830. Council was now asked to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing for June 26, 1995, for modification of the the TIF plan for District 1-19 by increasing the TIF budget by $42,000 for a total of 8387,830. Koropchak went on to report that on April 18, the HRH gave preliminary approval to increase the budget by 842,000 in order to allow 90% of the tat increment (8328,830) to be spent on the senior housing project, which would increase cash flow and reduce the rental Page 1 0— Council Minutes - 6/12/95 rates. In addition, the 10% administration ($42,000 budget increase) provides dollars for HRA administration costs and/or allows the HRA the flexibility to reimburse the City for its estimated total HACA loss of $33,787 if the project does not meet the requirements of a qualified housing district. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JUNE 26,1995, ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION FOR DISTRICT NO. 1-19. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95-43. Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak requested that Council consider adopting a resolution approving the private redevelopment contract between the HRA, the City, and Presbyterian Homes, and the subordination agreement between the HRA, the City, and the Trustee, regarding the proposed Mississippi Shores senior housing project. Koropchak noted that the private redevelopment contract defines the terms and conditions associated with the disbursement of the TIF assistance to a redeveloper. The proposed contract calls for TIF pay- as-you-go assistance for public redevelopment coats in the maximum mount of $325,830. Koropchak noted that normally the contract is an agreement between the HRA and redeveloper only-, however, the City is a party to this contract because the City will be constructing the public improvements and is associated with the requirements of a qualified housing district. It was noted by staff that the public improvements to be performed by the City include the sanitary sewer realignment and pedestrian bridge construction. The cost of construction of the improvements will be funded by the development. All other site improvements will be installed by the builder. Attorney Steve Bubul indicated that the contract can be modified to clarify which improvements will be installed by the City and which will be installed by the builder. Page 2 0 Council Minutes - 6/12/95 Koropchak went on to report that in order to induce the Trustee (First Trust National Association) to enter into the Indenture, and as additional security for repayment of all amounts due under the loan agreement, the HRA, City, and Trustee agree to enter into the subordination agreement. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AMONG THE HRA, CITY, AND PRESBYTERIAN HOMES, AND THE SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HRA, CITY, AND TRUSTEE. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95-42. . , :, .l�'TIITZTiT.�.T:1l�R�ITR: 4f:'1'f11�. • i . • . .: .• :.�R'f Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that at the meeting held on May 22, Council approved the preliminary plat of the Pinehurst residential subdivision subject to a number of minor modifications. He noted that the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat, and the protective convenants have been received and appear to be in order. O'Neill also reported that Mr. Bauer is requesting that the City issue a building permit prior to recording the plat with the County in order to begin construction immediately. Staff recommended that Council approve issuing a building permit prior to formal recording of the final plat because an error in the original public hearing process caused a delay in the platting progress and them are no public improvements required for the project. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF THE PINEHURST RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW BY CITY STAFF AND COMPLETION OF PLAT MODIFICATIONS. MOTION ALSO INCLUDES AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO RECORDING OF THE PLAT WITH THE COUNTY DUE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ERROR WHICH DELAYED THE PROJECT, THE RISK IS NOMINAL, AND NO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED WITH THIS PLAT. THE PLAT MUST BE RECORDED BY MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1998, OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WILL BE HALTED UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE PLAT HAS BEEN RECORDED. Motion carried unanimously. Page 3 C-2-) Council Minutes • 6!12/96 D. Consideration of pgrchn&e of htickpt truek. Public Works Director John Simola reported that a bid for $4,751 was submitted by the City for the bucket truck auctioned by Wright Hennepin Electric; however, the truck sold for a bid price of $5,300. Simola went on to request that Council consider nosing the budget for purchase of a bucket truck to $12,000 so that he can consider purchasing a truck found in St. Cloud. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SPEND UP TO 512,000 ON THE PURCHASE OF A BUCKET TRUCK, INCLUDING REPAIRS AND SALES TAX Motion carried unanimously. ritizenia corne a/petitions_ mWit-Ata and corngdnintg. None. Pnhlic Hearing=rnnaid ra ion da resolutinnasithnri2ing Chn iss ance of hn using rev nue bandg for the MiAggiggippi Shnrea Senior HnuninS_RjecL Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing, City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that, in order to continue the senior housing project, the Monticello Senior Housing Alliance has agreed to allow Presbyterian Homes, along with the Wedum Foundation, to become the owner of the Mississippi Shores senior housing project during its initial years of operation, with the option of being available for purchase by the Senior Housing Alliance at a later date, Presbyterian Homes has agreed to inject $150,000 into the project, and the Wedum Foundation will provide $50,000, which will make the project more attractive for permanent financing. Wolfsteller noted that Council is asked to authorize issuance of $3.6 million in senior housing revenue bonds in the City's name in order to obtain a lower interest rate for the project. The City would not be liable to make any payments on the bonds should the project not have sufficient revenue to pay the debt. It was also noted that in March 1996, Council adopted a housing plan which outlined the City's need for senior housing in the community. The plan indicated that a senior housing project would be owned by the Monticello t %-nior Housing Alliance. If the Council is still supportive of the senior housing project being initially owned by Presbyterian Homes, a resolution should be adopted that modifies the original housing plan to note that Presbyterian Homes is now the owner. Paged LZL Council Minutes - 6/12/95 Mayor Fyle expressed his concern that the project is no longer a community project if privately owned under the proposed request. It was his view that additional time should be taken to acquire the financing necessary to continue the project as a community effort. Arve Grimamo, City representative on the Senior Housing Alliance Board, stated that the City is fortunate that Presbyterian Homes is willing to step in to keep the project viable, as it is a positive project for the community. Steve Johnson, the HRA representative on the Senior Housing Alliance Board, stated that Presbyterian Homes is well known in the senior housing market; and with their expertise and the current interest rates, the Board has found a way to fulfill a need in the community. Al Larson, Chairman of the Monticello HRA, reported that three groups were interviewed, and it was felt that Presbyterian Homes was the best for the project. Mayor Fyle then closed the public hearing. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE HOUSING PLAN TO INDICATE PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AS THE OWNER OF THE MISSISSIPPI SHORES SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT. Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault. Opposed: Brad Fyle, as it was his view that additional time should be allowed to acquire the necessary financing in order to maintain the project as a community effort. SEE RESOLUTION 95-41. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF SENIOR HOUSING BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3.6 MILLION, ALONG WITH THE ASSOCIATED LOAN DOCUMENTS NOTED IN THE RESOLUTION. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95-40. f.n aid ration of reconsidering approving the ias .nneo of a g mhling license �p hn_ Minnpao la Lic enap Bov .ragp Association Children's Fund - .Inyaer LaIICB. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that at the May 22 meeting, Council denied a request to approve a charitable gambling license for the Minnesota License Beverage Association Children's Fund (MLBA) at Joyner Lanes because the organisation was not local, as it was Council's view that there Page 6 Council Minutes - 6/12195 were local organizations that could handle the gambling activity. however, Pam Dane, owner of Joyner Lanes, felt this was an important issue for her business and requested that Council reconsider her gambling license request. Ms. Dane stated that because the current arrangement with the Jaycees for pull -tabs at Joyner Lanes was losing customers and affecting the bar business, she requested the opportunity to better serve her customers with MLBA operating the pull -tab operation. She noted that Council could regulate the percentage of proceeds that would be required to be donated back to the community by MLBA. Peter Madel of MLBA noted that they have agreed in writing to donate at least 20% of the proceedls back to the communi ty, with the hope that they can accomplish a 50% donation level. He stated that the organization helps youth with dependency problems, which is a very worthy cause. Administrator Wolfsteller noted that Council could approve the gambling license noting an expected contribution amount. If the expected amount is not met by renewal time next year, the license renewal could be denied at that time. A,FTMR DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO DENY ISSUANCE OF A GAMBLING LICENSE TO THE MINNESOTA LICENSE BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION CHILDREN'S FUND FOR OPERATION AT JOYNER LANES. Motion is based on the finding that there are sufficient local organizations that can provide charitable gambling operations. Voting in favor: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Brian Stumpf. It was Stumpf's view that the City should allow other organizations the opportunity to operate gambling activities in the community. Abstaining: Tom Perrault, as he is currently a member of the Jaycees and employee of Joyner Lanes. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that stay Schmidt requests two conditional use permits, which would allow expansion of his manufacturing facility. The proposed expansion calls for development of a 9,000 sq ft addition to the existing structure. The site plan calls for a slight reduction in the standard driveway and curb improvements, thus creating the need for a Page 6 0— Council Minutes - 6/12/95 conditional use permit. If it can be demonstrated that in I-1 and I-2 zones curb areas are not needed for drainage purposes or to channel traffic, then a conditional use permit option is allowed. O'Neill also reported that the site plan calls for development of a small outside storage area, which Schmidt plans on screening with a fence as required by ordinance. Planning Commission recommended approval of both conditional use requests. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN MIWF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE PARKING STALL AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED. Motion is based on the finding that allowing a reduction in the standard design requirements is appropriate in this case due to the fact that the curbing proposed to be eliminated is not needed to channel water, is not located in an area that is commonly used by the public, and is generally located in an area of possible future expansion. Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING OUTSIDE STORAGE. Motion is based on the finding that the proposed outside storage is relatively small and will be screened and maintained in accordance with the requirements outlined by ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District is requesting a conditional use permit to allow expansion of their ambulance garage, which would result in the loss of two parking stalls. It was the view of the Planning Commission that the future widening of County Road 75, realignment of Hart Boulevard, and subsequent expansion of the hospital parking area will solve the parking problems in the long-term. Therefore, Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to parking being corrected as outlined in the Hospital District plan approved by the Council in 1993. Mayor Fylo noted that he had received a call fiem an adjoining landowner concerned that expansion of the garage will negatively affect the value of his property. Assistant Administrator O'Neill suggested that perhaps some landscape plantings on the boundary would help buffer the garage from the residential use. Page 7 Doa,, Council Minutes • 6(12/95 Barb Schwientek, Hospital Administrator, stated that the expansion will encroach only into the two existing parking stalls and that the hospital plans on landscaping around the building as was done with the existing garage. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE AMBULANCE GARAGE AS PROPOSED. Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault, Brian Stumpf, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Brad Fyle, as it was his view the expansion could possibly have a negative affect on the adjoining land values. Assistant Administrator ONeill reported a proposal to rezone Lots 11 and 12, Block 52, Original Plat, from PZM (performance zone mixed) to B4 (general business). The PZM zoning is a transitional zone from commercial to residential. It was recommended by the Planning Commission that the rezoning be approved because of the busy, commercial character of the area. Council discussed whether the rest of Block 52 should also be rezoned from PZM to B4. O'Neill noted that Council could approve rezoning of Lots 11 and 12 at this time and direct the Planning Commission to hold an additional public hearing for rezoning the remainder of Bloch 52. O'Neill went on to roport that the owners of Riverstrect Station are also requesting a condLitional use permit to allow open and outdoor sales fbm a wagon or cart, or a tkrmer's market. The original plan called for placing the sales carts on the River Street frontage of the property; however, the Planning Commission requested that the cart be located on the west side of the property near the parking lot area in order to discourage on -street parking on River Street. Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit provided the outdoor sales does not infringe on the parking area. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BEiIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RE20NING LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 52, ORIGINAL PLAT, FROM PZM TO Bd. Motion is based on the finding that the character of the area is oommercial, which Is consistent with the B4 designation. Planning Page 8 00qW Council Minutes - 6/12/95 Commission was also directed to investigate calling for a public hearing on rezoning the remainder of Block 52 from PZM to B4. Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 272. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING OUTSIDE SALES FROM A WAGON. Approval is subject to the condition that the wagons be located on the westerly side of the parking lot outside of areae identified for parking and conducted in a fashion that does not diminish parking capacity. Motion also includes the outdoor sales area being limited to a square foot area calculated by City staff according to the plan presented. Motion carried unanimously. 12. rn aidpration of an update to a conditionsil use permitllloowing o + cid salt -Ft Applicant,Dave Peterson. Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that Dave Peterson is requesting that the City consider approving an amendment to the conditional use permit to expand the outside sales area of the Monticello Ford car dealership. An amendment is necessary because the existing conditional use permit allows an outside sales area that is 7.5 times the area of the principal structure(s) on site, and the sales area after the expansion will be approximately 169,000 sq R, which is 9.6 times the area of the principal building. O'Neill went on to report that the original project approved in 1977 was approved prior to the city landscaping ordinance; and now that an amendment to the conditional use is requested, it would be appropriate to require additional landscaping to comply with the current ordinance. He noted that Peterson is supportive of meeting landscaping requirements; however, he plans on completing a major improvement to the showroom and existing outside sales area and is concerned about making landscaping improvements now when it is likely that within a year he will be making additional landscaping improvements in cDWunction with the expansion. It was noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the request at a special meeting held prior to the Council meeting and recommended approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHICH WOULD ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE OUTSIDE SALES AREA OF THE MONTICELLO FORD CAR DEALERSHIP SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Page 9 091) Council Minutes - 6/12195 A. SALES AREA MUST MEET CONDITIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY ORDINANCE. B. FULL COMPLETION OF THE LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE MUST BE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE NEXT 24 MONTHS OR PRIOR TO GRANTING OF OCCUPANCY OF THE PROPOSED REMODELED FACILITY, WHICHEVER IS SOONER. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Conoid ration of accepting 19K audit report for the City of Monticello. Kim Lillehaug and Rick Borden of Gruys, Borden, Carlson & Associates were present to discuss the 1994 audit report. They reported that the City is in good financial condition and noted that almost all fund balances at year-end showed an increase. It was also reported that a new fund called the Consolidated Bond Fund was established in 1994, and several old debt service funds, which no longer had bonds outstanding, were closed out through this new fund. Borden reviewed various reports and statements outlining the City expenditures and revenues and noted that the City is in good financial condition to handle the challenges associated with a rapidly - growing city. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HER.BST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO ACCEPT THE 1984 AUDIT REPORT AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. 14. Consideration of n ordinance Fkrnendmpnt reirgrdiny clear water entry into the sa_nitna sew r aye ern Public Works Director John Smola reported that City staff has reviewed with Buchen Environmental Services the city ordinance regulating clear water entry into the sanitary sewer system, the public informational packets, and the inspection program. A new ordinance was presented for Council consideration, which included changes such as requiring a rigid discharge pipo to the outsido for all new construction that includes a sump pump, existing sump pumps and foundation drains to discharge to the outside, and implementation of a surcharge for those properties failing to comply with the new ordinance. Council discussed the ordinance amendment and the proposed surcharge amount. Craig Anderson of Buchon Environmental Services noted that many cities have implemented a per -month surcharge for single family properties and a per•day charge for all other properties not complying with the ordinance. Pago 10 CA)) Council Minutes - 8/12195 Councilmember Perrault was concerned about the temporary winter variance section of the ordinance, which provides for a variance from the regulations where strict enforcement would cause an undue hardship. It was his view that it can still freeze after March 1 and that the ordinance should provide for variances from November 1 to April 15. Craig Anderson of Buchen Environmental noted that waiting until April 15 would cause the anowmelt to discharge into the sanitary sewer system and would have a tremendous impact on the treatment plant. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING CLEAR WATER ENTRY INTO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WITH THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE STATING THAT NON - SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES WOULD BE CHARGED $25 PER DAY FOR NON- COMPLIANCE. Notification of the new ordinance is to be mailed to all area home builders that have built within the last year. COUNCILMEMBER TOM PERRAULT THEN AMENDED THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING CLEAR WATER ENTRY INTO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WITH THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE STATING THAT NON -SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES WOULD BE CHARGED $25 PER DAY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND THAT THE END OF THE TEMPORARY VARIANCE TIME PERIOD BE CHANGED FROM MARCH 1 TO MARCH 15. The amended motion failed for lack of a second. A vote was then taken on the original motion made by Councilmember Shirley Anderson. Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf. Opposed: Tom Perrault. It was Perrault's view that the temporary variance time period should be extended to March 15. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 271. 15. CnnFiMpratinn of adopting a pal *rY for necepting o_nd processings hdy'aion awak ions Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that staff is seeking direction from Council regarding processing applications for new subdivisions and development during the planning process of the wastewater treatment plant expansion project. He noted that staff received an application for subdivision approval and annexation by John Leerasen but was concerned about development of this property prior to reducing the clear water infiltration and the resulting impact on the treatment plant capacity. O'Neill also noted that a subdivision application is a very involved process for both staff and developer, and it was his view that Council should discuss the matter prior to processing additional applications. Page 11 (i) Council Minutes - 6/12/95 City Engineer Bret Weiss noted that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requires that there be available capacity in the sanitary sewer system prior to approval, and it was noted by the PCA at the time lGein Farms was approved that the City is near the end of the what the PCA would allow until the treatment plant is expanded. Weiss also noted that there is a limit to the amount of development that the current staffing level can handle at one time. John Leerssen stated that he was not asking for annexation at this time, only to process the application and go no further than approval of the preliminary plat. At that time, he would be willing to wait until further studies are completed for the subdivision. The City Engineer explained that the preliminary plat process includes grading and utility plans, along with sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer systems. A feasibility study is also generally ordered to see if the property is serviceable. Council discussed at what point the City could begin accepting subdivision applications. Public Works Director Simola reported that once the treatment plant expansion project is bid, which is expected in 1996, staff will have a better idea of when the treatment plant will have additional capacity. He suggested that the City not process subdivision applications for property outside the city limits until more information is available on when the plant capacity will be increased. After dis cession, it was the consensus of Council to direct staff to create a waiting list of developers wishing to annex and develop properties outside the city limits. Applications would be accepted 12 months before the treatment plant expansion project is completed or when it is determined that capacity will be available prior to completion of the wastewater treatment plant. 16. Conaideratinn of approving inn ,nl renownI of municipal hgngrlicensew_ A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST' TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MUNICIPAL LIQUOR LICENSES EFFECTIVE JULY 1. 1995, SUBJECT TO SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE APPLICATION, APPROVAL AT THE STATE LEVEL, AND SUBMISSION OF PROPER INSURANCE COVERAGE. InLxiratingLiquor-Cln•anle (fee $3,760) 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 'l. Silver Fox 3. Joyner Lanes a. Robert Eidsvold DBA Comfort Inn Page 12 y Council Minutes - 6/12/$6 6. J.P.'s Annex 6. Hawks Sports Bar Intoxigatin_Q Ligi nn On -PAP. Sunday (foe $200• -set by statute) Renewals 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner Lanes 4. VFW Club 6. American Legion Club 6. J.P.'s Annex 7. Hawks Sports Bar Nan-'ntaxicatina Mall„ On -gale (fee $276) 1. Rod and Gun 2. Pizza Factory 3. Country Club n-'ntaxicatinna MMall„ Off -sale (fee $76) 1. Monticello Liquor 2. Maus Foods 3. River Terrace 4. Tom Thumb 6. Holiday Stationstore 6. SuperAmerica W'n M 2 B nr mbinatinn_ On•salA (fee $600) Renewal 1. DirWs Dell stipicense (fee $276) 1. Country Club 2. Rod and Gun (steak fly only) Pale 13 (../ Council Minutes - 6/12/95 C111h Licenses (fee --set by statute based on membership) VFW - $500 American Legion - $600 Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad Fyfe, Brian Stumpf. Abstaining: Tom Perrault, as he is employed by Joyner Lanes. „:. , 1161 M City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the VFW Club has applied for a renewal of their existing pull -tab charitable gambling license, which is for a two-year term. It was noted that the majority of their contributions are to local organizations. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A CHARITABLE GAMBLING LICENSE FOR RENEWAL FOR THE VFW CLUB. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95-44. .. 71T1'r1 1111-1.01 WIN .111. MM , : .17 City Administrator Wolfsteller requested that Council consider adopting a resolution supporting the efforts of the Local Govemment Nuclear Waste Coalition and agree to join the Coalition for an annual membership of $200. The primary purpose of the organization is to lobby the federal government to continue with their promise to provide a national storage facility for nuclear waste generated by various nuclear power facilities. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT NUCLEAR WASTE COALITION EFFORTS AND AGREE TO BECOME A MEMBER. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95.46. �i7:T•T11:IT7'•iIRTTi•.TRi:TT`.l1Tf'1:T:1R7�fTt'TTT>lt�"fi : .::,• : ...: , , .. 4, Public Works Director Simola reported that this year's sealcoating project involves approximately 44.967 sq yds of aealcoating area at an estimated project coat of $24,731.86. He noted the only change in the sealeoating specs is a late summer application rather than a spring application. Page 14 Council Minutes - 6/17196 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE SEALCOATING SPECIFICATIONS AS DRAFTED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS AT AN ANTICIPATED COST OF $27,600. Motion carried unanimously. 20. C onaideration of m,rr sap of flow mo i nr e, iiom n . Public Works Director Simola requested that Council authorize purchase of a flow monitoring device to assist in investigation of the sanitary sewer collection system capacity. In addition, it is hoped that this information will help determine sources of inflow and infiltration. Simola noted that staff is currently renting two flow monitoring devices from Tri-State Pump & Control, Inc., for $1,400 per month. It was the view of the Public Works Director and Sewer Superintendent that the City should purchase one flow monitoring device as soon as possible, as a major portion of the unit's cost would be offset by rent. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO PURCHASE A MODEL 260 FLO-TOTE FROM TRI-STATE PUMP & CONTROL, INC., FOR $6,696 PLUS FREIGHT AND SALES TAR Motion carried unanimously. 21. Other matters. A. Mayor Fyle read a proclamation submitted by the American Legion Auxiliary proclaiming June 24, 1996, as POW/MIA AWARENESS DAY. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager Page 15 0 Council Agenda - 6126/96 5A. We. and delivery of the aminr bougaing revenue bonds, (R.W.) A- 1ZFF RF.N .. N11 BA . r-jm TND: At the previous Council meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $3.5 million in housing bonds to be used to build the new Mississippi Shores Senior Housing Project. The Council is now asked to adopt a supplemental resolution that clears up a few housekeeping matters relating to our previous approval. At the recommendation of our legal counsel, Steve Bubul, the Council is asked to adopt a resolution that daAes that the bonds will be referred to as the senior housing revenue bonds (Alississippi Shores Project), Series 1996. This is a cbange from the previous resolution which indicated the bonds would have been known as Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living Project rather than Mississippi Shores. The Mississippi Shores name will make the project more local in nature and eliminate Presbyterian Homes firom the title on the bonds so that if the Senior Housing Alliance purchases the project in five years or so, the brands will nut have Pmabyterian Homes' name on them. The second issue that was omitted from the first resolution simply indicates that the bonds will be qualified tax exempt obligations under the IRS Code, which allows banks who purchase the bonds to receive favorable tax treatment in connection with the interest earnings. This is a generally acknowledged statement that is put on these bonds but was omitted from the previous resolution. It is anticipated that the bond We will close by June 30 and that a groundbreaking ceremony will occur in July. This should be the last maolution or action that is needed by the Council before this project can start. Since it's strictly housekeeping items that were omitted from the first resolution. the Council should not have a problem with adopting the amended resolution suggested. Copy of proposed resolution. RESOLUTION NO. SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO (THE "ISSUER") REGARDING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE ISSUER'S SENIOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (MISSISSIPPI SHORES PROJECT) SERIES 1995 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello (the "Issuer") on June 12, 1995 approved Resolution No. (the "Resolution") authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of the Issuer's SenTr Housing Revenue Bonds (Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living Project) Series 1995 (the "Bonds") in the maximum principal amount of $3,500,000; and WHEREAS, the Issuer has determined a need to supplement the Resolution before delivery of the Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Bonds shall be referred to as the Senior Housing Revenue Bonds (Mississippi Shores Project) Series 1995. 2. The Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 295(b) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1988, as amended (the "Code"). In that connection, the Issuer makes the following factual statements and representations: (a) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code; (b) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds other than qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) that will be issued by the Issuer (and all subordinate entities of the Issuer) during the calendar year 1995 will not exceed $10,000,000; and (c) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations Issued by the issuer during calendar year 1995 have been designated for purposes of Section 295(b)(3) of the Code. This resolution supplements but does not otherwise modify the Resolution, and shell be in full force and effect from and after Its passage. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello this 29th day of June, 1995. Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator WON410 =190.11 5414 KF.NNFDY & GRAVEN NARTISM 110 PM- C.M.. Ate. MI -4 Sl401 Al" "ISI 1.77.4104 �I Jn IL BATT . "TJ. DVM4 337.9319 JOHN D. MAN MARY G. IX=t n LOURM A. HEIR DAYWJ. Romm L RLOL L r"At WRITERS DmP.CT MAL DORM M. U tYECJL ROMUT L L1MDAtL RI14LT C. Lem JAMn M. STMOKUM June 14, 1995 Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator City of Monticello City Hall P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, PAN 55362 RE: Senior Housing Bonds Dear Rick: JA4u1 l- TDIOOM A IA41M M. titT7QIM Eu""Ic L 171L<I10 JULY. YAMu DAM 1_ GUVQI IRAINO 11► C4 =L RMERT C. C&UtA M R"atT LDA -90" 41U,UM MIL LAR T. JAY SALMM As I mentioned on the phone to you, one final action by the City Council is needed In connection with the senior housing project. Enclosed is a resolution to be approved at the meeting on June 26. The resolution simply acknowledges that the bonds will be designated as the "Mississippi Shores Project," as the facility is not expected to be owned in long run by Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. The resolution also designates the bonds as "qualified tax exempt obligations," which means that banks who purchase the bonds receive favorable tax treatment in connection with the Bonds. This designation Increases the market for the bonds, and was intended to be included in the resolution approved on June 11. We currently expect that the Bonds will close by June 30. if you have questions about this resolution or any other aspect of the Bonds, please contact Stefanie Galey at 337-9300. who will be handling the closing in my absence. Very trulyrs COPY Stephen J. Bubul cc: Distribution List 4at4o4IJ Council Agenda - 6126% 5a. Consideration of first a am n con for snnm D m'n Lnnnection W.S.) A. R_F.F .RF.N .F. AND RACKGROUN11 City staff has met with Buchen Environmental Services and formed a plan for the first phase of sump pump inspection, which hopefully will begin the week of July 17, 1995, after all the notices and informational packets have been sent to those properties to be inspected. The first phase is targeting areas in the heavy, poor draining soils such as Meadow Oak, Oak Ridge, Briar Oakes, and Cardinal Hills. In addition, we have targeted areas with known high ground water problems and sump pumps. We have tried to avoid targeting any individual homes except those of staff and Council. Our first plan calls for Buchen Environmental representatives, Matt Theisen, the City's Water & Sewer Superintendent, and Gary Anderson and Jim Kangas of the building inspection department, to divide up the inspections in the target areas and visit each one of the homes. Buchen Environmental will be targeting more evening and weekend work. The City's approach will be made during normal working hours when we are in the area on other work or as time allows. If the City is unsuccessful in finding someone at home so that we can perform the inspection with our forces, a door hanger will be left so that the home owner can call Buchen Environmental to set up an inspection time convenient with them, most likely later in the evening or on a weekend. The total number of units in the target area is about 560. We are hoping to inspect 160 - 200 of the units with City forces; however, we will not be able to tell until we get into the inspection program. Although this is included under the consent agenda, as it is the next logical step in the process already approved, Buchen Environmental would like to take the opportunity to introduce the inspector and supervisor who will be working in our area. I have also enclosed a proposed schedule for the first phase and a packet of information which will be sent to the individual properties to be inspected. B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS; The first alternative is to approve the first phase plan for sump pump inspections as outlined above. The second alternative would be to modify the plan. The third alternative would be to discontinue the sump pump inspection program. Council Agenda - 6/26195 C. BTAFFF F.CO RNDATION: It is the stafreoommendation that the City Council approve the first phase plan as outlined above in alternative A. D. SUPPnETING DATAi Copy of project schedule; Copy of information packet to be sent to home owners. bUCHbN t_ .:, . 1 . WHO WHEN Gordy June 19 Gordy June 26 Gordy June 26 Craig Paul Gordy June 27 Gordy July e Gordy July9 Gordy July 10 Gordy July 12 Gordy July 13 Gordy July 13 Gordy July 14 Gordy July 16 Gordy July 17 Paul MONTICELLO, MN UI PROJECT SCHEDULE WHAT Develop Inspection forms, door hangers, certificates and sump stickers - Take to printer - done Meet Sherri white At Monticello Times to develop ads for Times & Shopper - 3:00 Council meeting - Phase I approval and Introduction of Buchan personnel, Circulate sig"p sheet for Mayor and Council inspections Authorize first set of ads First ad - Monticello Times (announcing Info Meeting) First ad - Monticello Shopper (announcing Info Meeting) Information to CATV (announcing Info Meeting) Public Information Meeting 7:00 Council Chambers Visit plumbers' shops re: program Second ad - Monticello Times Inform and train City staff Second ad - Monticello Shopper Start Inspections sell June 27, 1995 Re: Sump pump and foundation drain inspection Dear Property Owner. On May 22, 1995, the City of Monticello, Minnesota, contracted with Buchen Environmental Services, Inc., to undertake the inspection of phase I of the eewered properties is the city of Monticello, Minnesota These inspections will determine if your property complies with City Ordinance 7-2-15. This informational packet has been prepared to inform each property owner of the problems created by sump pump and foundation drain connections, the solutions to these problems, and procedures for the inspection of your property. If you are not the owner of this property, please pass this information packet on to the owner at the earliest possible date. However, we will still be contacting YOU to inspect the pr'olerty. Your cooperation in the timely completion of these inspections will be appreciated. Sincerely, CITY OF ICEL 2�l' yer yll 46e BF/kd Enclosures cc: File 6-86 THE PURPOSE: The purpose of these inspections is to identify sump pumps and foundation drains and other associated sources of Gear water entering the sanitary sewer system such as roof drains. The City of Monticello, Minnesota has an ordinance prohibiting these discharges into the sanitary sewer system. This ordinance complies with the State Plumbing code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations regarding illegal discharges of stone and groundwater into sanitary sewer systems. A copy of the ordinance is enclosed in this informational packet for your review. THE PROBLEM (See Figure 1) Sump pumps and foundation drains are designed to eliminate wet basements due to groundwater seepage. Throughout the midwest, homes and commercial buildings have been built with a piping system around the foundation in order to collect this groundwater. The problem occurs when these systems are connected to the sanitary sewer system. This adds a tremendous amount of clear water, (water that does not need to be treated by the wastewater treatment plant,) into the system. The sanitary sewer system was not designed to carry this clear water and therefore during times of high groundwater or heavy rainfall, the wastewater treatment plant becomes overloaded. This excess water overloads lift station pumps and the wastewater treatment plant making the cost of treating the sewage much more expensive to all the citizens of the community. In addition, at the present time the City of Monticello is in the process of expanding Its wastewater treatment plant. The expansion of the plant must be designed to treat all water it receives regardless if that water is clear unpolluted rain water or ground water. Therefore, the more clear water that can be removed from the sewer system the smaller the plant needs to be. Thus, the cost of building and operating the new facility will be less if the City can reduce the amount of clear water reaching the new facility. This will save all of the taxpayers of the community. THE SOLUTION: By ordinance the City of Monticello made the connection of sump pumps and foundation drains to the sanitary sewer system illegal establishing surcharges for these connections should they continue. 6(2-,l The solution for property owners with these connections is to: SUMP PUMPS - pump the clear water from the sump directly to a natural drainage area outside of the building using a rigid piping system inside the home. FOUNDATION DRAINS • Disconnect the drain system from the sanitary sewer. Collect the drains into a sump pump system and then pump the Gear water from the sump directly to the ground outside of the building using a rigid piping system. (See Figure 2 for details). THE INSPECTION Employees of Buchan Environmental Services, as agents for the City, will begin a complete inspection of property connections to the sanitary sewer system on all properties receiving this packet, beginning the week of July 17th and continuing throughout the summer. This program will begin with the inspection of the properties of the Mayor and Council members. Each inspector will be a trained employee of Buchan Environmental Services and will wear a photo identification badge. Commercial property will be inspected during normal business hours and private residences will be inspected between the hours of 11 a.m. and 7 p.m., Tuesday through Fridays and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. The inspector will need access to the basement of your property to observe the connection to the sanitary sewer system. Specifics of the Inspection will be published in the Monticello Times and Monticello Shopper. Upon completion of the inspection, the inspector will fill out and sign an inspection form and a copy will be given to the property owner. Photos of connections may be taken by the inspector to insure a complete record of the inspection. The inspection should not take more than a few minutes of your time and each inspector will answer questions you may have regarding your connection. Should the findings of the inspector indicate a potential foundation drain connection outside of the house, a closed circuit television inspection of your service line may be required at a later date. You will be contacted by a representative of Buchen Environmental Services to schedule this procedure. Costs for this procedure will be borne by the City of Monticello. If the inspector it unable to gain access to your property because no one is home, or a responsible adult is not present, an orange door hanger will be left mi instructing you to call for an inspection appointment. COMPLIANCE: If your connection complies with the City Ordinance a certificate of compliance will be provided by the inspector and a copy placed on file with the City. If you are unsure of the condition of your sewer service, please do not attempt repairs or alterations before the inspection. The inspector will determine whether or not your property is in need of repairs to comply with the sewer use ordinance. REMEMBER, only an employee of Buchan Environmental Services or the City of Monticello Public Works Department may certify compliance with the City Ordinance. If you do not allow an inspection of your property or comply with the City Ordinance you are subject to the surcharges of this ordinance. If you have any questions regarding this inspection process please call Buchan Environmental Services by dialing 361-6040. Buchen Environmental Services will make every effort to make the inspection process as pleasant and convenient as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerel , Gordon Peters Project Manager Buchen Environmental Services, Inc. s6C MONTICELLO, MN CITY SEWER USE ORDINANCE 7 -2 -IS: STORM WATER NOT PERMITTED IN SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM: It shall be unlawful for any owner, occupant, or user of any premises to direct into or allow any storm water, surface water, ground water or water from air conditioning systems to drain into the sanitary sewer system of the City. This includes: water from any roof, surface or ground sump pump, foundation drain or swimming pool. Dwellings and other buildings and structures which require a sump pump system to discharge excess water, shall have a permanently installed discharge line which shall not at any time discharge water into the sanitary sewer system, except as provided herein. A permanent installation shall be one which provides for year -around discharge capability to either the outside of the dwelling, building or structure or is connected to the City storm sewer system or discharges to the street. It shall consist of a rigid discharge line, without valving or quick connections for altering the path of discharge and include a check valve if connected to the City storm sewer line. A. Inspection. Every person owning improved real estate that discharges into the City sanitary sewer system shall allow an employee of the City or their designated representative to inspect the buildings to confirm that there is no sump pump or other prohibited discharge into the sanitary sewer system. Properties found to be in compliance will receive a certificate of compliance at the time of inspection. B. Non -Compliance, Within 30 days of initial inspection, any person, fine or corporation having a roof, surface, ground, sump pump, foundation drain, or swimming pool and/or discharging into the sanitary sewer system shall disconnect and/or remove same. Any disconnects or openings in the sanitary sewer shall be closed or repaired in an effective and workmanlike manner in accordance with section 7.2-13. Any person refusing to allow their property to be inspected shall immediately become subject to the surcharge hereinafter provided for. Any property found to violate the Ordinance shall make the necessary changes to comply with the Ordinance within thirty (30) days of the initial inspection. C. Future Inspections. At any future time the City may conduct random inspections if the City has reason to suspect that an illegal connection exists on a property, to insure compliance with this Ordinance. D. New Construction. A sump pump and rigid pipe discharge connection to the outside shall be required on all new construction within the City where a ground water drainage system is part of the construction plans. E. Temporary Winter Variance ( November 1 through March 1). The City Council shall have the power and duty of hearing and deciding requests for temporary variances from the applicability of the provisions of this portion of the Ordinance where strict SV` enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property or cause a safety problem. This does not apply to monetary hardship. Application for a temporary waiver should be addressed in writing to the City of Monticello, Director of Public Works. The applications shall identify the property for which the variance is being applied for, the name of the property owner/applicant, and describe in detail what characteristics of the subject property create undue hardship or concern. Within 30 days after application, the City shall make their order deciding on the matter and serve a copy of such order upon the applicant by mail. Upon receipt of an application for variance, the City will allow the property owner to temporarily discharge directly into the sanitary sewer system. Employees of the City will divert the discharge and seal the connection of the discharge to the sanitary sewer using a meter seal. The cost for the connection to the sanitary sewer and subsequent removal will be $50 per occurrence. Additionally, the applicant will be responsible for the cost to transport and treat the added flow to the sanitary sewer at the established City rate. The total flow for the period of the variance will be monitored by the City. F. Single Family Unit Surcharge. A surcharge of $75.00 per month is hereby imposed and added to every sewer billing to property owners who are not in compliance with this Ordinance within 30 days of initial inspection. This surcharge is in addition to any other penalties that may be incurred under this ordinance. Should a single family unit property owner found to be in compliance with this ordinance and during a subsequent inspection found to have reconnected an illegal source to the sanitary sewer, the surcharge of $75.00 per month will be applied for all months between the previous two inspections. Non -Single Family Unit Surcharge. A surcharge of $25.10 per day is hereby imposed and added to every sewer billing to property owners who are not in compliance with this ordinance within 30 days of initial inspection. This surcharge is in addition to any other penalties that may be incurred under this ordinance. Should a non -single family unit property owner found to be in compliance with this ordinance and during a subsequent inspection found to have reconnected an illegal source to the sanitary sewer, the surcharge of $25 per day will be applied for all months between the previous two inspections. 5-0 COMMON CAUSES OF WET BASEMENTS POOR DRAINAGEAROUND MOUSES, AS ILLUSTRATED MERE, CAUSES MOST WET BASEMENTS. TO DRY UP YOUR BASEMENT, CORRECT THESE PROBLEMS FIRST. NO PIPE EX WATER DEPOS IMPROPER GRADING:OROUNI LOPES TOWARD FOUNDATIO BLOCKBD DRAINAGE PIPE ARTM DISTURBED"FOR UNDATION F ANTINGI, /- `f�/4e 11 ■ of v ' BAIRTM 018TURSED FOR I'ZN AS WATER OR SEWER FIOUFIE No. 1 66%. LEAKY DOWNSPO NO PIPE EX WATER DEPOS IMPROPER GRADING:OROUNI LOPES TOWARD FOUNDATIO BLOCKBD DRAINAGE PIPE ARTM DISTURBED"FOR UNDATION F ANTINGI, /- `f�/4e 11 ■ of v ' BAIRTM 018TURSED FOR I'ZN AS WATER OR SEWER FIOUFIE No. 1 66%. ROOF DOWNSPOUTS / WITH EXTENBIONB DUMP JAHITARY SEWER w TYPICAL SUMP PUMP INSTALLATION DETAILS QFIGURE NO. 2 NOT IN COMPLIANCE? THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. - SUMP PUMP must discharge to the outside of house with permanent piping. A flexible discharge tube maybe added to direct the water to a natural drainage area. o FOUNDATION DRAINS must be directed into a sump and pumped outside with permanent piping. - ROOF DRAINS must be pemanently piped in such a manner that the water cannot enter the sanitary sewer. WORK DONE BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN A LICENSED PLUMBER NEEDS TO BE RE -INSPECTED. CALL 295-3170 EXT. 4, FOR A RE -INSPECTION WORK DONE BY A LICENSED PLUMBER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RE -INSPECTED. THE PLUMBER WILL NOTIFY THE CITY IN WRITING WITH LICENSE NUMBER. A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WILL BE ISSUED BY THE CITY. REMEMBER THEDEADLINE IS 30 DAYS FOLLOWING THE INSPECTION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. GORDON PETERS PROJECT MANAGER SUCHEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ANY QUESTIONS CALL 361-6040 ,r 6K q6,- Council Agenda - 6/26/96 5C- CUjUideration of 'orrhnalnn it lwwn mower for the narks de> Alknew. W.S.1 A F.FF RF.NI F. A BA . (:RA iND: This item has been on two previous agendas, lastly on May 22, 1996, and was tabled both times due to our incomplete search for a reasonably -priced bucket truck for the street department. On June 13, 1995, as authorised by City Couzu l and with Councdlmember Stumpf s assistance, we were able to purchase a 1987 Ford 1 -ton bucket truck equipped with knuckle -boom and fiberglass body, exactly as we were searching for. The purchase price was $11,000, and including sales tax, transfer, and a minor hydraulic hose repair, we still have less than $12,000 in it. In the future, we will look at doing a little touch-up paint and body work to it, but it will last for some time. We are awaiting the operator's manuals for the bucket portion of the unit itself. Witlh the bucket truck need resolved, staff is again asking the City Council to allow us to purchase a new fiiont-mounted, heavy-duty commercial mower for the parks department. The 1995 budget shows $16,000 allocated for such a purchase. Please refer to your May 8,1996, agenda and minutes for additional information on the individual unite considered and a list of existing equipment. R ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to purchase the John Deere Model F936 fi ont-mounted mower with a 72" mower, at a price of $11,287.20 plus tax. 2. The second alternative would be to purchase a Toro Model GM223-D, 72" side discharge, tient-mounted dock, at a price of $11,694 plus tax. 3. > The third alternative would be to purchase a Toro Model OM325-D with (� a &ont-mounted, side discharge, 72" mower, for $12,488 plus tax, This machine we feel offers the most amenities which would provide the lowest life -cycle total cost with less down time. Tire fourth alternative would be not to purchase a new mower at this time but to let mowing slide in area or contract out mowing during periods of break -downs or heavy workloads. Council Agenda - 6/26195 I:_ STAFF RPVC) MFF.NDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and Street & Parka Superintendent that the City Council authorize the purchase of the Toro Model GM326D with a fionbmounted, side discharge, 72" mower for $12,488 plus tax, as outlined in alternative Q. We believe the City has a need for this piece of equipment, that this piece of equipment is cost effective, and will remain in our mowing fleet for many years to come. Our heavy-duty mower fleet is operated by older, experienced, seasonal people. This, coupled with high quality equipment, means lower overall all cost to the City. We have also verified our findings in regard to the maintenance and down time of the John Deese versus the Tom with our current contract mower, and he has reached the same conclusion as us over the years. Generally, however, Toro equipment is significantly higher in cost than John Deere equipment; but with municipal bids or quotes, there are tirdory discounts which are applied that make it mum more palatable for the cities. Please refer to previous agenda items and Council minutes regarding this issue. Council Agenda - 6/26/95 so. Consideration of eaMment agmment between Wright Goa_ntSjl d the City of Monticello for yard waAte commst facility at MQZRtLgdVjd But US-) UN Ten years ago on July 1, 1985, the City of Monticello obtained a lease for a portion of Montissippi Park and combined it with property owned by the City, which was the old municipal dump on West River Street, and began operating the yard waste composting facility. We originally began accepting leaves through a curbside pickup and eventually added grass clippings, as we restricted those from being placed in the garbage. We continue to pick up leaves three times annually and accept grass clippings delivered to the site all summer long. Throughout the years there have been few problems. All of the complaints in regard to operation of the facility have come from a neighbor, Mr. Daryl Tindle. We have worked with Mr. Tindle at every instance to limit the impact of the yard waste composting facility on his residence. We have placed a screen fence on a portion of the northern boundary of his property and planted trees to help screen the site as well as fence the site from access on the south. No bags are allowed to be left at the site, and we make every attempt to clean the area regularly and keep the active compost piles to the northern most portion of the site, away from River Street and the Tiadle residence. Itis anticipated with the new 10 -year easement agreement with Wright County that we will make some additional improvements to the site with additional buffering and fencing. The County also assists us each year with some funds for the operation and maintenance of the facility. In addition to the compost facility, the public works department operates a storage yard for materials and Dutch Elm firewood on the old Monticello dump site to the east of the compost facility. Mr. Tindle has also complained in the past about the traffic in and out of the storage facility at times, as well as traffic in and out of the yard waste composting facility. We have made every effort to accommodate Mr. Tindle and will continue to do so in the future and, hopefully, additional improvements will enhance the site further. We have looked at the possibility of relocating both the storage site and the compost facility, but it would be costly to establish some of the natural buffering that currently exists in the area at another location and to re- establish the screening and fencing already in place. Also, the old Monticello dump will continue to be our property for now and for the foreseeable future, and this is probably the best use at this time. Council Agenda - 62"5 The first alternative is to approve the easement agreement between Wright County and the City of Monticello for the operation of the yard waste compost facility on a portion of Montissippi Park. The easement extends from July 1, 1895, to June 30, 2005. The second alternative would be not to enter into the easement agreement but to look at relocating the yard waste compost facility and/or the material storage yard to another location. V, STAFF O NDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that we approve the easement agreement as enclosed and as stated in alternative #1 and that we continue to work with Mr. Tindle and make improvements to the site. D SUPPORTING DATA• Copy of easement agreement. .? %!., ?!.�M. .3,. die _ =M.Y: ;• �YY ,M WHEREAS, Wright County, hereinafter referred to as the County, and the City of Monticello, hereinafter referred to as the City, Wish to extend an agreement entered into by the parties in July, 1985, allowing for the storage of yard waste compost on Wright County Park property; and WHEREAS, the term of the original agreement was for a period of ten years, ending on or about July 1, 1995, and the parties wish to enter into the same agreement for another ten year period; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the County and the City as follows: 1. That the County grants to the City an easement for the storage of yard waste compost on real property situated in the County of Wright and State of Minnesota, with legal description as follows: That part of the KW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section ) and that part of the NE 1/4 of the HE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 121, Range 25, commencing at the center of the NW 1/4 of Section 3, as now held; thence west on the 16th subdivision line 1,383 feet to the public road and the actual point of beginning; thence north, along the east line of said public road, a distance of 680 feet; thence west, deflecting 90 degrees to the left, a distance of So feet; thence south, parallel with the east line of said public road to the south line of said HE 1/4 of the HE 1/4 of Section 4; thence east along said south line and the south line of said NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 3, a distance of e0 feet to the point of beginning. 2. That the easement shall extend for a period of ten years, from July 1, 1995, to June 70, 2005, unless otherwise terminated according to this Agreement. 7. That the City will utilize the property for the storage of yard waste compost only, and any change in use must be approved of in writing by the County. 4. That the City will provide any fencing and gates necessary for safety and security purposes, at no coat to the County. 5. That the City will return the site to its original condition upon termination or expiration of this Easement Agreement. .5614 6. That the City will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County from any claims for property damage, personal injury, or death relating to the use of this property as a yard waste composting site. 7. That the County may terminate this Easement Agreement for noncompliance by the City with the terms hereof, after 180 days written notice to the City. S. That this Agreement may be extended or otherwise modified by written instrument signed by both parties. WRIGHT COUNTY CITY OF MONTICELL0 Chas erso County Board Mayor Court y Coordinator— City Administrator i 1 I Council Agenda - 6126/95 5. Public Heal mQ.difientlOJ No -1, the Til Plan for TIF Nn, L (O.K) PUBLIC HEARING The hearing is opened for public comments and discussion. TIF District No. 1-19 was established and the TIF Plan approved by the City Council on March 13, 1995. Per the request of the HRA, the City Council called for a public hearing date of June 26, 1995, for consideration to modify the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-19. The modification increases the TIF budget by $42,000. As you recall, this Housing District was established to assist with the site and public improvement costs associated with the construction of a 48 -unit multi -senior housing facility known as Mississippi Shores. The public hearing notice appeared in the Mont_mUg Times on June 15 and 22, 1995, The Board members of School District No. 882 and the Commissioners of Wright County each adopted a resolution waiving the 30 -day notice period for review of fiscal and economic information regarding this modification. The published notice and adopted resolution satisfy the Minn son i A . , . Again, the main reason the HRA agreed to the modification was to allow 9O% of the tax increment ($326,830) to be spent on the senior housing project, thereby increasing the cash flow of the project and reducing the rental rates. Secondly, the 10% administration ($42,000 budget increase) provides dollars for HRA administration costs and/or allows the HRA the flexibility to reimburse the City as an administrative fee in connection with the TIF District, If for some reason in any given year during the life of the district the project does not meet the requirements of a "Qualified Housing District," the HRA can and will reimburse the City for its estimated HACA loss of $33,787 from the 10% administration. Following public comments and discussion, the hearing may be closed. Council Agenda - 6/26/96 ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION The enclosed resolution states the City Councils finds the process for modification is in compliance with the Minnesota Statue, finds the modifications meet the public purposes and objectives of the Plane of TIF District Nos. 1-1 through 1-19 and Redevelopment Project No. 1, and finds that TIF District No. 1-19 meets the requirements of a Housing District. A motion to adopt a resolution relating to the modification of the Plan of Redevelopment Project No. 1, modification of the Plans for TIF District Nos. 1-1 through 1-18, and the modification of the Plan for TIF District No. 1-19. A motion to deny adoption of the resolution. A motion to table any action. V STAFF F. .O NDATION_ Staff recommends alternative #I. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption; Public hearing notice; Adopted resolutions by the School and County Uudng jurisdictions; Proposed budget modification. Councilmember introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA flOpy RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-18, AND THE MODIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-19, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I, AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. It has been proposed and adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") in and for the City that the Authority modify, by increased Project costs, Redevelopment Project No. 1, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. It has been further proposed and adopted by the Authority that the Authority modify the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-19 located within Redevelopment Project No. I, and approve the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating thereto, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. 1.02. The Authority has caused to be prepared and this Council has investigated the facts with respect thereto, a proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan (The "Modified Redevelopment Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1, defining more precisely the increased Project costs to be made to Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1- 1 through 1-19 (collectively referred to as the "Plans"). 1.03. The Authority and the City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-19 and the adoption of the Plans relating thereto, including, but not limited to, notification to the County Commissioner who represent the area included in the Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 and Wright County, Independent School District No. 882 and the Monticello - Big Lake Community Hospital, having jurisdiction over the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 and the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law. 1.04. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interest of the City at this time to modify Redevelopment Project No. 1, and to modify Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-19, and approve the Plans relating thereto. Section 2. Findi Es for the Modification of Redevelopment Pr.Qiect No. 1_ and Modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through No. 1-19. 2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-19, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, is intended and, in the judgement of the Council, its effect will be, to further provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development, increase employment and otherwise promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-19. 2.02. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 does meet the requirements of Housing District in that it consists of any project, or any portions of a project which the Authority and City finds to be in the public interest because: (a) The project, or a portion of the project is intended for occupancy, in part, by persons or families of low and moderate income, as defined in chapter 462A, Title D of the National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1959, the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, any other similar present or future federal. state, or municipal legislation. or the regulations promulgated under any of those acts. (b) The fair market value of the improvements which are constructed for commercial uses or for uses other than low and moderate income housing does not consist of more than 20 percent of the total fair market value of the planned improvements in the development plan or agreement. The City also anticipates that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 will be a Qualified Housing District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, as described below: "Qualified Housing District" means a housing district for a residential rental project or projects in which the only properties receiving assistance from revenues derived from tax increments from the district meet all of the requirements for a low-income housing credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1992, regardless of whether the project actually received a low-income housing credit. W 2.03. The Council finds, determines and declares that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary. 2.04. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the modified Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 and the plans will afford maximum opportunity and be consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. 2.05. The Council finds that the Modified Redevelopment Plan and the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 conform to the general plan for development or redevelopment of the city as a whole. 2.06. The Council further finds, determines and declares that the City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 3. Adoption of Respective Plans. 3.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this date are hereby approved. Section 4. Implementation of the Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans. 4.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial advisor, underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the respective Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documentsand contracts necessary to accomplish this purpose. Ile motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resuiution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator. Dated: June 26, 1995 Attest: City Administrator (SEAL) Maytir 1,6 EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 as required, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are as follows: 1) Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 is an "Housing District" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 11. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 consists of two parcels which meet the requirements of a housing district because: (a) The project, or a portion of the project is intended for occupancy, in part, by persons or families of low and moderate income, as defined in chapter 462A, Title H of the National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1959, the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, any other similar present or future federal, state, or municipal legislation, or the regulations promulgated under any of those acts. (b) The fair market value of the improvements which are constructed for commercial uses or for uses other than low and moderate income housing does not consist of more than 20 percent of the total fair market value of the planned improvements in the development plan or agreement. The project is a 48 -unit facility. Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota will covenant that at least 40 percent of the units will be occupied by persons or families whose income does not exceed 60 percent of the areawide median income. The City also anticipates that Tax Increment Fnancing District No. l- 19 will be a "qualified housing district" pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, because the facility to be developed within the district is expected to meet all the requirements for a low-income housing credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1992. Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota, Inc. will agree to use its best efforts to ensure that rents for all income -limited units as described in paragraph (b) above will not exceed 30 percent of the areawide median income by at least the first tax year after the facility is placed in service. If such rent and income limitations are not met and maintained during the life of the district, the City understands that Tax Increment District No. 1-19 will not be a "qualified housing district' and thus will be subject to state aid reductions in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399. 2) Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary. City staff has reviewed the costs for this development. Due to the costs of public improvements, site preparation, demolition and land acquisition, the project would not be financially feasible without the City's assistance. Studies and analysis supporting this finding include the proforma submitted by Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota, on file in City Hall. 3) Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. I by private enterprise. The plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City. The project to be developed, which will be located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19, consists of the development of a 48 -unit senior housing facility. The Planning Commission passed a resolution on February 7. 1995 finding that the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City. This project is expected to begin in 1995 and be substantially completed by January 2, 1996. &G 4) Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 will be twenty-five (25) years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City requests 100 percent of the available increase in assessed value for current expenditures. -8- too VAMCF AY[NOYFMI NO. nI c0 r Or YON rKEI lO. YaNESOIA. DOE S MNEMr rAll[R E, KCl MMI 16, M IME rDMIM:EUD CIiT 10 f IORY wA1ER NOI pFM11TIFD p T NF YME IEY e! AYFMDED 10 READ � rOLLOMe: •!Ul rtn4i11EU W SNlIIMi! SCNCn lSICY b a �.od+...e'^"'r.a, o .Yvn�r w �core.l.+•ra Ir,.al Iy.Nm a ti rle Ila. bars. .+.. edn I .rrW Prp. Id/rdNlerr don, r ranlmYa poo wra aY .alr[fi rlre•r • qn• PrPP .Illr•rrr b Mw . enmaa.rlry b.bae Marrpr dlrcn .rn Me M .ratrr .war .yarr arCar r Pe. Ir.lbn .nr a a..l+ln vacs. b tlr• ar..a rrr dub. a e. rr.rer. r/a•o d w..rur. r Y n.rm P r.Nrpn b ti rrar M err/ oPabl N MYq d pts terror b /Mq h Nm1 a r rrN R oarwcrr b M rq .Iea r..w rl. bAr + E blDrwa.�D rnrrrr h MY.r rvY rrrPl/� rNvr b rarr►r•r E+1 Erwr b w dwwp rnp P . h rdrllrr rr�rn Na0lraa b•.M b a b air el Carr b da, 1 rEY Yw aYMP d- a, r/r Yr�raea •rl'raer rte, w trn.Ooar, Mapab. bYrdabr blur. r rrYn rrb N vvYy1sayyYa11 adarlMm Yti rlee.d•tl a1d.Ir mr�Yn�in1•rn b drrdbrr. g.�c6P 1 �I ] .�a�..r'{�IOMPI n� ry b a Yaa.cl.a In.a e,....amrlY lel+ r+'r.rlari avpn Y tdnpY 4�EI • dors. •r byarw. ary ir�rl ww� brat. I rrwe. awl � ed�ell:�ar0°�..aN.~. a�i•..�. vla°I.^'a .MrDr� h �rlladl I its Cal cel.4e ailr .ra errlep r.v..b i. Y...d.r .rl .ems. d.. r rr rP4•• a h re..r.. alt. Nry P a.n Ir Yay .a•Nv5' rlw.] ..M•r M M .ddmrf L+ IM. b M Yrlr Wal. IN arrYtrdw w rea.tly M MaP • Arrna •Pldrd ler, IM n•mr N Ihr Ere�e rnrllrr a WYF w d•r. rllarla YlPbbm�pv rdf 4reb I r ar aq4/Pr M N1r1Yc•, h ay re /lr Er hcNa draEr erb h rrrrl Nw1rrlarw n E.. aar.P rr N r. ca..reP.. r Ir eb rrrlrr .N IM INMb Rred•IK4a b M b y rr rrr M adoral w b er MrYrlb \y ew4 Mrabd rM M Hirer • [nwv. r 21S.. rrdltn 4 Mr SDIde�.1 a �Yapat[en IM. W�rlrrr +Ld mm M Y.rrM .ra .r..brat. UoAa . .„rra b M b rrrr4a.r r an Y + e�. rrd rd m nM arr•rrrrM an b err N 415 Mr rerrr111 .r M ler / mrrh• rlrra A 11.1— r r e)S ter dor b Ar ad AGabd yrww. a. r•r.n MfvrlPM ]D da. a brrl Yw01bn IYI W �1lrE� b M1N� M M MrrM Vr4r ra. ddllwrl 57raM .I wr b M b rr•p... an r.l. rr.•nr• �b.rM Y lr..r rrs.rcl.d w 0.er Mvcr b �a Ir4 Pr• a.r s w �r Iv r aer/Ir Ir 1!b rlrr r ..1., Iln -ar rr., YMv rrrre Cl ArrlrMMl YD In aLLA OR me r 44[i011AL, MENE.r ootomo v AT Eroc LDwe 4w 6r rrYr, Yre MY ScMOOI ar1MICI MO. 0113 •O, OOt 0" 10000 re•A1pM.110. Itrr b rerbr I.Y. Ir Abrrbr wra r Dyw.r r../e. e.dRYln rd,le •rral/. I.iM wEYYr p YSY1•wilb�A M��. rw M Y r1/IM. b rad rlarresl r h Dc4rar A.erl.ar Ih.all N.p b v •ort Y R L. a alt YOLLCE v weLK MEARao u ry ar roarKEuo colrrr w rrbaxl Bran or rMMw[tIIIA r ICE Ie NE— 011IF,N M M CMr Garar C[Yrdl b wr b M Cay a rmr/., f:arr a Weld. Bat• a YNrra., +Y Mb E PSA Nov .e.b KIM r .Yn•41r 1 tM) P m r Gy I W r5D EM OaMY./. 11AlilreA, Ylr•.la•, rrrYrO In h PrN+r M Irratlk.bn. Lr br•.M PM� m.n, rr IbnYp rr MrYv.bpr.n Mrnr/. ry,bwl�mPa nq.n lb •/ M 14a•^'r rE o11r W.rrrd Mbaalpala M rM.by rMNo, rr M^ONN.wallN.den, byy Mr.rrE pM•U cnrb. a M YOCrIrrMpryrl.. 5c+rrrrrrr rrrrYq Ibe br r Mw.wa fbYErq PNerM.aAPr'n ii M 111 Iac.lyd wn n•d....orr•rrrr 1111r•rl Nn rb r+ YPYOed In 5nrrrrrra r wwgq nd• r la rrPrr•rra rrare.q nan Ib • rY brats Nr+r� Nalrl Eb . / PnrrlL b dre n as dr4r .Mr egLorLma H301N1 es wl m .eE ar, braauL�.[r.. YOTMd M Npear� rnd ln~11w.w.MAe^rwrl PreNel Mho 1 W Mr h Mrrrrrrra r�.n� n.e b Tb Mrm•M fYrrrr.q OYrbl. lb 1 1 Nwar 1 14. a Preee..e 1 A. dne I.r .rn ew ..wwlr .I IM emrr el nr ary A.r.Yr..rd r Glr �Ir rra b.�r hr.11n• a Its IMVAr•e ce.rbYr0 iY �� rYrr.aq Dlart[I IIA 1.11 Y e a.e..', rolarrma 4Slbeoel oto P10 bwew IS5415on 1l0 rO bots, •5541{001010 PIDA 4WWI 000 ON PID n I W 0. 000 050 Pe N.1ea Y65 moon 0l0 PO Nrabr .65015 On Oa0 Abe d.ebb u' 114.. rnY a 1. J. r..0 1l, 1 �. e10t1 R rrrd Boa 11 Ma relrlrYry a I ewr MLab a .rr Let ! nMrlaw nwrwr•.y b P. prr•rr a M lbralubrl RYw rr0 norM.l•ly / rr neplraYly arIMW r M .al/w.aalr6. a.r�i o Alb e/ rr1 a le 5 a A. A• r 0rA1/r.br Nn art rmsr! b M rlmd- M mp hllr Y/rb wlY•N a N .o11M..e1r1y trllrr.ldr a h ra/.bYry Mala ., aec. ».IPMER YW I N:k LI U adrrre b h rdva•d r/ Mr - a rrlrrrYr MYe.drlYar b OY urrr•.1 M a.ald La r ntlp err rlrl INO .eAwnral a r ti praMal rTIM l e e rr anrry a a w arwEre n bf� wR.r.d4 r r. 5rb..•cll•r r r1. rlwrllvr N rw .er.nl- y Yr elle 6 a ue eLx+ zv rr 41» .ary .r11rY4 r E.1 wl...� ti a .aa 6ba n. r..c..a.r•«IrM r. r dp. d 1 Jr dq.r. b .+w. . •rb.elemwre r.r.Plm e M aa.Aww w a e a BP. 0S, r ft—.O..5 nal mar b1 b are .ar..ral M a le ardld • Brr WIIIY Orr .k Or Mr Irrrarree ANe Orr err. a &a•dreY Oml a LONCPrONIKELlO Yts M I.ca.se W IrM rs�r�Y a rr .rr/r.«lrrM rarrwl r b r:w a 1 • r. erYaMri a rwe «rVEn .awlKrl Lo ..+ a.4r•.Yal a n. w.a.lPy .w..br a M+ .Ywr1 r. r l a e a h AIAr . aAen.ler. tae or. re.srp r rr ..wreN mro r.w.d ulb. a h vsa ar YY a v�i Iiarbm.E�Prr n...cY�n.rYi ae lrE.. M•+M A++ YrnrwrY r.rcrq � whin nliu•�aamarm Party mn.•e.le.ab n. Inrr M /IrYrrA rde M 04r r h C.y AarrrlYre N Ybrrlyd Pa.dn m.Y. Ya.a r r. Mn.O r.l Pnaa17. Im M rn. Pry r b rra M MY011r�a1 Oy Adrr. = t►.+ 1 r 4 O.14ay I n ' N {mar rap. rMl acrd M YO'O M M Y.nr1 IAr.w . O• IYjr ♦mar iie Honda • [IMR R -w I. 4. [^a Inlli'n[ IN.IRh1 !)nNle4.t 1141 Reeplen •r,"7 M Er1 a e NI! brr • V.0, 6- lards' • Er IIII.r 9d.oab • I /uar lec/wn • /1erOrard ba4 n I Don't stair an elumin111 .'J .r. �;•rtt 1 11. I I d �J rl�� _. ,� o.�u• .. I n ' N {mar rap. rMl acrd M YO'O M M Y.nr1 IAr.w . O• IYjr ♦mar iie Honda • [IMR R -w I. 4. [^a Inlli'n[ IN.IRh1 !)nNle4.t 1141 Reeplen •r,"7 M Er1 a e NI! brr • V.0, 6- lards' • Er IIII.r 9d.oab • I /uar lec/wn • /1erOrard ba4 n I Don't stair an elumin111 FEB -08-'00 WED 23:49 IDs TEL ID: 4298 PO4 RESOLUTION WANING NOTIM PERWD FOR TAX DRMEbMM FWANCINO DL9'II= IN THE CITY OF MONlTCELLO Wi MM. the City of Maid mOo and in gouwtR and liadevelopt = Autlwaty have peepoted to atodi* Tait I=emcnt Ftmocnp DWsiet No. 1-19 ('Tip Diadcr) in the C1q; ad WHEREAS. the City is required to p wAda bftmadm reIaR the Riad aad e mmW i *Iudm of sud TIF DWtict to the bond a Tau 30 days bcba aha Clry Co=Wli p4W haft an the tan 4taematt 8nsaft pen for aha TEP Disukk and ouch b0onom Smmu& Sacdm 469.175. wed. 2: wd %VEM M8AS. the bond hal feadved sodas of the pnbUc areata$ WAo& W for Juno 26. 1995 along witb Real tad a wAmie lnfonnadon nq< oft the TW DLMc4 tad YIMMUA*, .h.a r..nd A.. dwam dmW d.• U aa to w bYIM &Mows" of dw and to nsid m that the bard "km the 30day nodes tequeemmtt NOW. THEM= BE IT RESOLVED by the WaW Board of Wmcndmt School DLMet No. 582 a boom 1. Mw band hmeby wdm the 30'dty nodes parlod for review of 8141 and mmotaie W brmadoe fcpfft Qts Tm DUMUL 2. SmR is t Awflsed and de and to aammlt a cudit copy of d6 mdedot to the C11y Y ft $cMd UUMa's comwAm an dte TIF Main pxmmu to Mivam S— tea. Sacdw 48.17!. wed. 2. Approved ft 5th day of Jame. t995 by the School Baud of Indapattdant school Disold No. 83. cwz ATTB9T: Aj By /L &S, BOARD OF COUNTY COMl1 IMIONERS WRIGHT COUNTY, MIIVNESOTA Dau: June 6, 1995 Resolution No. 95-34 Motion by Commissioner Sawatrte Seconded by Commisaincr Russet RESOLUTION WAIVING N(MCE PERIOD FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO WHEREAS, the City of Moasiallo and its Housing and Redevelopment Authority have proposed to modify Tax Inctemwt Financing District No. 1-19 ('TIF District') in the City; and WHEREAS, the City if required to provide information regarding the final and economic implicnioas of such Tff District to this board n least 30 drys before the City Cou=il's public hearing on the in inetemmt financing plan for the TIF District, and undu Minneson Stamta, Section 469.173, subil. 2, and WHEREAS, this board has received notice of the public hearing for Joe 26. 1995 along with fiscal and economic information regarding the TIF District; and WHEREAS, the board has dctamined that it is in she best interest of the County and it residua that the board waive the 30 -day notice tequixem m. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Wright Canty Board of Commissioners m follows: 1. The bomd hereby waiva the 304ay notice period for review of fiscal and economic information regarding the TIF District. 2. Staff is authoriz d and directed to trammit a certified copy of this resolution to the City as the County's comment on the TIF District pursuant to Mimcaote Statutes, Section 469.175. subd. 2. YES NO JUDE X- JUDE SAWATZKE X SAWATZKE RUSSEK Y_ RUSSIX ROSE S__ ROSE MATTSON y MATfSON STATE OF MINNESOTA) a. County of Wright ) 1. Richard W. Norman, duly appointed. qualified. and actin{ Cleft to the County Bard for IM County of Wright, State of Minnesota , do hereby artiy that 1 have compared the forgoing copy of a resolution or merlon with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners, Wright County, Minneaaa, m their seniors held on the 6th day of )am. . 1995, now on file In my office. and have found to anise to be true and costect copy thereof. Witness my hand sod offidal seal at Buffalo, Minnesma, this 6th day of Jose, t VS. coaq coommussr &K 11�noQa--L-- L 00�<�a (As MWiAed4 5) Debt -Service Reserve for Housing Bonds $95,000.00 Demolition/Removal 7,300.00 Site Improvements Storm Sewer 15,440.00 Sanitary Sewer 18,950.00 Water 3,400.00 Water/Sewer Hookup Fees 30,000.00 Public Improvements Utility Realignment 12,000.00 Fire Truck Path/Hydrants 10,000.00 Bike/Pedestrian Pathway Bridge 10,000.00 Site Preparation 39,208.00 Other Preparation Footings 13,675.00 Parking/Paving/Landscaping 48,657.00 Contingency 20.000 Subtotal $325,830.00 Administration 42.000.00 Total $367,830.00 Subsection 1.11. Land All new and/or existing development on land identified on Exhibits I -C through I -F as 'property to be acquired' or "possible acquisition' will be subject to the following uses and requirements: 1-43 GL Council Agenda - 6/26/95 .1 I :1 � ll� lrl. :.:t :.M• r i)I . fA. l -T;- MM • M':. As noted in the attached report by Steve Grittman, a recent series of amendments to the sign ordinance inadvertently resulted in the removal of an important section of the sign ordinance. Essentially, this is a housekeeping matter with Council being asked to reinstate language removed flrom the ordinance by mistake. Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment reinstating Option A and Option B language as identified in the attached amendment. Motion to deny adopting an ordinance amendment reinstating Option A and Option B language. Motion to modify and approve the ordinance amendment. �_ STAFF RECOMMFNDATION• It is our view that the language should be reinstated as is and that no modification of the language is necessary. n_ SUPPORTING nATA Section of ordWmoe being reinstated; Report from Steve Orittman. 10 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THAT CHAPTER 3, SECTION 9 [E12(b), RELATING TO ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF BUSINESS SIGNS FOR COMMERCIAL USES, BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: [EJ2.9(b) For buildings in which there is one (1) or two (2) business uses within the B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, and I-2 Districts, and for buildings used for commercial retail activities located within a PZM Distrid and located on property adjacent to B-2, B-3, B4, I-1, or I-2 Districts, there shall be two (2) options for permitted signs, as listed below in 2.(b);. and 2.(b)ii. The property owner shall select one option, which shall control sign development on the property. Option A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall be allowed. The maximum number of signs on any principal building shall be six sign boards or placards, no more than four (4) of which may be product identification signs. Signs may be displayed on at least two walls, or equal to the number of streets upon which the property has legal frontage, whichever is greater. Each wall shall contain no more than two product identification signs and two business identification signs. The total maximum area of wall signs shall be determined by taking twenty percent (20'%) of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building, up to three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. If a principal building is on a corner lot, the largest side of the building may be used to determine the gross silhouette area. For purposes of determining the gross area of the silhouette of the principal building, the silhouette shall be defined as that area within an outline drawing of the principal building as viewed from the front lot lino or from the related public strect(s). ii. Option B. Under Option B, a combination of wall signs and a maximum of one (1) pylon sign may be utilized. The total number of business identification signs allowed (whether wall or pylon) shall be at least two (2), or equal to the number of streets upon which the property has legal frontage, whichever is greater. Only two product identification signs shall be allowed, and these wall signs may be only on one wall. The total maximum allowable sign area for any wall shall be determined 7,4 Ordinance Amendment No. Page 2 by taking ten percent (106) of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building up to one hundred (100) square feet, whichever is less. The method for determining the gross silhouette area shall be as indicated in Subd. 2.(b)i. above. Pylon signs shall be regulated as in Subd. 4 below. For single or double oomupancy business structures, the total marimum allowable signage on the property shall be three hundred (300) square feet. For multiple oocupancy structures, the total marimum allowable signage on the property shall be as determined under Subd. 3 below. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Adopted this 26th day of June, 1895. Mayor City Administrator -7g / A Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Cj COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • YARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Strphen Orinman DA72L 22 Jum 1995 RB: Monticello - Sign Ordinance Amendments PRE NO: 191.06 In 1994, a Sarins of .......... ... wme made to the regulations on aigoage for business structures. In part, these related to the request of the Holiday Station to permit signs on each of its three principal exposures. Tho previous Ordina= had restricted the maximum to two walls. When the ameadment expanding the allowaaee to one sign per Homage was approved, ft alternative sign controls known as 'Option A' and 'Option B' was omitted fmm rho Ordiname. Thu omission aSerxod a subsequent section of the Ordinance regulating multiple oocopamy struuums which referred batt to rho Option A/B controls. Until the River Sona Station application, dus discrepancy in the new language was unappareat. In order to correct the Ordinance language. the aaached Ordinance Iw been proposed. This Ordinance does rho following: • Reinstates the Option AM language. • Retum the maximum she aigGW to 300 square fat, or 20 percent of tum building sillmette for Option A (Wall Signs Only). • Creates now language for Option B (Wall and Pylon Signs) which results in a maximum 300 square fent of total signage for tingle or double occupancy business structures, dispersed betwom the allowable algae. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Stile 555 - St. Loifs Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595-9636'Fax. 595.9937 7C� Pk= sevbw theproposed to COMM thu they atxaapWh the City's objectives for sip regulation. ALTERNATIVE AMONS Alternative t. Appmvethe I I sip, Ordinaoco Ammdmest upon a findiag that it pmporly implemews the City's business development objectives. Alwn"vo 2. Deny the ptopoted Sign Ordinance Amendmnt. Alternative 3. Approve the pmo- I Vigo 0 Amendment as modified in dismmsion upon a finding that the modified laaguep more closely reflects the City's intan. Subject to Ramlog Cammissim dia=bn which would reveal am—1 objoctim for the City's sign regulations, we would mommead approval of the attached Ordbwm amendment. 7O Council Agenda - 6/26/95 e. Consideration of a meanest for a conditional use permit fora avian system who three (q) or more b oineae uses. App i n (J.0.) A_ RF.FRRFNrR AND BACKGROUND Riverstreet Station is seeking a conditional use permit which would allow establishment of a sign system for a building that contains three or more business uses. Presently, Riverstreet Station contains eight business uses, which includes an antique mall and seven office uses. As you may know, there were a number of variances that were requested associated with the original sign plan proposed by Riverstreet Station. After further review of the sign ordinance and site conditions, the applicant has decided to modify the original application by utilizing primarily a pylon sign versus wall signs as originally contemplated. This decision has the positive effect of allowing the development of the sign system that needs no variances. Under the original proposal, at least two variances were needed in order for the conditional use permit to be approved. The sign system proposed calls for development of a pylon sign containing information advertising the antique mall and the names of the businesses located in the facility. According to city code, due to the fact that Riverstreet Station has 191 lineal feet of frontage, Riverstreet Station has an allocation of 58 eq ft of sign area on a two-sided pylon sign. In addition to the pylon sign, a wall sign will be placed on the south, or Broadway, side of the structure. The sign proposed on this side of the structure will be 38 sq ft, which is well within code requirements. B_ ALTRRNATM ACTIONS; Motion to approve the conditional use permit allowing a sign system with more than three (3) business uses based on the finding that the sign system proposed is consistent with city code in all respects and is consistent with the character of the business area in which it is located. Motion to deny the conditional use permit allowing a sign system with more than three (3) business uses. Council Agenda - 626/95 f:_ STAFF FCO NiIATION: Staff recommends alternative Nl . The sign system that is proposed is clearly consistent with city code requirements. We can see no reason at this time to support a motion to deny approval of the request. It will complement the struct ue amd function adequately to identify the site. Excerpt Som zoning ordinance: Proposed sign system - 12 3. Conditional Uses in Commercial and Industrial Districts: The purpose of this section is to provide aesthetic control to signage and to prevent a proliferation of individual signs on buildings with three (3) or more business uses. The City shall encourage the use of single sign boards, placards, or building directory signs. (a) In the case of a building where there are three (3) or more business uses, but which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is not considered a shopping center or shopping mall, a conditional use shall be granted to the entire building in accordance with an overall site plan under the provisions of Option A or Option 8 (described in 2 (b) i and ii above) provided that: 1. The owner of the building files with the Zoning Administrator a detailed plan for signing illustrating location, size in square feet, size in percent of gross silhouette area, and to which business said sign is dedicated. ii. No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign, except that in the case of a building that is situated in the interior of a block and having another building on each side of it, one sign shall be allowed on the front and one sign shall be allowed on the rear provided that the total square footage of the two signs does not exceed the maximum allowable square footage under Option A or Option 8 described in 2 (b) i and 11 above. iii. No individual business sign board/placard shall exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total allowable sign area. iv. An owner of the building desiring any alteration of signs, sign location, sign size, or number of signs shall first submit an application to the Zoning Administrator for an amended sign plan, said application to be reviewed and acted upon by the Zoning Administrator within ten (10) days of application. If the application is denied by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant may go before the planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDIN:WCS 0 V. In the event that one tenant of the building does not utilize the full allotment of allowable area, the excess may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any other way transferred to another tenant for the purpose of allowing a sign larger than twenty-five percent (45%) of the total allowable area for signs. Vi. Any building identification sign or building directory sign shall be included in the total allowable area for signs. VU. Any sign that is shared by or is a combination of two or more tenants shall be considered as separate signs for square footage allowance and shall meet the requirements thereof. viii. All signs shall be consistent in design, material, shape, and method of Illumination. NO"ICEUD ZONING ORDINANCE 16 kittet,:s-&eef- 54ab' m WQLLI Rsw W W EW p 10 14.19 Wall S •.yns lry.y2 x /3.2.47. /,b"/6.0757 Ff 2p,: 303.21 ,g it /07 aIrl -61 sq ft (,/0o . Marc ww4r 010 f•- �7 I Aers-6t- 5"7 n 14304vm/� r ,as soap pw er-r Lij CD uj i1J W e :�` C�In n Council Agenda - 6/26/95 W.S. ) This item was last before the City Council on March 13 of this year. The project involves a little bit of storm sewer and the regrading of the drainage easements to the rear of about 12 lots near the Maplewood Circle area. There is currently not enough fall to get dependable drainage out of the rear of the lots. Some improvements could be made with some minor regrading but would require regular maintenance. There was discussion by some of the property owners present that the City should be involved in the project, as the previously constructed lots around Maplewood Circle were not properly graded to the easement line, and the current drainage Swale is now on private property rather than the easement itself. Some of the Maplewood Circle residents have cost the use of some of their property. In addition, regrading was further compounded by the fact that there is telephone and cable TV in the area of the easement that would have to be relocated or at least placed at a lower elevation. There was some discussion that the public works department could do some of the regrading and ask the homeowners to re -seed if the minimum projects were undertaken. However, this would still leave the ditch on private property and not on the easement. At the end of the meeting, a motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Brad F yIe to deny calling for a public hearing for improvements and to request the property owners work together to solve the drainage issue. Council member Anderson noted the City should act as a mediator for a neighborhood meeting in an attempt to resolve this situation. The motion passed with Brian, Brad, and Shirley in favor, and Clint and Tom opposed, as they felt the City should be involved in some way. At the request of a few of the residents of Maplewood Circle, Tom Bose and myself looked at what it would take to do the storm sewer improvements properly so that it would have sufficient grade so as not to be a maintenance headache. Tom did some additional survey work in the field, and we put together some coat estimates and areas of benefit. During this additional investigation, we found that the current ditch extended as much as 13 R into lot 7 near the southeast comer, and even fin-ther, of course, into Gary Sandman's lot, as the drainage ditch cuts the entire corner of his lot. Since there is only a 6 -ft easement on each lot, you can see that people on Maplewood Circle have lost a useable portion of their lots, while the people along Meadow Oak Drive actually have more useable property, including the entire easement. The storm sewer project itself involves a physical connection of a 12 -inch storm sewer to that already located in Red Oak Lane. It would include a manholo for the connection point and some bituminous work in the area of the connection point The ditch would be regraded to a minimum of 1.1% flow to the new storm Council Agenda - 6/26/95 sewer connection near Red Oak lane. The anticipated cost of this project would be $8,604 based upon the estimated quantities and coat from other projects Wormed in the city in the past. If this becomes a City project, the telephone company and Jones Intercable would have to lower or relocate their cables at no cost. This may not be the case should an individual property owner wish to have it lowered or relocated. Tom Bose then estimated the drainage area, and we came up with an approximate cost per each lot. This information is enclosed for your review. We then sent a letter to each of the property owners that would benefit or be affected by the project and invited them to an informational meeting at the Public Library to see if this was something they could arrange to do as a group or at least do the minimum grading. There was limited support for the project at that meeting; this is assuming that the property owners would have to pick up 100% of the cost In addition, some of the property owners who currently had more useable land because the ditch was on someone else's property were not real supportive and some were opposed. In addition, in order to put the ditch back m the property line without building retaining walls, we would need some additional slope easements from those same property owners who were not in general support. There also is some concern in regard to a few trees that may have to be protected. Consequently, with no firm indication from the Council if they would support the project or pay for a percentage of it, the homeowners decided to look into doing it as a private project themselves. A group of residents obtained costa for regrading, which did not include the storm sewer or lowering the telephone and TV cable, of approximately $5,000. However, the contractor they selected was reluctant to work in the area due to the limited total 10 -ft easement and the consequences of him entering private property beyond that and likely being held liable for it. In addition, coordination of the private project would be much greater between the individual home owners as to who is going to pay what portion and the insurances, bonds, and permits required to work in a public right-of-way fmm the City. Consequently, some residents of the area would like the City to again consider the possibility of doing this as a public improvement project and assessing all or a portion of the coat back to the individual property owners. The City does not need total rubor and support to order such a project if they believe it is in tho public's beat interest. It appease the neighbors have tried to work this out, and the City has tried to assist as a mediator. This, coupled with the fact that the drainage is so far out of the existing easement and the other complications of the easement width, leads the residents to believe that the only proper way to have We project done is through City channels. As Public Works Director, I tend to agree with than scenario. Although it is a minor storm sewer prgjeet, itis somewhat complicated and would be best handled by the City. As Public Works Director, I am certainly not looking foawaA to doing such a project, as we won't be able to satisfy all the property owners and may have to 14 Council Agenda - 6126/95 work around one or two or more of them, staying within the existing 5-R easement; but at this point, I don't think the project will move forward in any way or fashion without City involvement. R. AT.TFRNATrVE ACTIONS; 1. The first alternative is to consider ordering a public hearing for July 10, 1995, for the purpose of storm sewer and grading improvements to the Maplewood Circle area of Meadow Oak, at an estimated cost of $8,604. The second alternative would be to set a public hearing for July 10, 1995, but to raise the estimated cost of the project to $10,000 due to the ', ti� possibility of having to build some retaining walls where slope easement cannot be obtained and/or protecting some additional trees. 3. The third alternative would be to set the public hearing for July 10, 1995, but to give the residents some indication as to whether the City would participate in the project, such as picking up 25% of the cost. This could also be discussed at the public hearing itself. 4. The fourth alternative would be to deny the request for a public hearing for storm sewer and grading improvements. C. STAFF RF ,O F.NDATION; As Public Works Director, it is my opinion that this project will not move forward without assistance from the City. I believe the neighbors have made good faith efforts to get together and work out a project amongst themselves. The City currently has better control over individual lot grading than we had with the Meadow Oak planned unit development. Hopefully the planning and zoning and building inspection departments have enough safeguards in place to reduce the possibility of this reoccurring. As Public Works Director, I think there is a need for the City to become involved and share in a portion of this project. With the home owners still bearing the majority of the cost. I don't feel there will be a rush to have these types of improvements made throughout the community in areae previously built up. Copy of map and cost estimate; Copy of benefiting area; Copy of possible assessments based on 10076 assessment; Previous agenda item Brom March 13; Copy of letter to residents concerning April 27 informational meeting at the Public Library; Copy of recent letter from six residents (50%) requesting the City again consider this project. Notes: Tate". am mmwcaw* lacwww COPMU"Cro. *f*Ca"m (10-WWG) Illy CDftvdmwt& 3-0-2 prme DebAdes 4*6f mp-W mm ftAm x'f0 nn ewood Circle Z 7 i b io io i-ts 5 4 v E,� GCItltnXXllOn ,e ILA I -- Estimated 22 Catnuvenon Cott lEsiurcred 1 22 �Prciicf Ccv_ ^04 T "T "2 L 'j. *f7 ------ ......... 77_ 9 r Z.j all E &-, 7r7 "2 arHloxaa t P) C4 0� ; 1) — rA 1) — )"LINK= CIRCIA STORK PROJECT Estimated Project Cost {8.604.80 Breakdown between 12 lots by parcel $717.00 Per lot Project cost k-okm down by square footage of lots draining into orale (64.461 square feet) qC-d COST AT 13.30 LOT SOGARE FOOTAGE PER SGOARE FOOT 8 3696 Z 491.57 7 5076 675.11 6 8898 1.183.43 5 2864 380.91 9 6570 873.81 10 7410 985.53 11 6691 889.90 12 7249 964.12 1 1958 260.41 2 3177 442.54 3 4176 554.41 M 890.57 TOTAL 2LIUALUALU qC-d Council Minutes - 3/13/95 9. Consideration 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 from 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 lots 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 Circle 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 Is 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 Councibnember 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. R� lift MONTICELLO 250 East Broadway P. O,Box 1147 Monticello. NIN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Metro: (612) 333-5739 Fax: (612) 295-4404 XAM ADDRESS CITY. STATE. ZIP Dear Residents April 21, 1995 A few months ago four residents of Oaplewood Circle requested that the City take some action to take care of a drainage problem on the rear of some of the lots. After reviewing the problem. the City Council opted to have the property owners work together to regrade the rear portions of their lots, which %+ould improve the situation. The Council also authorized City Staff to work with the neighborhood to help them find an equitable solution to the drainage problem. Basically, the current problem is more of a nuissance problem and doesn't. threaten any homes but it does render some of the lots less usable rhnn nrhers as the current drainage Swale is not located on the easement between the joining property owners. Since there is nuL much grade or elevation change along the Wale. a long term solution would involve the installation of a small amount of storm sewer and regrading of the ditch and relocating it to the proper easements. This would involve approximately 12 properey owners. if there is enough support from the neighborhood for such a project, the Clty Council "Max' look at having the City do the project as a publ is improvatent and assess the coat, over a period of time, back to the benefitting property owners. City Staff has decided to hold an informational meeting at the Monticello Public Library at hest 6th Street and Walnut Street on Thursday. April 27, 1999, at B p.m. If you would ILke to learn more about a proposed long term solution to the problem and the expected costs associated with the improvement, please try to attend. MI vvlN• y�tilU• 1'1'1pIYJD�IR �.'� /fi April 21, 1995 Resident Page 2 If you have any questions. cannot make the meeting or would be opposed to any improvements in the area. please feel free to contact me at 295-3170. ext. 2. Monday through Friday during normal working hours. Respectfully. John E. Simole Public Works Director JES\beg ccs Rick Wolfsteller. City Administrator Gary Anderson. Building Official Tom Bose. Municipal Construction Inspector File 9F DEBORAH ECCLESS GARP SANDMAN 2747 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE 2750 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE MONTICELLO. MN 55362 MONTICELLO. MN 55362 HOWARD & LYNN LENZEN MIKE KRIER 2760 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE 2800 RED OAK LANE MONTICELLO, MN 55362 MONTICELLO. MN 55362 S. SAPAR & P. WEBER TIN CHURCHILL 2840 RED OAK LANE 905 MEADOW OAR DRIVE MONTICELLO. MN 55362 MONTICELLO. MN 55362 RICHARD JARVIS JULIA 1UINRICHS 915 MEADOW OAR DRIVE 925 MEADOW OAK DRIVE MONTICELLO. MN 55362 MONTICELLO. HN 55362 GREG TUttKULA BARB HAMILTON 2781 MEADOW LANE 2821 MEADOW LANE MONTICELLO, HN 55362 MONTICELLO. HN 55362 � w 1 WERMW ULTRA HOMES INC. 2841 MEADOW UNE HC33. BOX 914A MONTICELLO, MN 55362 CROSS LAKE. HN 56442 n r (Lot 10, Block 2) i (I , . R jtA C71�1 ✓�� 96 -3u04%3 V3, 1495 City of Monticello Attn: City Administrator 250 East Broadway Monticello, Mn 55362 RE: DRAINAGE SWALE Dear Mr. Wollenson, On the advice of the City Council, the residents of Meadow Oaks had a neighborhood meeting with city staff members John, Gary and Tom to discuss ways to rectify the drainage swale problem. John presented to the neighborhood a plan that would move the swale from its current location to the property line and add a storm sewer outlet to improve drainage. This plan would cost approx. $ 9,OD0 and would have to be authorized by the City Council. John also told us that the swale was further off the property line than originally thought of. We also contacted a friend of one of the neighbors who would be willing to do the work but isn't lisenced or bonded. Plus, it was brought to our attention we may have to pay to have the telephone lines lowered at a cost of $1,000 - $2,000. Howard Lenzen had an estimate done by Schillewaert Landscaping. He declined to do the work for fear of lawsuits but gave an estimated price of $5,000 to do the work. He also stated to Howard that the City should come in and fix the problem. We below signed residents ask for these new issues be brought before the City Council and reconsider their earlier vote. Thank you. �lt�t�itlll�.. 9�f Council Agenda - 6/26/95 io, Consideration of contract with HDR for np" a of W a ewa er Fas311t1tSsPlsa. U.S.) A_LFRF.N .. Nil BA .Kt ;Rn TND: At the last meeting, the City Council selected HDR as the consulting engineer for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project. The City Council directed stag' to negotiate a contract that would allow us to begin work on the additional study for an amendment to the Facilities Plan but would have a fail safe clause should we decide not to continue with an oxidation ditch or sequencing batch reactor at the completion of the study and take some other directiom. Enclosed you will find such a contract. The contract is an all-encompassing contract which will allow us to move step by step through the amendments to the Facilities Plan and the design and construction of the facility itself. Each step of the process requires approval by the City Council. For tonight's meeting, you am asked to approve the contract but only the scope of services listed under Exhibit A, which is Task 1, the Facilities Plan. It includes all of the work necessary to prepare the Facilities Plan update, the environmental assessment worksheet, and the permit applications, for a total lump sum of $18,000. The period of service for this phase is June 28,1995, to October 1, 1885. If you so choose, at the end of the scope of services under Exhibit A, you can bring into play Sections 1.1.3 and 1. 1.4 of the first page of the contract, which will allow you to discontinue services with HDR at no ihrther cost or obligation on the part of the City. R- ALTERNATME ACTIONS: The first alternative is to approve the agreement between the City of Monticello and HDR as presented and Exhibit A, Scope of Services, Task 1, the Facilities Plan, for a lump sump of $18,000 as presented. The second alternative would be to renegotiate certain sections of Elxhlbit A. Scope of Services, or the agreement itself. The third alternative would be not to enter into an agreement with HDR at this time. Council Agenda - 6/26/95 (:_ STAFF F..o NDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and City Administrator that the Council approve the agreement between HDR and the City of Monticello and Exhibit A, Scope of Services, Task 1, of the Facilities Plan as outlined in alternative N1. The contract represents a little different approach to engineering fees than we currently have with OSM. Through our contract with OSM, we have a fixed percentage fee for the feasibility study, design and construction engineering and as-builts, which is on a slighting scale depending upon the cost of the project. All other tasks, such as inspection, surveying, testing, and other consultant services are open-ended on an actual -cost basis. The contract with HDR represents a fixed budget with a not -to -exceed price for each step of the prgject; as we go along, we can still look at what percentage the engineering fees are of the estimated construction cost and weigh them against the original proposal presented by HDR prior to approving the next step of the process. Other communities find this a workable contract, and staff does not anticipate any significant problems with this approach. D_ SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of agreement with HDR; Copy of Exhibit A, Scope of Services, Task 1, of the Facilities Plan. AGRE19MENT BETWEEN CITY OF MONTICELIA, MINNESOTA AND ®R ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT E7i:PPANSION THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made as of lune 26, 1995, between the City of Monticello, a municipal corporation in the State of Minnesota with principal offices at 250 Bast Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as 'OWNER" and 1HDR Engineering, Inc., with offices at 5401 Gamble Drive, Suite 300, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416, hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEEP," for the City of Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, herein called the "PROJECT." OWNM and ENGINIEER, in consideration of the mutual covenama contained herein agree as follows: Section 1 - BASIC SERVICES W 1.1.1 ENGINEER shall provide professional services to OWNER as hereinafter provided. These services 'will include providing professional engineering consultation and advice and furnishing civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, process engineering services and related architectural/enginaring services incidental thereto. 1. 1.2 The standard of care for all professional engineering and related services pedormed or fundshed by ENGINEER under this Agreement will be the care and skill used by members of BNGINi31Dt's profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time and in the same locality. 1.1.3 ENGINEIER and OWNER agree that each phase of service identified herein requires a separate written authorization from the OWNER. Such written authorizations shall include an agreed to scope of services and compensation for each phase. 1. 1.4 The ENGINEER agrees that there shall be no termination cost due to ENGINIt should the OWNER discontinue services at the end of any Phase of services identified herein. 1.2 Facility Plan (Task Series 1) ENGINIM will proceed with Facility Pian services after approval of this scope by OWNER. A detailed scope and budget for these services shall be prepared and included at Exhibit A. chy or Moohao a.". oV3U3 wawm Ti.rm.s Pim R"--6- - 1 1.3 Design Task (Series 2) A detailed scope and budget for these services shall be prepared and included as Exhibit B. ENGINEER will proceed with Design Services after approval of this scope by OWNER. 1.4 Bidding (Task Series 3) A detailed scope and budget for these services shall be prepared and included as Exhibit C. ENGINEER will proceed with Bidding Services after approval of this scope by OWNER. 1.5 Administration of the Construction Contract (Task Series 4) A detailed scope and budget for these services shall be prepared and included as Exhibit D. ENGINEER will proceed with construction related services after approval of this scope by OWNER. 1.6 O&M Manual, Record Drawings (Task Series 5) A detailed scope and budget for these services shall be prepared and included as Exhibit E. ENGINEER will proceed with these services after approval of this scope by OWNER. SEC71ON 2 - ADDITIONAL SERVICES 2.1 General The following Additional Services are not included in the Basic Services. ENGIN1HR can provide these services if authorized by OWNER, but they ars not part of this agreement at this time. They shall be provided if authorized or confirmed in writing by the OWNER, and shall be paid for by the OWNER as providod in this Agreement, in addition to compensation for Basic Services. 2.2 Additional Services 2.2.1 Performing Services resulting from significant changes in the general scope, extent or character of the PROJECT or its design including, but not limited to, changes in size, complexity, OWNER's schedule, character of construction or method of financing. Revising previously accepted studies, reports, design documents or Contract Documents when revisions are required by changes in laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes or orders enacted subsequent to the preparation of such studies, reports or documents, or ars due to any other causes beyond ENGINEEt's control. This includes those services resulting from incorporating iudumuatiun rxluired by Paragraph 3.2 which is furnished to Engineer after the stated time schedule. 2.2.2 Preparing documents of alternate, separate, or sequential bids or providing extra services In connection with bidding, negotiation or construction prior to the completion of the Final Design Task Series 300. when requestod by the OWNER. Cky or rrmkow Pm.. 06MM Watmaw Tentmw wm cake .2- EN, 2- 2.2.3 Preparing applications and supporting documents for private or governmental grants, loans or advances in connection with the PROJECT, preparing or reviewing environmental impact statements and assessments, reviewing and evaluating the effect on the design requirements of the PROJECT of any such statements and documents prepared by others and assisting in obtaining the approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the PROJECT. 2.2.4 Assisting the Owner with bid protests, rebidding or renegotiating contracts for construction, mataials, equipment or services. 2.2.5 Preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness for OWNER in any litigation, arbitration or other legal or administrative proceeding involving the PROJECT. 2.2.6 Performing services in connection with work directive changes and change orders to reflex changes requested by OWNER 2.2.7 Making revisions to Drawings and Specifications occasioned by the acceptance by OWNER of substitutions proposed by Couuractor. Performing extensive services after the award of each contract to evaluate and determine the acceptability of additional substiurtions proposed by Contractor beyond the listing of acceptable manufacturers ers in the Specifications. 2.2.8 Performing additional or extended services during construction made necessary by: (1) Work damaged by fire or other cause during construction; (2) acceleration of the progress schedule involving services beyond normal working hours; and (3) default by any Contractor. 2.2.9 Visiting the PROJECT with OWNER, to observe any apparent defects in the completed construction after acceptance by OWN`M and assist OWNER in consultations and discussions with Contractor ronceming correction of such deficiencies and make recommendations as to replacement or correction of defective Work. 2.2.10 Performing additional Services in connection with the PROJECT, including services which are to be furnished by OWNER in accordance with Section 3, and services not otherwise provided for in this Agreement. SECTION 3 - OWNER'S RESPONSMILITM OWNER shall do the following in a timely manner so as not to delay the services of ENGOTEER: 3.1 Designate In writing a person to ad as OWNER's representative with respect to services to be rendered under this Agreement. Such person shall have complete authority to transmit instructivaw, receive information, Interpret and define OWNER's policies and decisions with respect to EiNaDaM's services for the PROJECT. 3.2 Provide to 1NGWEER existing data, plans. reports and otter Information (mown to, in possession of, or under control of OWNER which ars relevant to the execution of ENOINIHR's duties on the PROJECT. Also, provide all criteria and full information as to OWNER's cuy d asoawo a.. owzm wawwwr Twins no flq.o� - - 10 c. requirements for the PROJECT, including design criteria, objectives and constraints, space, capacity and performance requirements, flexibility and expendability, and any budgetary limitations and furnish copies of all design and construction standards which OWNER will require to be included in the Drawings and Specifications. Provide within thirty (30) days after authorization to proceed, specific OWNER furnished Standard Details, Standard Specifications, or Standard Bidding Documents, if applicable, which are to be incorporated into the PROJECT. 3.3 Furnish the services of soWgeotechnical engineers or other consultants when such services requested by ENGMEER. Such services shall include borings, ptobings and subsurface explorations, hydrographic surveys, laboratory tests and inspections of samples, materials and equipment, with reports and appropriate professional recommendations. 3.4 Provide land surveys to include property, boundary, easement, right -of --way, topographic and utility surveys, property descriptions, zoning, deed or other laud use restrictions. 3.5 Arrange for access to, and make all provisions for, ENGINEER or ENGINEER's Suboonsultants to enter upon public and private property as required for ENGINEER and ENGINEER's Subconsultants to perform services under this Agreement. 3.6 Examine all studies, reports, sketches, Drawings, Specifications, proposals and other documents presented by ENGDMER, obtain advice of an attorney, insurance counselor and other consultants as OWNER deems appropriate for such examination and render in writing decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the services of ENGINEER. 3.7 Provide accounting, independent cost estimating and insurance counseling services as may be required for the PROJECT, legal services as OWNER may require pertaining to the PROJECT including any that may be raised by Contractor, auditing service as OWNER may require to ascertain how or for what purpose any Contractor has used the monies paid under the construction contract. 3.8 Advertise for proposals from bidders, open the proposals at an appointed time and place, and pay for all costs incidental thereto. 3.9 At no cost to ENGINEER, provide the above data and services and shall render approvals and decisions as is necessary for the orderly progress of ENGINM's services. ENGDMM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of all information and services provided by OWNER or at OWNER's direction. cna d wouks0o a". 06MM w.waw Trrtm,a wa V V@ - 4 - toD SECTION 4 - PERIODS OF SERVICE 4.1 The provision of this Section 4 and the various rates of compensation for ENGINEER's services provided for elsewhere in this Agreement have been agreed to in anticipation of the orderly and continuous progress of the PROJF_a through completion of the Services contained herein. ENGINEER'S obligation to render services hereunder will extend for a period which may reasonably be required for the performance of ENGINEER's services and required extensions thereto. if specific periods of time for rendering services are set forth or specific dates by which services are to be completed are provided, and if such dates are excaded through no fault of ENGINEMt, all rates, measures and amounts of compensation provided berein shall be subject to equitable adjustment. 4.2 ENGINEEM's services under each Task Series shall be considered complete at the earlier of (1) the date when the submissions for that phase have been accepted by OWNER; or (2) sixty days atter the date when such submissions are delivered to OWNER for final acceptance. In each case, such additional time as may be considered reasonable for obtaining approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to approve the design of the PROJECT shall be added to that particular Task Series. 4.3 After acceptance by OWNER of ENGINEER's Drawings, Specifications and other Design Phase documentation and upon written authorization from the City Council to proceed, ENGINIM shall proceed with performance of the services called for in the Bidding (flask Series 3). This Task Series shall terminate and the services to be rendered thereunder shall be considered complete upon commencement of the Construction Task Series. 4.4 The Administration of the Construction Contract (Task Series 4) will commence with award of the Contract for Construction and together with ENGINEER's obligation to provide Basic Services under this Agreement, will terminate when final paymeat to the Contractor is due, or in the absence of a final application for payment or of such due date, sixty days after the Date of Satisfactory Start-up and Demonstration of the Contract for Construction, whichever occurs first. 4.5 The Operational (Task Series 5) will commence during the Conaauction Phase and will terminate 90 days after the Date of Satisfactory Start-up and Demonstration of the PROJECT. 4.6 If OWNER requests significasm modllicatiau or changes in the general scope, extent or character of the PROJECT, the time of performance of ENGINEER', services and the various rates of compensation shall be adjusted equitably. 4.7 If OWNER fails to give prompt written authorization to proceed with any Task Series of services after completion of the immediately preceding Task Series, or if the Construction Task Series 400 has not commenced within ninety days of the Bidding UA Series 300, ENGEGM may, after giving seven days' written notice to OWNM tuspend services under this Agreement. ciw of *verve Weawne Tnotwo PUs EW@ 5 )OE 4.8 If ENGINEER's design services or service during construction of the PROJECT are delayed or suspended in whole or in part by OWNER for more than nicety days for reasons beyond ENGD EER's control, ENGINEER shall on written demand to OWNER (but without termination of this Agreement) be paid as provided in paragraph 7.1 If such delay or suspension extends for more than one year for reasons beyond ENGINP.ER's control, or if ENGDMM for any reason is required to render services for more than one year after Satisfactory Start-up and Demonstration is achieved under that contract, the various rates of compensation, including Additional Services, provided for elsewhere in this Agreement shall be subject to equitable adjustment. SECTION 5 - PAYMEN'T'S TO ENGINEER 5.1 Methods of Payment for Services and Expenses of ENGINEER 5.1.1 Compensation Terms Defined 1. Payroll Cost shall mean the salary and wages at the time services are performed of all personnel engaged directly on the PROJECT, including, but not limited to, engineers, architects, scientists, surveyors, designers, draftsmen, specification writers, estimators, other technical and business personnel; plus the cost of customary and statutory benefits including, but not limited to, social security contributions, unemployment, excise and payroll taxes, workers' compensation, health and retirement benefits, sick leave, vacation, holiday pay and other benefits. 2. Direct labor Cost shall mean salary and wages at the time services are performed of all personnel engaged directly on the PROJECT, including, but not limited to, engineers, architects, scientists, surveyors, designers, draftsmen, specification writers, estimators, other technical and business personnel but does not include indirect payroll -related costs or fringe benefits. 3. Per Diem shall mean an hourly rate equal to Payroll Cost times an Overhead Multiplier of 2.12 to be paid to ENGINEER as total compensation for each hour an employee of ENGINEER works on the PROJECT, plus Reimbursable Expenses. The Overhead Multiplier includes compensation for general administrative overhead and profit. 4. Reimbursable Expenses shall mean the actual expenses incurred directly or indirectly in connection with the PROJECT, including, but not limited to Subeonsultant or Subcontractor costa, transportation and subsistence incidental thereto, obtaining bids or proposals from Contractor(s), subsistence and transportation of Resident Project Representatives and their assistants, toll telephone calls, express mail and telegrams. reproduction of reports, drawings, specifications, bidding documents, and similar PROJECT -related items in addition to those requited under Section 1, and, if authorized in advance by the OWNER. overtime work requiring higher than regular rates. In addition, Reimbursable clp or mawcow aw.06WAs wutww, Tstmut rem rgaedw . 6 - IV{ Expenses will also include expenses incurred for computer time and other highly specialized equipment, including an appropriate charge for previously established programs and expenses of photographic production techniques. 5.2 Basis and Amount of Compensation for Basic Services 5.2.1 The Basis for compensation under this Agreement shall be on the Per Diem basis. The total fee for each Task Series of the PRO= shall be agreed to based upon a written scope of Basic Services. The total fee agreed to shall not be exceeded without written authorization by the OWNER. 5.2.2 Task Series 1 Compensation shall be on a Lump Sum basis. Estimated effort is itemized in the Appendix, Exhibit A. The total fee for Task Series 1 Services shall not be exceeded without written authorization from the OWNER. Compensation for other Task Series (2, 3, 4, and 5) shall be specified in Exhibit B, C, D, and B, respectively. 5.2.3 ENGINEER is not obligated to continue performance hereunder or otherwise to incur costs in excess of the allocated Per Diem compensation for the PROJECT, until OWNER has notified ENGINEER in writing that such compensation has been increased and specifying the revised amount allocated for the Services to be covered by the per Diem Compensation. 5.3 Basis and Amount of Compensation for Additional Services Compensation for Additional Services shall be on the basis of Per Diem to be agreed upon at tints of request for Additional Services. The estimate amount of Additional Services will be determined at the time the Additional Services are requested. 5.4 Intervals of Payments Payments to ENGINEER for Basic and Additional Services tendered and Reimbursable Expenses incurred shall be made once every month by OWNER. ENGINEER's invoices will be submitted once every month and will be based upon total services completed at the time of billing. OWNEJR &hall make prompt payments in response to ENGIN'M's Invoices. 5.5 Other Provisions Conceming Payments 5.5.1 OWNER will make payments due ENGINEER for services and expenses within 30 days after receipt of ENGINEER's statement. ENGINEER may, after giving seven day's written notice to OWNER, suspend services under this Agmemem until ENGINEER has been paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses and charges. 5.5.2 If the PROJECT Is suspended or abandoned in whole or in part for mote than 90 days, ENGINEm shall be compensated for all services performed prior to receipt of written notice from the OWNER of such suspension or abandommem, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due. If the PROJECT is resumed after being suspended for mora than 90 days, ENGWIEER's compensation shall be equitably adjured. clry of Modkmo P.O.. ounm wwvOr Tnmmm NO Flaim . % - 10G 5.5.3 If any items in any invoices submitted by ENGINEER are disputed by OWNER for any reason, including the lack of supporting documentation, OWNER may temporally delete the disputed item and pay the remaining amount of the invoice. OWNER shall prom notify ENGINEER of dispute and request clarification and/or remedial action. After any dispute has been settled, ENGINEER shall include the disputed item on a subsequent regularly scheduled invoice or on a special invoice for the disputed item only. 5.5.4 In the event of termination of this Agreement by either OWNER or ENGINEER, as provided in paragraph 7. 1, ENGINEER shall be entitled to payment for Services up to the time of termination. 5.5.5 The amount of any sales tax, excise tax, that may be imposed on this Agreement shall be added to the ENGINEER's compensation as reimbursable expenses. 5.5.6 Records of ENGINEER's Direct Labor Costs and Reimbursable Expenses pertinent to ENGINEER's compensation under this Agreement will be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Upon request, copies will be made available to OWNER at cost prior to final payment for ENGINEER's services. SECTION 6 - CONSTRUCTION COST AND OPINIONS OF COST 6.1 Construction Cost The construction cost of the entire PROJECT (hcrein referred to as 'Construction Cost") means the total cost to OWNER of those portions of the entire PROJECT designed and specified by ENGINEER, but nen including ENGINEER's compensation and expenses, the cost of land, rights-of-way, or compensation for, or damages to properties unless this Agreement so specifies, nor will it include OWNER's legal, accounting, insurance counseling or auditing services, or interest and finance charges incurred in connection with the PROJECT or the cost of other services to be provided by others to OWNER. 6.2 Opinions of Probable Construction Cost Since ENGINEER has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, ENGINIM's Opinions of Probable Construction Cost provided for herein are to be made on the basis of ENGINEER's experience and qualifications and represent ENGINIM's judgment performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional consultants under similar circumstances who are familiar with the construction industry. Therefore, ENGINEER cannot and does not guarantee that proposals or actual Total Project or Construction Costs will not vary from Opinions of Probable Construction Costa prepared by ENGINEEK co or Mookeno Rm. 06/=M waftnow To mos vim Ft -PM - 8 got+ SECTION 7 - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Termination 7.1.1 This Agreement may be terminated in writing by either party in the event of substantial failure by the other party to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement through no fault of the terminating party. However, no termination for default may be initiated unless the other party is given a ten (10) calendar day cure period after written notice (delivery by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate. 7.1.2 'Ibis Agreement may be terminated in writing (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) by OWNER for its convenience. 7.1.3 Upon any termination, ENGWEER shall: (1) promptly discontinue all Services affected (unless a termination notice from OWNER directs otherwise); and (2) deliver or otherwise make available to OWNER after full payment for services, all documents, data, drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries, and such other information and materials as may have been accumulated by ENGINEER in performing this Agreement, whether completed or in process. All payments due ENGINEER at termination shall be made as provided in paragraph 5.5.5. 7.1.4 Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to require the OWNER to use the services of the ENGINEER for any subsequent phase and the OWNER specifically retains the right to terminate this contract upon completion of any authorized phases. 7.2 Reuse of Documents 7.2.1 All documents, including Drawings and Specifications and other work products are instruments of service with respect to the PROJECT only and shall be the property of the OWNER upon full payment for Services to the ENGINEER.. 'Ilse ENGINEER and the OWNER may make and retain copies for information and reference in confection with the PROJECT. Any reuse without written verification or adaptation by ENOINEEIR for any purpose will be at OWNER's sole risk. OWN7Et agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless for same. 7.2.2 OWNER will be permitted to retain copies of drawings and specifications prepared In CADD form for the OWNER's information in its use of the PROJECT. Because information contained on computer discs and/or magnetic tapes can be unintentionally or otherwise modified by others besides ENGINEER, ENGINM reserves the right to remove all indicia of ownership and/or involvement from the disc/magnetic tape provided to OWNER. The original CADD data will be retained by ENGINM. Any reuse without written verification or adaptation by ENGINEER for the specific purpose intended will be at the user's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to ENGI1CM. Cfq of Mm3ceno Yw.OWMM way roam TrMMUM P4s mUedm - 9 - (o Z 7.3 ENGINEER's Indemnification Responsibility The ENGINEER shall indemnify, defend and save harmless the City, its appointed and/or elected officials, commission members, employees, agents, and each of them from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, claims, demands, damages, liabilities, interest, attorney's fees, cost and expenses or whatsoever kind or nature whether arising before or after final acceptance and in any manner directly caused, or contributed to by negligent acts, errors, or omissions for which the ENGINEER or his agent is legally liable. 7.4 Insurance 7.4.1 ENGINEER shall procure and maintain insurance for protection from claims under workers' compensation acts, employer's liability claims, claims for damages because of bodily injury, including personal injury, sickness or disease or death of any and all employees, or of any person other than such employees, and from claims or damages bemuse of injury to or destruction of property, including loss of use resulting therefrom. 7.4.2 ENGINEER shall maintain professional liability insurance for protection against claims arising out of performance of services under this Agreement caused by negligent acts, errors, or omissions for which ENGINEER is legally liable. 7.4.3 The ENGINEER shall provide a certificate of insurance to the OWNER prior to the start of Basic Services. 7.5 Controlling Law This Agreement is to be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 7.6 Successors and Assigns 7.6.1 The parties hereby bind their respective partners, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and, to the extent permitted by paragraph 7.6.2., their assigns, to the terms, conditions and covenants of this Agreement. 7.6.2 Neither OWNER nor ENGINEER shall assign, sublet or transfer any rights under or interest in this Agreement (including, but without limitation, monies that may 1, P e due or monies that are due) without the written consent of the other, except to the extent that any assignment, subletting or transfer is mandated by law or the effect of this limitation may be restricted by law. cay of aoawuo a... oerim WUMNS r Twrarm Play evanim - 10- 10T 7.6.3 Unless ssneeifically stated to ft contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent ENGINEER from employing such independent professional associates, subcontractors and consuhants as ENGINEER may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of Services. 7.6.4 Except as may be expressly stated otherwise in this Agreement, nothing under this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits in this Agreement to anyone other than OWNER and ENGMEER, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and arclusive benefit of OWNER and ENGINIi$R and not for the bendn of any other party. 7.7 Equal Employment and Nondiscrimination In connection with the Services under this Agreement, ENS agrees to comply with the applicable provisions of State and Federal Equal Opportunity statutes and regulations. 7.8 Haardous Waste Indemnification by Owner 7.8.1 'ENGINEER hereby states, and the OWNER acknowledges, that neither ENGMEE R nor ENGINEER's consultants have any professional liability (errors and omissions) or other insurance, and is unable to reasonably obtain such insurance, for claims or claims expenses arising out of the performance of or failure to perform professional services, including, but not limited, to the preparation of reports, designs, drawings and specifications, related to the investigation, detection, abatement, replacement or removal of pans, materials or processes contairtfng asbestos or relating to the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, disposal, release or escape of pbRutams (defined herein as any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, flumes, acids. alkalis, chemicals and waste). Accordingly, OWNER hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and bold the HNGIIMER, Its officers and employees harmless from any liability and damages, costs. judgments or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, which the ENGDMM may hereinafter sustaln or be required to pay as a msuh of asbestos or pollution-related claims caused by acts of the OWNER or other parties involved in the PROJECT or the operations of the PROJECT which am rrd caused by ENGENEER's sole negligence. 7.9 Construction Procedures ENGINEER shall not specify construction or service-mlated procedures and shall not manage, supervise, control or have charge of construction, nor shall ENGINEMt implement or be responsible for health or safety preadums. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of oonuactors or other parties on the PROIECT and shall not be responsible for ommuabn means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, nor safety precautions or programs. ENODMM's monitoring or review of potions of the Worts performed under construction contracts shall not relieve the Contractor from Its responsibility for performing the Work in aceordanoe with applicable contract documents, cc or 1amNb No. nears W"M'"MTMMMM nm 10K 7. 10 Changes and Modifications The parties agree that no change or modification to this Agreement, or any attachments hereto, shall have any force or effect unless the change is reduced to writing, dated, and made a part of this Agreement. The execution of the change shall be authorized and signed in the same manner as this Agreement. 7.11 Arbitration Arbitration of all questions in dispute under this Agreement may be agreed to by mutual consent by both parties and shall be in accordance with rules of American Arbitration Association. This Agreement shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law and judgment upon the award rendered may be entered in the court of the forum, state or federal, having jurisdiction. The decision of the arbitrators shall be a condition precedent to the right of any legal action, but shall not be considered as precluding an appeal to the courts by the City or Consultant to the arbitrators decision. Any arbitration based settlement shall contain award finding of fact, conclusions of law, basis of award and rationale. 7.12 Separability and Waiver In the event any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding upon the parties. One or more waivers by either party of any provision, term, condition or covenant shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same by the other party. 7.13 Extent of Agreement This Agreement, including all Exhibits, and any and all amendments, modifications, and supplements duly executed by the parties in accordance with this Agreement, govern and supersede any and all inconsistent or contradictory terms, prior oral or written representations or understandings, conditions or provisions set forth in any purchase orders, requisition. request for proposal, authorization of services, notice to proceed or other form or document issued by OWNER with respect to the PROJECT or ENt31NSER's services. This Agreement shall be executed in three copies. csy of Moefo.m RM. 06MM w.r„s ramie Pbm E*WAdM .12- IOL 12 IOL IN WITNESS WiOEtEOF, the parties have exacted thb Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF MONTIMLO OWNER HDR BNCEDUM Gi_ INC_ ENGIN1 M BY: BY: NAME: NAME:Ctades N. Gondefinaer_ P_H_ TULE. ADDRESS: Trn. ADDRESS:5401 Gamble Drive. Suite 300 dry of Mowkwo Ra. 06FIM Wuwmr TM r w now CPU&= ' l3 to M FORM OF CONTRACT DdPROVFNMM NO. CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA SS. COUNTY OF HffiQNEPIN On this day of , 19_, before me a within and for said County personally appeared and to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the and of HDR ENGIIEERING, Inc. the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. 17tWilej 5:ir_6T,0zId STATE OF N3NNESOTA SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of , 19_, before me a within and for said County personally appeared and to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the and of City of Monticello the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the seal of said municipality, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipality by authority of Its Council and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free as and deed of said municipality. c9q or woardm a«. obams WROM&m TFUMM oxu E4"dw - 14 - io4 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES y TASK 1 - FACILITY PLAN Upon receipt of written authorization to p ocoed from the OWNER, the ENGINEER shall provide the services identified in Section 1.2 Facility Plan Item A-1 of this Exhibit A provides additional definition of the Scope of Services to be provided and the Period of Service. Item A-2 provides the Basis and Amotua of Compensation based upon Scope of Services and the Period of Service. Item A-3 provides the estir med period of service for Task 1. A-1 SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1.1 Facilities Plan Update Subtaslt 1.1.1- Review Erdsiing Data/Fadlity Evahratim Off; Review of physical features and existing facilities to ideaify addaional site inforr mfon that may be needed. HDR Activities: HDR will review existing infomtrtion. and prepare an information request outlining additional information necessary to detemture the following: I:Wastewater treatment plam design criteria 2.Connections between new and existing facilities 3.Biosolids and screening disposal. 4.Adequacy of existing equipment for reuse in new facility. S.She restrictions; area available for expansion An utfomtation request memorandum will be prepared and submitted to the City. A meeting will be held to discuss infomtttion needs. Information gathered will be used in preparing the Facility Plan update. Task Deliverables: Informatim request memorandum esti ravel: One HDR/Cuy meeting is scheduled for this task. Chy of Mwdodm its. MIMS Warvm TYeamm Rm rtpatlm ' 10- City Fumished Infomtation/Servi=: v Previous pig and engineering reports and associated information; Specifications and drawings of existing facilities; Raw wastewater data; Treatment plant operational data; Arca topography amps. fiDodplain mapping• property descriptions, etc.; Underground utility maps; Geotechnical reports Growth projections; Flow/loadings (2 years) from Sunny6rsh Foods; Monthly operational history (2 years); Industrial pretreatment ordurarwe. Inventory of all existing equipment and shop drawing data and manufacturer's literature on the existing plant equipment. Pertinent data on upgrades to the existing plant currently underway by the staff and other improvements that are part of routine maintenance upgrades. Infomration on current M reduction program data on affect of flows/loadings based on 1/I program Current sludge disposal program Screc:6V disposal costs and permitting requirements, Wright County composting program; other sludge management possibiltties. Subtask 1.1.2 -Treatment Plant Adernatives OWWims Develop aherwtives for expansion of the treatment facilities capacity to 2.0 mgd. The treatment alternative evaluation will consider the need to operate the existing plant throughout the plant expansion work. HDR Activities; HDR will prepare a series of Technical Memoranda to evaluate the oxidation ditch and sequencing batch reactor alternatives in comparison to Aftemate No. I from the April 1995 Wastewater Facilities planning Report. Sludge treatment and management options will also be The Technical Memoranda will inchde; TM Subject I Wastewater Flows and Loads 2 Raw Sewage Lift Station 3 Headworks & Screenings Disposal 4 Sequencing Batch Reactor 5 Oxidation Ditch 6 Wastewater Disinfection ii chy or Mamncdro RP O&rn" wamuse ataw" rrm e. -2- 10'T 7 Odor Control 8 Sludge Treatmem Class "A" vs. Class'S" 9 Sludge Management Options 10 Control System Interfacing I 1 Back-up Power Nem 12 Administration BuiM= Task Deliverables: Tiuoe (3) copies of each draft Technical Memorandum to the City for review. Five (5) copies of each revised Technical Memorandum. Meetir nffravrk Tiuee meetings are HDR/Ctty staff. sue visit to review existing treatment facilities. Cly Famished Wormation/Services: •lnfomration requested under Subtask 1. 1. I. Subtask 1.13 - Devektp Prelhrdnary Layouts Obj=ikyse Develop siting alternatives for vtcorpomuion intc the Facility Plan. HDR Activities: HDR will prepare a site layout for the sequencing batch reactor and oxidation ditch ahematives. convdering the following: Physical and regulatory site constraints. Access requirements of public. staff, deliveries and irwAkenance. Utilization of existing plant facilities. Considerations idexttifkd in Technical Memoranda No. I through 12 HDR will prepare two (2) draft she layouts and meet with City staff to discuss and finalize she layouts for inchuion into the Facility Plan. These site layouts will be sunutmrized in Technical Memorandum No. 13. TnckDeliverables: Technical Memorandum No. 13; site layouts for the sequencing batch reactor and oxidation ditch alternatives. MeetmesLFmvel: One meeting HDRICity staff. City. Fvtrnished lnfonMtiort/Servioes: *As identified in Subtask I.1.1 Qty of 1laelt+db Rev. O&WA3 wa ww T/nuan Ran Ftpaslen -3- 10-Q Subtask L1A - Opinion of Probable Cast Estimates QWmgJiYps Prepdm an Opinion of Probable Cost for each plant alternative. HDR Activities: HDR will prepare an estimate of the probable cost for the sequencing batch reactor and oxidation ditch alternatives based on the results of Technical Memoranda No. 1 through 13. These cost estimates will be reviewed with the City staff.and surmnarized as Technical Memorandum No. 14. Task Deliverables: Technical Memorandum No. 14; Opinion of Cost for both the SBR and oxidation ditch alternatives. MSB ravel One meeting with City staff/PSGIHDR. Ca Furnished Infomuataw5ervioes: *As identified in Subtask 1.1.1. Subtask 1.1 .5 - Plant Phasing 9.11wive: Develop a phasing plan for the recornmended ahernative to allow construction of the new treatment facilities while the old treatment plant remains in operation. HDR Activities: Keeping the existing treatment plant in operation during construction will require a joint effor between The City of Monticello, PSG, HDR, and the construction contractor. HDR will develop a phasing plan that meets the funding limitations and plant capacity requirements. This plan will address existing plant interface requirements end shutdown firmtations that will affect construction. Task Defivernb)cs: Technical Memorandum No. 15. Construction Phasing Plan MeetingyTravel: One meeting with HDR/City stat W. (May be consolidated with meeting outlined in Subtask 1.1.4). Citv Rmished lnformationUkrvices: •Future growth projections, financial requirements. c y of Ma6alln Rev. O&WA! Wwwm Tamen Prw &pdm -4- log Subtask 1.1.6 - Fadlity Plan Update Objectives Produce an updated Facility Plan consisting of a compilation of Technical Memoranda suitable for approval by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) and the City of Monticello. HDR Activities: HDR will surrunarize the jnfomtaiion in Technical Memoranda No. 1 through 15, along with pertinent data from the City's Wastewater Facilities Planning Report, April. 1995, to produce an updated Facility Plan Task Delivera*s: Three (3) copies of the draft Facility Plan; five (5) copies of the final Facility Plan Meeftsrrravel: One rneeting with City stalVIMR. City Furnished Information/Services: *As identified in Subtask 1.1.1. Task 1.2 - Environmental Am sstnent Worksheet (EAW) Ob• fives; Because the proposed expansion will increase tnaunent capacity by more than 50 percent, an EAW is required. The ob*dve of this task is to produce an EAW based on approved Facility Plan suitable for review and approval by the MPGA. HDR Activities: Complete EAW forms. Task Delrvanbks: Three (3) copies of draft EAW. Five (5) copies of revised EAW. Meetine wThvel: Two meetings; one initial kick-off meeting with MPGA, one neeting with the City to review draft EAW City Fumished Information/Services: HDR will identify items in the EAW for the City to supply. Thee items generally apply to planning, zoning, and population statistics. Task 1.3 Project Rnancing/Slate Revdving Fund ApplkUlwt Ottiectives: Prepare State Revolving Furl (SRF) loan application; detertnirte suitability of SRF financing for the project.. HDR Aclivitier 1. Based on information reviewed from the Public Facilities Authority (PFA) provide the City r with a summary docutnan reviewing the PFXs criteria for providing project frrmncing. l city or Maak[ao Rn. OW221" wa nu= Timaam RW ExPrAw -5- 'O S 2. With the City approved Facilities Plan, complete one (1) application for State Revolving Fund v financing. Task Deliverables; PFA criteria summary. SRF loan application. M—eqkUlsaravek Two meetings; one initial kick-off meeting with PFA, one meeting with the City to review SRF ban application. Meetings may be consolidated with those outlined in Task 1.2. City Furnished Infotmation/Ser ices: •User charge system *Financial Information *pretreatment Program Twit IA - NPDES Piermlt AppUcatkm Qom; Obtain new NPDES discharge Gntits for expanded wastewater treatment plant discharge. HDR Activities: Contact MPCA to obtain new NPDES Umits at design flows and bads established in the approved Facility Plan; provide supporting documentation to MPCA. Task_DeUv=Wb Submittal letter to MPCA. MeetingsMmvel: One joint meeting. City stafDMR/MPCA Meeting may be consolidated with those outlined in Tasks 1.2 and 1.3. City Fumished Infonmation/S n*es: Current NPDES permit and permit application. A-2 BASIS AND AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION Compensation for the Tasks 1.1 to 1.4 shall be on a Lump Sum basis. as foUows: Facility Plan Update $10,000 EAW Preparation $ 3,000 Permit applications a,,_,QQQ Total $18,000 dry ar Mm ceuo Rs.. a6r M Wim Tkbmem Paw Ex mim The Period of Services shall be from June 26, 1995 to October 1, 1995, unless mutually agreed to by both parties. tip or Mm1aLo Rev.OVnM wsnmr Tecnem Ar EwMkM 10 Lk BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 05/24/95 08:41:51 1WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 36548 05/30/95 DOTY/KAREN 38548 05/30/95 OOTY/KAREN 38549 05/30/9S DOTY/KAREN 38548 05/30/95 DOTY/KAREN Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Cly 48 CHECK VOIDED 74.20CR 48 CHECK VOIDED 19.32CR 48 CHECK VOIDED 31.00CR 48 CHECK VOIDED 22.40CR 146.92CR *CHI 38556 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 874 CHECK VOIDED 52.30CR 38556 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 874 CHECK VOIDED 3.40CR 55.70CR *CHI 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 3.1BCk 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 6.38CR 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 22.06CR 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 252.91CR 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 31.65CR 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 5.85CR 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 25.22CR 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 3.98CR 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 3.18CR 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 34.59CR 38568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 36.68CR (8568 05/30/95 SORBUS 318 CHECK VOIDED 15.93CR 441.61Ck *CH - 30574 05/30/95 OOTY/KAREN 46 MILEAGE REIMS 74.20 38575 OS/30/95 HELLMAN/MARLENE 80 MILEAGE REIHB 19.32 30515 05/30/95 HELLMAN/MARLENE 80 COMPUTER CLASS REIMS 31.00 38575 05/30/95 HELLMAN/MARLENE 80 MILEAGE REIMS/COMP CLA 22.40 72.72 =CII 30576 05/30/85 MONTICELLO DEPUTY RE 134 7 CAB CARDS/STREET VEH 31.50 36577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 874 SUPPLIES/STREET DEPT 52.30 38577 05/30/85 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 874 MISC SUPPLIES/MATER DEP 3.40 38577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HAROWAR 874 REPAIR & MTC SUP/C HALL 3.18 38577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 874 MISC SUP/P W INSPECT 6.38 38577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 874 SUNNY FRESH EXPENSES 22.06 38577 05/30/85 LARSON'$ ACE HARDWAR 874 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS D 252.91 38577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 874 MISC REPAIR & MTC/FIRE 31.65 38577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 974 MISC SUP/MATER DEPT 5.65 38577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 874 SMALL TOOLS/STREETS 25.22 38577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 074 BLD REP SUP/PARKS 3.98 30577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 074 REP & MTC/FIRE OPET 3.10 38577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 074 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 34.59 30577 05/30/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 074 MISC SUPPLIES/SHOP & G 30.00 38577 05/30/85 LARSON'S ACF. HARDWAR 074 LIBRARY CLEANING SUP 15.93 497.31 SCH RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM ,05/24/95 08:41:51 'WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL, 38578 05/30/85 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 2,031.00 38579 05/30/95 PETTY CASH 186 COPIE S/EASTWOOD KNOLL 8.00 38579 05/30/95 PETTY CASH 166 MILEAGE REIMB/SEMINA R 3.00 38579 05/30/95 PETTY CASH 166 MISC SUP/CITY HALL 11.84 38579 05/30/95 PETTY CASH 166 MISC ITEMS/CITY HALL 12.23 38579 05/30/95 PETTY CASH 166 MOUSE PADS/COMPUTERS 6.33 38579 05/30/95 PETTY CASH 166 POSTAGE/CITY HALL 26.34 67.74 38580 05/24/95 AGASSIZ ENVIRONMENTA 761 SOIL TESTING/FIRE H 3,017.30 38581 05/24/95 ALBINSON. INC. 412 SUPPL IES/PW INSPECTIO 192.02 38582 05/24/95 ARAMARK 848 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 114.00 38583 05/24/95 DINO'S DELI .90219 CITY H4I,1. MEETING 146.44 38584 05/24/95 DODOTY//KAREN 48 LUNCH REIMB/COUNCIL MT 34.06 38585 05/24/95 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC 85 GAS/MATER DEPT 20.25 38585 05/24/95 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC 85 GAS/F IRE DEPT 190.56 210.81 38586 05/24/95 LARSON/LVNDON $07 REIMB/TRAVEL EXP/SEM IN 84.00 38587 05/24/95 LIEFERT/TOM 384 REIMB /TRAVEL EXP/SEMI 252.56 38588 05/24/95 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQU 803 LOCATOR REPAIRS/MATER 133.13 36598 05/24/95 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQU 803 LOCATOR REPAIR/SEWER 133.12 266.25 38589 05/24/95 NEENAH FOUNDRY COMPA 588 SUPPL IFS/P W INSPECT I 553.83 38590 05/24/95 NINETY-FOUR SERVICES .80394 VAN RENTAL/PARKS MTG 63.85 38591 05/24/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE 148 UTILITIES 998.44 38501 05/24/85 NORTHERN STATES POWE 148 UTILITIES 32.85 1,031.29 38592 05/24/95 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS 560 PROF SERVICES/PLAN 6,460.09 38593 05/24/95 O.E.I. BUSINESS FORM 158 COMPUTER PAPER/CITY H 1GO.14 98594 05/24/95 RELIABLE CORPORATION 179 ADDRESS LABELS/CITY HA 47.62 30539 05/24/95 MEIN/JERRY 388 REIMO/TR AVEL EXP/SEMI 157.02 41 GENERAL CHECKING TOTAL 14,921.52 *CH •CH •CH •C11 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 0/31/95 09:35:09 �II �, ARkANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 36596 05/31/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 38597 05/31/95 WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEY 38598 05/31/95 MN MUNICIPAL BOARD 38599 05/31/95 CENTRAL MCGOWAN. INC 38600 05/31/95 SHINGOBEE BUILDERS 36601 05/31/95 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 38602 05/31/95 APPLIED POWER PRODUC 38603 05/31/95 O'NEILL/JEFF r,ENERAI CHECKING c Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 1,832.00 632 CITY MAPS 95.00 397 KLEIN 160 ACRES ANNEX 200.00 30 CYCLINDER DEPOSIT/STR 169.00 612 P/WORKS EXPANSION 66,417.00 175 •FY• 10.689.53 919 MTC FARTS/SEWER COLL 26.94 161 TRAVEL REIMB 160.81 TOTAL 79.590.28 BRC. FINANCIAL SYSTEM 05/31/95 09:52:14 Disbursement Journal v.ARRANT OAT VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA GENERAL CHECKING 39604 06/02/95 APA PLANNERS BOOKSTO 920 BOOK/PLAN & 7ONING 77.95 38605 06/02/95 ASSOCIATED VETERINAR 683 ANIMAL SUPPLIES 40.52 39606 06/02/95 BRAUN INTERTEC COkPO 638 ENG FEES/PW EXPANSION 496.00 38607 06/02/95 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 27 ENVELOPES/WATER DEPT 255.30 38607 06/02/95 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 27 ENVELOPES/SEWER DEPT 255.30 510.60 *CHE 38608 06/02/95 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 794 CAR PHONE CHARGES 29.21 36608 06/02/95 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 794 CAR PHONE CHARGES 0.26 3 8608 06/02/95 CELL ULAR 2000 OF ST 794 CAR PHONE CHARGES 32.24 38608 06/02/95 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 794 CAR PHONE CHARGFS 80.20 141.91 •CHE 3 8609 06/02/95 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT 822 CMIF GRANT PAYMENT 1. 100.21 38610 06/02/95 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE 64 SIGN/JUNK AMNESTY DAV 33.90 38610 06/02/95 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE 64 MISC SUPPLIES/SEWER CO 93.68 127.58 *CHE 38611 06/02/95 GOULD BROS. CHEV-OLD 70 MTC OF VEHICLES/FIRE 4)8.69 38612 06/02/95 HERMES/JERRY 81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50 3 8613 06/02/85 HIGH TECH ROOFING $56 REPAIR ROOF/L IBRARV 242.97 3 8613 06/02/95 HIGH TECH ROOFING 556 REPAIR SEN CITI2ENS R 179.93 422.80 •CNf-- 3 8614 38614 06/02/95 HOGLUND BITS COMPANY 82 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STRE 456.76 36615 06/02/95 1NOUSTRIAL MAINT. SIJ 514 NUTS & BOLTS/SHOP 8 G 147.37 38614 06/02/85 J M OIL COMPANY 95 OIL/FIRE DEPT 13.43 3 861 7 06/02/95 LIBERTY COMPUTER STIP 99 COMPUTER PAPER/C HALL 247.65 38618 06/02/05 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 105 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 38619 06/02/95 MONTICELLO COMMUNITY 320 ANNUAL SUMMER REC 17,500.00 :10620 06/02/05 MONTICELLO SENIOR Cl 139 MONTHLY CON1kACT PY 2,033.33 30621 06/02/95 NORTHWEST MINNESOTA 156 REG FEE/GARY ANDERSON 10.00 30622 06/02/95 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 26 NRA PROF F ERVICES 356.25 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 05/31/95 09:52:14 ,,ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38623 06/02/95 RIVERSIDE OIL 38624 06/02/95 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 38625 06/02/95 SHELTON COMPANY 38626 06/02/95 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 38626 06/02/95 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP 38627 06/02/95 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO. 38628 06/02/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO GENERAL CHECKING c Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLP 496 GAS/STREET DEPT 896.40 184 MTC AGRMT/SHOP & GAR 68.69 269 BAR CODE LABELS/REC 1,288.00 193 SUPPLIES/STREET DEPT 15.65 193 SUPPLIES/PARKS DEPT 33.84 49.49 *CHI 498 PARK SUPPLIES 278.30 219 SCERG GRANT PAYMENT 2.760.51 TOTAL 31.630.03 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 06/08/95 09:55:25 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 383 72 06/06/95 DYNA SYSTEMS 38629 06/06/95 LUKACH/JOHN 38629 06/06/95 LUKACH/JOHN 38629 06/06/95 LUKACH/JOHN 38629 06/06/95 LUKACH/JOHN 38630 06/06/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 30631 06/07/95 AME GROUP 38632 06/07/95 C J BROWN BUSINESS S 38633 06/07/95 COPY DUPLCATING PROD 30634 06/07/95 CULLIGAN 36635 06/07/95 DUNCAN/IRENE 38638 06/07/95 HOGLUN D COACH LINES 38637 06/07/95 HORNING PROPERTIES 30638 06/07/95 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN 38639 06/07/95 L & L ASPHALT, INC. 39640 06/07/95 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 38641 06/07/95 MAUS FOODS 38641 06/07/95 MAUS FOODS 30641 06/07/95 MAUS FOODS 39641 06/07/85 MAUS FOODS 38641 06/07/95 MAUS FOODS 38641 06/07/95 MAUS FOODS 3BG42 06/07/95 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN 38642 06/07/95 MOON MOTOR SALES, 1N 30Fi41 06/07/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36643 06/07/85 NORTHERN STATES POWE 396,43 06/07/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE 38043 06/07/95 NORTHERN 9TATE9 POWE 30643 06/07/95 NORTHERN STATES POW[ 38643 00/07/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE 36643 06/07/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE 3OG43 06/07/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA: 50 CHECK VOIDED 490.81CR 327 MILEAGE 54.14 327 MILEAGE 18.05 327 MILEAGE 18.05 321 MILEAGE 18.04 108.28 *CHEI 118 MATER/ATV REG 1,388.00 8 SAND/PARKS DEPT 104.53 597 NEWSLETTER SHELLS 1,429.76 41 RITC OF COPY MCH/LIBRAR 54.40 753 WATER SOFTNER CHG/ RENT 23.11 .90396 REFUND/RECYCLING C HARG 10.00 483 HEARTLAND EXPRESS C 5.334.00 .90398 REFUND/OVERPAYMENT 10.00 697 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE 95.86 923 REPLACE ASPHALT/BROAD 510.00 107 SUPPLIES/PARKS 17.97 108 SUPPLIES/PW INSPEC 73.17 100 SUPPLIES/WATER DEPT 4.98 108 SUPPLIES/CITY HALL 77.42 108 SUPPLIES/NRA 14.32 108 SUPPLIES/ANIMAL CONTRO 15.55 108 CLEANING SUPPLIES/LIB 66.64 702.08 142 TREE TRIMMMER/ PARK S 324.23 147 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/PAR 17.57 341.00 140 UTILITES 1,679.74 140 UTILITES 201.00 140 UTILITES 4,564.27 140 UTILITES 759.39 140 UTIIITES 14.14 140 UTILITES 410.97 140 UTILITES 714.54 140 UTILITES 404.04 •CHF( *CHE( BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 06/08/95 09:55:25 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38643 06/07/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE 38644 06/07/95 PETERSEN'S MONT FORD 38645 06/07/95 PHOTO I 36645 06/07/95 PHOTO I 38645 06/07/95 PHOTO I 38645 06/07/95 PHOTO I 38646 06/07/95 RYAN CONTRACTING INC 38647 06/07/95 SCHLUENDER CONSTRUCT 38648 06/07/95 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 38649 06/07/95 UNOCAL 38649 06/07/95 UNOCAL { 38650 06/07/85 WATER PRODUCTS COMPA e 38650 06/07/85 WATER PRODUCTS COMPA 39651 06/07/95 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU 39651 06/07/95 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU 38652 06/07/95 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP 38653 06/07/95 3 D MANUFACTURING, I GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAI 148 UTILITES 745.36 9,273.19 165 VEHICLE REPAIRS/STREE 578.13 743 CITY SUPPLIES 23.98 743 SUPPLIES/PW EXPANS 16.40 743 SUPPLIES/SOUTHWEST ARE 16.40 743 SUPPLIES/KLEIN FARMS 16.40 73.18 750 CONST COSTS/KLEIN 354,966.84 187 BACKHOE/BROADWAY 8 LI 180.00 299 SUPPLIES/LIBRARY 39.46 213 CREDIT DUE 21.01CR 213 GAS/FIRE DEPT 55.84 34.83 216 METERS ® SUPPLIES/W 3,336.96 216 METER/PARKS DEPT 488.84 3,825.80 875 ALARM SYSTEM/OEP REG 19.12 875 ALARM SYSTEM/PARKS DEP 15.98 35.10 512 UTILITIES 9.00 922 PYMT/NEM FIRE TRU 226,521.00 TOTAL 604,675.51 *CHEC *CHEC *CHECW *CHEC *CHEC BRC FINANCIAL FYSTE14 06/12/95 14:21: 10 i WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38654 06/12/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 38655 06/12/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 38656 06/12/95 BREITBACH CONSTRUCTI 38657 06/12/95 A.E. MICHAELS 38658 06/12/95 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 38658 06/12/95 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 38658 06/12/95 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 38659 06/12/95 BARCO PRODUCTS, INC. 38660 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38660 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38660 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38660 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38660 06/12/95 BRIOGEWATF_R TELEPHON '-660 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON i60 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38660 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 39660 06/12/95 ORIDGEWATCR TELEPHON '18660 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38660 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 38660 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 18661 rtg/ 1 2/95 C R MFG. CO JU8b2 06/12/95 CENTRAL MCGOWAN. INC 38067 06/12/95 CENTRAL MCGOWAN. INC 39663 06/1 ?/95 COMMUNICATION AU01 TO 38664 OG/12/95 0 & K REFUSE RF.CVCL1 J0665 06/12/05 DEMCON D1SPO:AL. INC 33666 130/12/95 OVNA SYSTEMS 1066'/ 06/12/05 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I 30667 00/12/95 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I 44667 06/12/95 FEFDPITF CONTP016, I Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 118 WATER/ATV/SNOW REG 1 ,059.00 118 CONST COSTS/S WES 127.142.11 926 CONST COSTS/EASTW 118,423.44 338 PARK SUPPLIES/BRUSH, E 21.36 10 PAINT. ETC/STREET SUP 649.66 10 PICNIC TABLE FRAMES 1,694.42 10 BOLTS, ETC/PARKS 55.24 2.399.32 236 TRIMMER LINE/PARKS 58.07 24 TELEPHONE CHARGFS 116.97 74 TELEPHONE CHARGES 80.77 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 187.23 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 134.08 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 166.09 24 TEL EPHONE CHARGES: 50.00 24 TEL EPHONE CHARGES 59.66 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 63.07 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 102.81 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 53.15 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 623.64 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 59.66 1,697.33 921 RECYCLING BINS 7.206.22 30 SHOP SUPPLIES 133.87 30 ARC WELDER/SHOP 2,236.50 2,370.37 30 DATTERIES/FIRE DEPT 46.29 811 RECVCLING CONTRACT 3,250.00 700 DIGPOSAL FEES/JUNK 3,504.48 50 NUTS. BOLTS.ETC/:SHOP 457.31 56 M15C PROF/WATER DEPT 170.00 56 CHEMICALS/WATER DEP 2.196.06 56 EOUIP REPAIR PARTS/MAT 52.63 2.914.69 *CI *I EtRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 06/12/95 14:21:10 W' -RANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38668 06/12/95 G & K SERVICES 38668 06/12/95 G & K SERVICES 38668 06/1?/95 G & K SERVICES 38668 06/12/95 G & K SERVICES 38668 06/12/95 G & K SERVICES 36668 06/12/95 G & K SERVICES 38668 06/12/95 G & K SERVICES 36668 06/12/95 G & K SERVICES 38669 06/12/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 38669 06/12/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 38670 06/12/95 HOLMES & GRAVEN 38670 06/12/95 HOLMES & GRAVEN 30671 06/12/95 J M OIL COMPANY 38672 06/17/95 JONES/WILLIAM 0 37? 06/12/95 JONES/WILLIAM 0 38673 06/12/05 KERN/DAVE 30674 06/17/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 30674 06/12/95 LARSON'$ ACE HARDWAR 30674 06/17/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 30074 06/12/95 (.ARSON'S ACE HARDWAP. 38674 06/17/95 LARSON'S ACE HAkDWAR )8U74 06/12/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 30674 06/17/95 LARSON'S ACE HAkOWAk 38674 06/12/95 (.ARSON'S ACE HARDWAR JOf, 74 06/17/95 LAkSON'S ACE HARDWAR 30674 08/12/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR JC674 06/17/95 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 30074 06/12/95 LAROON'S ACE 14ARDWAR 3OG75 4)6/12/95 MARCO BUSINESS PROOU IU676 06/17/95 M10WCST VISION DISTR 30670 06/12/95 MIOWC�T VISION OISTR X0676 06/17/05 MIDWFGT VISION D1STk 4 *_u/7 06/17/05 MINNEGASCO 30617 06/12/95 MINNLGASCO %06'/7 00/17/05 MINNFGASCt1 Disbursement .Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Cl 851 UNIFORM RENTAL CHGS 74.12 851 UNIFORM RENTAL CHGS 32.08 851 UNIFORM RENTAL CHGS 24.28 851 UNIFORM RENTAL CHGS 24.28 851 UNIFORM RENTAL CHGS 139.72 851 UNIFORM RENTAL CHGS 69.86 851 MTC OF BLD/RUGS/DEP RE 28.41 851 SHOP RAGS 39.83 432.58 ►CI 78 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 24.35 78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STkEE 24.22 48.57 +C1 86 LEGAL FEES/MISS SHORE 380.40 86 NRA MISC LEGAL FEES 332.00 712.40 +CI 95 OIL/FIRE DEPT 15.22 826 INFO CENTER SALARY 136.00 826 INFO CENTER SALARY 40.000R 96.00 +CI 357 FRONT SIGN/OEP REGIST 170.00 874 MISC SUPPLIES/MATER DEP 2.51 874 MISC SUPPLIES/SEWER CO 22.91 874 MISC SUPPLIES/LIBRARY 4.25 874 BATTERY/CTTV HAII 9.1? 874 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 24.17 874 SMALL TOOLS/WA1ER OLPT 8.50 , 874 EOUIP REPAIR PART;,/PARK 2.90 874 MISC SUPPLIES/PW INSPI'C 1.37 074 BLD REPAIR SUP/PARK$ 7.30 874 SUNNY FRESH SUPPLIES 7.00 874 MISC SUPPLIES/DARKS 103.66 874 MIC SUPPLIES/ANIMAL 33.00 214.85 •C 106 MTC AGREEMIiNT/TVPEWRI 175.00 279 GLASSES/WATER DEPT 19.00 279 GLASSES/WATER DEPT 31.00 279 GLASSES/PARKS DEPT 19.00 60.00 + 777 UTILITIES 50.06 772 UTILITIES 0.03 772 UTTLITIEG 15.19 23 FRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM OV 12/95 14:21:10 WAtR ANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38677 06/12/95 MINNEGASCO 30677 06/12/95 MINNEGASCO 38677 06/12/95 MINNEGASCO 38677 06/12/95 MINNEGASCO 38677 06/12/95 MINNEGASCO 38678 06/12/95 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 38679 06/12/95 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 38679 06/12/95 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 38679 06/12/95 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 38680 06/12/95 MONTICELLO PRINTING 38681 06/17/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 38081 06/12/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 30681 06/12/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 38681 06/12/95 MONTICELLO TIMES Cr81 06/12/95 MONTICELLO TIMES .81 06/12/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 38681 06/12/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 38687 06/12/95 MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP 30683 06/12/95 NATIONAL BUGHING PAR 38683 06/12/95 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 38083 06/12/95 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 38603 06/17/95 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 3GG03 00/12/95 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 30664 06/12/95 NORTHERN STARS POWE 10604 06/17/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE 70685 06/1?/95 OL 30N, USSET,AGAN 8 30685 06/12/05 OLSON, USSET,AGAN b 30605 00/12/05 OL L -ON, USSEI',AGAN 6 30606 06/17/95 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, I ''JUU/ U6/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN •MAYERON Cf,07 06/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 3JU07 06/12/95 ORR•SCHELF;N-MAYERON 30607 06/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN•MAYERON 30607 OU/12/05 ORR-OCHELEN MAVERON Di sbursement Journa T DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 772 UTILITIES 9.56 772 UTILITIES 14.31 772 UTILITIES 47.67 772 UTILITIES 201.04 772 UTILITIES 16.49 368.41 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 136 OFFICE SUPPLIES/PWORK 138.94 136 OFF $IIP/PW INSPECTIONS 26.78 136 OFFICE SUPPLIES/C HAL 229.70 395.42 137 FORMS/ANIMAL CONTROL 283.40 140 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 1,749.0G 140 HELP WANTED AD/PARKS 90.00 140 BLD PERMIT INFORMATION 52.80 140 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 342.09 140 JUNK AMNESTY DAY NOTI 120.00 140 LEGAL NOTICE/SCHOOL BL 51.66 140 LEGAL NOTICE/MISS SHOR 73.80 2,479.41 399 OAA CONTRACT PAYME 13,750.00 144 MISC SUPPLIES/STREET$ 131.97 144 EQL11P REPAIRS/STREETS 9.20 144 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS/P G 1 .06 144 EQUIP REPAIR CARTS/STR 70.24 144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/WATER 3.91 276.30 148 UTILITIES 919.87 140 UTILITIES 36.68 956.55 232 EASTW000 KNOLL/LEGAL 706.25 292 WWTP PROF SERVICES 262.50 797 MISC LEGAL FEES, 31!,.00 103.75 036 MISC PROF SERV/MATER 364.00 1 G2 MISC PkOF SERV/WWTP 109.OU 162 ENG FEES/CARD HILLS 1 340.30 102 MISC ENGINECRING VE 2,410.57 162 ENG FEES/MISS CHOLES SO7.30 102 ENG FEES RE IMO 5,OG7.10 •CI •C •L UkC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 013/12/95 14:21:10 WA—ANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 38687 06/12/95 OkR-SCHELEN-MAVERON 38687 06/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 38687 06/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 38687 06/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAVERON 38688 06/12/95 PAGE LINK 38688 06/12/95 PAGE LINK 38688 06/12/95 PAGE LINK 38688 06/12/95 PAGE LINK 38688 06/12/95 PAGE LINK 38688 06/12/95 PAGE LINK 38686 06/12/95 PAGE LINK 38688 06/12/95 PAGE LINK 38689 06/12/95 PLUMBERY-PURCEIL'S P 38609 06/12/95 PLUMBERV-PURCELL'S P 38689 06/12/95 PLUMBERV-PURCELL'S P 90 06/12/95 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S Y.690 06/12/95 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 38691 06/12/95 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 30692 06/12/95 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 36692 06/12/95 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 30693 06/12/95 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 38694 06/12/95 SCHARBER & SONS, INC 38695 06/12/95 VASKO ROJOBIS14 RF.MOVA '10605 06/12/05 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 30696 06/12/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO .90690 06/12/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUD ITO 30697 00/12/95 V.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO IU690 06/12/95 7ARNOTH CRUSH WORKS, GI:NERAI. CHECKING Disbursement .Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 162 ENG FEES/EASTWOOD K 5.147.97 162 ENG FEES/M 0 TRK SE 3,051.25 162 ENG FEES/SOUTHWEST 3,831.12 162 ENG FEES/KLEIN FAR 11.510.83 32,071.60 *Ch 703 PAGER CHARGES 16.78 703 PAGER CHARGES 8.39 703 PAGER CHARGES 24.50 703 PAGER CHARGES 8.39 703 PAGER CHARGES 8.39 703 PAGER CHARGES 8.39 703 PAGER CHARGES 8.39 703 PAGER CHARGES 8.39 91.62 *C1 251 MISC REPAIR SUP/C HALL 14.91 251 MISC SUPPLIES/MATER OP 49.64 251 MISC REPAIR SUP/PARKS 14.90 79.65 *CI 173 FIRE HALL CLEANING CON 50.00 173 CITY HALL CLEANING CO 400.00 450.00 *CI 175 WWTP MONTHLY CONTR 34,218.50 26 HRA MISC PROF SERVICE 712.50 26 CORRECT CODING 356.25CR 356.25 *C 227 MTC REPAIR/STREETS 91.29 229 GAUGE/PARKS DEPT 7.43 524 GARBAGE CONTRACT PV 0,774.71 524 SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 634.04 10,400.75 *C 219 SHERIFFS CONTRACT 24,469.33 219 ADO'L LANDFILL CHAR 0,525.50 32,094.83 *C 224 MONTHLY CONTRACT PVMT 625.00 499 BRROM/STREET DEPT 510.67 TOTAL 405,115.00 8R FINANCIAL SYSTEM 05/31/95 11:12:55 i Disbursement Journal 'l_ARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL LIQUOR CHECKING 18054 05/18/35 MONTICELLO PRINTING 600057 CHECK VOIDED 24.42CR 181 12 05/18/95 PAIJSTIS & SONS 800103 CHECK VOIDED 20.30CR 18120 05/18/95 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 891. 15 18121 05/18/95 LIEFERT TRUCKING 800025 FREIGHT CHARGES 700.65 18122 05/18/95 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 392.53 18123 05/10/95 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 600022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 211 .01 181 23 05/18/95 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 135. 19 346. 20 *CH 18124 05/18/95 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 WINE PURCHASE 225. 90 10124 05/18/95 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 LIQUOR PURCHASE 580. 06 805. 96 •CH 18125 05/18/95 LEHMANN FARMS 800190 OLIVES & MISC FOOD/RES 92. 50 18126 05/18/95 MONTICELLO TIMES 800032 ADVERTISING 100. 00 i 18127 05/18/95 U S WEST COMMUNICATI 800093 ADVERTISING 27. 50 10128 05/16/95 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1 600019 BEER PURCHASE 12,981. 75 18129 05/18/95 JOHNSON BROS WHOLCSA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2.131. 95 18129 OS/18/95 JOHNSON OROS WHOLESA 600022 WINE PURCHASE 673. 53 2.805. 48 80 10130 05/10/95 PH3LLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 WINE PURCHASE 123. 63 18130 05/16/95 PH ILL IPS WINE & SPIR 000100 LIQUOR PURCHAGE 2.695. 66 2,819. 49 10 10111 05/10/95 QUALITY WINE & :iPIRI 600040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 11881 . 9..0 10131 05/10/95 QUALITY WINE & SP1R1 000040 WINE PURCHASE 577.43 2,450.63 ACI 10132 05/10/95 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800010 LIQUOR PUF:CHASE 5,739.66 10133 05/16/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASL: 264.69 10134 05/10/95 JOHNSON OROS WHOLESA 600022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,370.02 10134 05/10/95 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 000022 WINE PURCHASE 702.08 21160 60 sCI 10135 0`i/18/95 PHILLIP3 WINE 8 SPIR 000180 LIQUOR PURC14AGE 1,710.52 L 101 5 05/10/05 PHILL 1"'S WINE & GPI F. 000100 WINE PURCHASE 1,770.45 21900 .97 *C1 7 P.RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 05/31/95 i 11:12:55 Disbursement Journal V.ARRANT DATE VENDOR OESCRIFIT] ON AMOUNT CL LIQUOR CHECKING 18136 05/18/95 VIDEO PROTECTION SER 800189 PURCHASE OF VIDEO C 5,468.68 18137 05/16/95 GRIGGS. COOPER 8, COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 584.13 18138 05/18/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 1,548.14 18138 05/18/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MISC MIX FOR RESALE 48.74 18138 05/18/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 JUICE FOR RESALE 24.45 1,621.33 •CH 18139 05/18/95 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 50.50 18139 05/18/95 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 1.432.71 1,483.21 +CH 18140 05/10/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 33.87 18140 05/18/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MISC TAX ITEMS/RESALE 240.12 273.99 •CH 18141 05/18/95 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 18142 05/18/95 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 18143 05/18/95 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 LIQUOR PURCHASE s 18143 05/18/95 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 WINE CREDIT LIQUOR CHECKING t TOTAL 3.034.16 700.45 688.88 3.83CR 685.05 •CH 49.382.34 BkC FINANCIAL SY`.TEM 06/05/95 15:32:13 Disbursement .Journal I WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCkIPT10N AMOUNT CL LIQUOR CHECKING 18141. 06/06/95 BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA 800001 POP PURCHASE 139.55 18145 06/06/95 BUFFALO PRCA RODEO 9 800191 ADVERTISING 225.00 18146 06/06/95 BLIREAU OF ALCOHOL/TO 800062 TAX PERMIT/LIQ & TOBA 250.00 18147 06/06/95 CONSOLIDATED COMM OI 600163 ADVERTISING 40.25 10146 06/06/95 OAHLHEIMER OISTRIBUT 800009 BEER PURCHASE 24,912.80 13148 06/06/95 DAHLHEIMER OISTRIBUT 800009 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 574.60 25.487.40 *-CH 18149 06/06/95 DAVMOR HAMCO 800085 MISC SUPPLIES/RIBBONS 108. 15 18150 06/06/95 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 BEER PURCHASE 582.00 18150 06/06/95 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 LEMONS/LIMES FOR RESALE 6.50 580.50 1CI1 10IS1 06/06/95 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 BEER PURCHASE 2,843. 1'z O 10151 06/06/95 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 LIQUOk STORE SUPPLIES 27.69 18151 06/06/95 DICK WHOLESAI.E CO., 800011 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 40.00 2.910.84 ► H 1915:? 013/06/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 600012 WINE PURCHA'.3E 138.30 IG11b^. 06/06/95 FLEGCH'S PAPER SERVI 800116 SUUPLIES/PAPIk BAGS 149.12 1915. 06/06/95 G & N SERVICE 800129 FLOOR MATS/MTC OF 01.0 U6. 17 1 01'.°., 06/06/95 GRIG'GS. COOPER & CUM 800018 LIOUOk PURCHASE J.260.15 1 )1'36 00/06/95 GRO'3SLEIN BEVERAGE I 000019 BGCR PURCHASE 1G.07). 'k) I;119Y 06/06/95 HOME JUICE 000136 .LUKE FOR RESALE 65.00 I:Ilju 06/00/99 JOHNGON GRO3 WHOLESA 000022 WINE PURCHAjC ?06.51 0L/06/85 JUI•S, CANDY G 1(sF1ACCO 000071 CIG6 F CIGARS FOk RE' 119.14 1015') 00/06/115 JUOi. CANDY Ci TOBACCO 000021 LI01J;)R STORF. :,UPPLICS 09.3'3 IOG.4rJ 4( ll 1 ")1(.1) (10/1)6/95 1.AW ION' `3 ACE HAROWAR 000104 MISC SUPPLIES IUIC-1 06/06/05 MIN NIL,AC.CO 000160 UTILITIES S1011,? I ol(,,) OU/Illi/95 MAN TI(.I,IAO TIMI:: 000032 AOVL'RT1:iINl, 131.011 1 JICD 06/06/9b Nf W70N MANUFACTURING 000140 MICC OPERATING ',UPPII EEC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 06/05/95 15:32:13 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL LIQUOR CHECKING 16164 06/06/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE 800035 UTILITIES 945.51 18165 06/06/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 800036 MTC SUPPLIES/BULB 4.15 18166 06/06/95 PAUSTIS & SONS 800103 WINE PURCHASE 256.00 18166 06/06/95 PAUSTIS & SONS 800103 WINE CREDIT 20.30CR 735.70 WCH 18167 06/06/95 QUALITY WTNE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2,301.08 18167 06/06/95 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 458.37 2,759.45 *CH 18168 06/06/95 RONIS ICE COMPANY 000041 ICE PURCHASE 679.24 18160 06/06/95 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 SUPPLIES/PAPER BAGS 55.02 16169 06/06/95 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 Ml,C ITEMS FOR RESALE 132.80 181b9 06/06/95 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 4?.I 10169 06/06/85 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 JUICE FOR RESALE 48.49 279.02 '1CH 0 10170 06/06/95 THORPE DISTRIFUTING 800048 BEER PURCHASE 33.110.05 18170 06/06/95 THORPE OI5TRTRUTING 800048 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 190.39 33.300.40 *(ft 18171 06/06/95 VIKING COCA-COLA BOT 800051 POP PURCHASE 743.23 LIQUOR CHECKING TOTAL 90.326.19 BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM OR' 12/95 14:22:27 r_ Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL LIQUOR CHECKING 18112 06/08/95 DAVMOR HAMCO 800085 MISC SUPPLIES/RIBBONS 128.88 16173 06/12/95 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 800002 TELEPHONE CHARGES 244.41 18174 06/12/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 972. 11 18174 06/12/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MIXES FOR RESALE 128.92 1, 101. 03 YCI 18115 06/12/95 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 WINE PURCHASE 693.69 18175 06/12/95 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 3, 971. 73 4. 665.42 *Cl 18176 06/12/95 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2, 600.43 18176 06/12/95 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 303.69 2, 904. 12 ;CI 10177 06/12/95 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 800036 MTC OF BLD/COOLER 107.50 18 17 8 06/12/95 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2, 278.48 18178 06/12/95 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 WINE PURCHASE 923. 15 0 3. 201 .63 •C I-@179 06/12/95 QUALITY WINE & SP1RI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1, 293.55 10179 06/12/95 QUALITY WINE & SPIR7 800040 WINE PURCHASE 348.08 1.641.63 *C 10180 06/17/95 U S WEST COMMUNICATI 800093 ADVERTISING 77.50 18101 06/12/95 VIDEO PROTECTION SER 800189 TAPES/SUPPLIES 42.49 t MOOR CHFC'K1NG TOTAL 14. 064 .61 t COUNCIL UPDATE June 23, 1895 . (ILWJ At the request of the Mayor and in an attempt to speed up the meetings, youll notice that we have created a category called "consent agenda" that has agenda items the staff feels may be non -controversial or items that are routine in nature that could be handled in one motion. Since this is our first attempt at a consent agenda, the staff is also gathering more information on proper procedures for handling these items and the process for the Council to remove a particular item from a consent agenda and allow for more discussion. During this trial period, each Councilmember should review the items placed on the consent agenda; and if anyone would like an item to be discussed individually, you can request that the item be considered separately. At this point in time, I would think a simple request to remove it by any Councilmember should be sufficient to delete it from the consent motion. The intent of a consent agenda is to speed up the meeting and handle items that are normally non -controversial and routine. Many times a consent item may include minor purchases that have been previously established in a budget or additional action that is needed by the Council regarding a previously -approved subject. Naturally, there may be incidents where the staff feels an item is routine in nature but Councilmembers may want to discuss it further. This will certainly occur until both the staff and the Council feel more comfortable with the process. The staff in noway is attempting to place items on a consent agenda as a means of getting approval without allowing for individual discussion, and our goal is tho same as the Couucil's, which is to efficiently handle the routine items that need Council consideration and move the meetings along as rapidly as possible. HopefiiUy the background information that is provided on each consent agenda item will be sufficient for the Council to consider the item as part of the consent agenda, but none of you should feel reluctant to request that items be considered separately.